[Erin] Separation of believers and state?

I don't think the issue is whether voters should "disenfranchise" themselves from voting on issues on which their faith has certain positions. I think the issue is for the hierarchy of a church to be, in effect, systematically lobbying for specific policies. In other words, if the local or even national church leadership told Mormons that they should vote against same-sex unions as a matter of the doctrines of the faith, that's fine. They should do so. On the other hand, when the national leadership specifically directs activism on such a large scale in a specific state against a specific piece of legislation, then what you've got is not moral exhortation but church-driven lobbying. That's where the church-state problem is, not in the teaching of the church or the beliefs of the faithful.

I also think this needs to be understood in the context of the Mormon experience in the U.S. In the 1800s and 1900s, Mormons were subjected to legal restrictions and seen as the enemy. Laws were passed. Violence occurred. They were forced out of Illinois and Missouri. Even in the Utah territory, there were government actions against Mormon. Heck, a significant proportion of Americans--many of them conservative Christians--said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon for president.

These are people who understand discrimination and what happens when the majority religion decides to take political action. Thus, there is some wariness in mixing religion and voting for Mormons, who realize that they could quickly become the victims of such behavior.

Obviously, Mormons are free to vote as a bloc and vote their conscious (although, this is what got them in trouble with Christians in history). People are also free to criticize this behavior and even call them bigots. That's what makes the U.S. a great country.

Yeah for the Mormon church. This is a serious MORAL issue that requires serious steps and I'm glad the church is speaking plainly to it's members about the moral consequences of gay marriage. (And yes, I'm Mormon.)

"What I don't understand about Mr. Nielsen's argument is this: should religious people disenfranchise themselves every time a law on which their religion has some opinion comes up for a vote? Should religious citizens be disqualified--even voluntarily--from participation in these decisions, simply because they have religious views or opinions?"

Then let me help you 'understand', Erin. Religious citizens (and don't ever forget 1. that there are gay religious citizens and straight religious citizens who are supporters and/or family of gay people and 2. that not all religious people are of one opinion on this or any other law) will always have "some opinion" on probably every law. They will not always agree in their opinions. The significant difference is the coersion by some (larger) religions that imposes their 'opinion' into laws governing the whole of society, many of whom disagree. By allowing gay marriage, no one is forced to either have one or perform one. By forbidding it, the wishes of the tyrannical majority are indeed imposed on the minority.

"It's one thing to say that our nation shouldn't be guided by a single religion--it's another thing altogether to say that people whose consciences are formed by their religious beliefs shouldn't come together with others who share their conclusions, if not necessarily their faith, to build a political consensus and work for the achievement of their political goals"

But this ignores the faction that do not "share their conclusions. Rights ought never to be the subject of a popularity contest. Either we are all equal under the law or we are not. America 'promises' that we are.

Your conclusion also ignores the 'promise' of the right to the pursuit of happiness. It also prevents freedom of religion for those religions and religious citizens who disagree with you. What of our religious liberties?

Sorry for the extra bolding in the 2nd last paragraph. Gosh I wish we had a 'preview' function.

By allowing gay marriage, no one is forced to either have one or perform one. By forbidding it, the wishes of the tyrannical majority are indeed imposed on the minority.

Yes, but by allowing gay marriage you are forcing me to accept it, acknowledge it. Right now we allow gays the freedom to pursue happiness. They can have a committed relationship without fear of reprisal. What gay marriage advocates are trying to do is make it acceptable and something to be promoted. Sorry, but that I can't agree with. Just as I don't agree with promoting or legalizing polygamous marriages. Just as I don't agree with promoting or legalizing relationships with adults and children. (Although this one I definitely think should be prosecuted) Just as I don't agree with promoting or legalizing prostitution.

And the Mormon church is not coercing anyone to do anything. They are stating their position. Members are free to agree or disagree and vote as they wish. No one is going to come to their house and demand to know how they are voting. For me, I totally trust our church leadership. As a whole, they have NEVER let me down. I know that they didn't come to this decision lightly nor was it done without a lot of fasting and prayer.

