Monson: Gay Marriage Fight in CA 'Is Our Gettysburg'

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by creekster

Well, if PAC says I whiffed, I guess I whiffed. It

I said no such thing in reference to your analogy, as "poop on a porch", particularly inside of a flaming bag, always gets a thumbs up from me. I was referring to SU's criticism of your post, in view of a couple of his declarations, later qualified, which contained more fecal matter than any Bloomie's Large Bag could ever hope to hold.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Free exercise? What are you talking about? Society has constitutional rights to ostracise Mormons because of their hate.

It will be fascinating to see where the Free Exercise Clause will come down on this one. Can society discriminate against a religion b/c of its beliefs/actions? Well, if those beliefs/actions are polygamy, yes. If those beliefs/actions have to do with Christ's divintiy, no. Where does the law of chastity fall? Can the Church lose its tax exempt status b/c it discriminates against gays, like Bob Jones Univeristy did due to its discrimination against blacks? Would the Bob Jones case have come out differenlty if Bob Jones University was a religion? If not, is race different than sexual orientation when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause?

Those are the ideas I was invoking. You're right, as to private citizens and groups, they can ostracize all they want. But government can't. This is unchartered territory and it will be fascinating to see where the courts draw the line wrt the Free Exercise Clause and the restriction of government benefits based on a religion's discriminatory beliefs/actions toward gays.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

BTW, when I served as the local rabbi, a couple came to meet with me as they were contemplating divorce. The wife, who had been raised LDS but was very inactive during their courtship and early years of marriage, had found religion and became very active in our ward during the year her nonmember husband was on a carrier in the Indian Ocean. He complained that when he returned, the woman he had married was gone; she complained that he was unwilling to become more righteous and join the Church, and looked to me to preach repentance to him and support her. Bad choice. I told her I didn't blame the guy, and I'd be pretty bummed if the woman I married turned into something different while I was out. We talked about things for awhile, but the woman left feeling I'd really undercut her, while the guy felt surprised and pleased I was taking his side for the most part. I got a call recently from him telling me he had joined the church and they were getting married in the temple. I was not a particularly good, and certainly not exceptional, counselor, but I believe if a person follows gospel principles, a marriage will always be enhanced; if one wants to be a self-righteous prig, the marriage is toast. I see the LDS Church as supporting the former approach. You see it skewing more toward the latter; but then I feel the same way about the Lawyers Guild.

You're a good man. I doubt tex would have done the same, and I think Tex is a freaky composite of your average Mormon leader. He's a synthetic.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

It will be fascinating to see where the Free Exercise Clause will come down on this one. Can society discriminate against a religion b/c of its beliefs/actions? Well, if those beliefs/actions are polygamy, yes. If those beliefs/actions have to do with Christ's divintiy, no. Where does the law of chastity fall? Can the Church lose its tax exempt status b/c it discriminates against gays, like Bob Jones Univeristy did due to its discrimination against blacks? Would the Bob Jones case have come out differenlty if Bob Jones University was a religion? If not, is race different than sexual orientation when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause?

Those are the ideas I was invoking. You're right, as to private citizens and groups, they can ostracize all they want. But government can't. This is unchartered territory and it will be fascinating to see where the courts draw the line wrt the Free Exercise Clause and the restriction of government benefits based on a religion's discriminatory beliefs/actions toward gays.

"Society?" The Constitution doesn't restrict "society" in any way.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You're a good man. I doubt tex would have done the same, and I think Tex is a freaky composite of your average Mormon leader. He's a synthetic.

Hmmm, a nice and probabyl sincere compliment but am I the only one who thinks this is like a raccoon that takes to the water when the hounds are too close behind? "What the heck, go after Tex! That'll lose 'em."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Hmmm, a nice and probabyl sincere compliment but am I the only one who thinks this is like a raccoon that takes to the water when the hounds are too close behind? "What the heck, go after Tex! That'll lose 'em."

How can I argue with PAC saying his advice to the woman was, "Leave him alone, he doesn't want to be Mormon, and he didn't think he was marrying one; I don't blame him for being unhappy"?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

"Society?" The Constitution doesn't restrict "society" in any way.

You know what I meant -- the rest of the post clearly shows that I was referring to government.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

You know what I meant -- the rest of the post clearly shows that I was referring to government.

Government isn't going to have to be involved in this, and it won't be. I expect, for example, Stanford to once agains say it wants nothing to do with BYU.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

How can I argue with PAC saying his advice to the woman was, "Leave him alone, he doesn't want to be Mormon, and he didn't think he was marrying one; I don't blame him for being unhappy"?

No one expected you to, as your perception of PAC had nothing to do with the thread. In fact, I think you are making my point here.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Government isn't going to have to be involved in this, and it won't be. I expect, for example, Stanford to once agains say it wants nothing to do with BYU.

Oh, I think you're painting too rosy of a picture for the Church. I see municipalities, especially, going after the Church -- zoning, property taxes . . . It will happen, maybe decades from now, but it will happen.