The way I figure it, there should be a separation of Marriage and State. Religious bodies should be free to marry or not marry whichever adults may want to be as prescribed in their religious beliefs. At the same time, governments should have Civil Unions for any adults who wish to be recognised as such with 100% of the rights and responsibilities allowed to married folks. This, in effect, would satisfy everyone's rights...the church's/religious right to "marry" those who fit their norms, and the individuals LEGAL rights as well. (of course, a solution this clear and elegant will surely satisfy NO one who wants to just keep fighting). Just my 2 cents.

E Pluribus Unum

Yeah, right.

Sorry, that should be "civil liberties ISSUES."

But that merely dodges the question. The issue isn't whether religious people should have a public opinion and vote upon their religious values. The issue is which values are they voting on and why.

For example, as late as the 1970's the Mormon Church had profoundly racist views on African Americans. Would it have been racist and bigoted at the time for the Church to instruct its members to oppose the end of segregation?

In other words, if a religious person wants their values to be part of the public debate, then those values must be open to public scrutiny. Religious beliefs can be just as bigoted and prejudiced as secular ones. The question is whether in this instance they are or not.

As a result, I don't understand why traditional conservatives get so upset when liberals evaluate their claims about homosexuality as bigoted. That's an indication that a liberal is taking your values seriously enough to debate with.

Given that aspects of it are arguable, the objections to pagans come from the very same source as the objections to homosexuals.

Actually, the reason the LDS Church is at the forefront of anti-gay legislation in California is that it has a unique gender theology. If you look at it closely, that gender theology is what separates it from other religious groups and creates its somewhat paradoxical appeal as a social group. Erode that particular pillar and the LDS Church probably fades out over time, it's that simple.

Abolishing of polygamy turned out to be survivable. Feminism they've succeeded at neutralizing- so long as Mormon men bring in enough income, probably. Gay equality and competence in public life, same sex couples successfully forming families and raising children, upward mobility of those families and their offspring...that undoubtedly creates cognitive dissonance with doctrine.

With such a large proportion of Mormons living in California, the California state government in Sacramento has been key to keeping doubts raised by same sex couples at bay and from cropping up in Salt Lake City in significant numbers.

I doubt the LDS leadership is deeply concerned with niceties of church/state separation politics. If/when same sex marriage legalization becomes established in California, it won't be long- a decade or two at most- until Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado legalize it as well. That's too much social consensus to hold out against successfully in Salt Lake.

Forestwalker, my usage indeed permits an implied "irrational" being applied to religious arguments per se. Allow me to clarify.

Rationality is the explicit basis for judicial standards in the US (elsewhere as well, I'm sure). If you've never sat on a jury or heard a judge give a jury instructions before, during and after the testimony phase of a trial, I strongly suggest you find literature about it. I have sat on juries, including one criminal trial, and the instruction is clear: I must find based on the rules of evidence, and use my rational prudent judgment concerning the accuracy and credibility of each witness who testifies. Case in point: jurors are instructed to give neither more nor less weight to the testimony of a police officer on the sole basis of his/her job.

That general context is the one I intended in my first post. I hold myself and my fellow citizens to that standard. That we all frequently fall short of it grieves me, but does not convince me to tolerate or justify non-rational justifications for laws and their enforcement.

Allow me to offer a personal example: that criminal trial resulted in I and 11 others acquitting a man of rape and incest. We all believed the girl, but the prosecutor was so grossly incompetent, we found ourselves having no choice. The accused was beyond loathing. I still cry a little when I think about it. Non-rational prevented, rational result, no one (except perhaps the accused) went away from it without pain.

Please note: I do not consider the outcome of that trial to be sane. Rationality is a very harsh taskmaster.

The "concept of separation" applies to institutional control/national identity, not to individual conscience. Bringing a faith-based argument/stand to the table is no different than bringing one born from similarly "irrational" bases as a value of human rights/dignity/freedom/equality, respect for the intrinsic value of the environment, etc.

I beg to differ. Ours is a republic, but it is also and still a democracy. Institutional control (national identity I'll deal with separately) q.e.d. can result from the conscience of an individual. But more basically, it's not the institutional result I consider of primary importance; it's the decision process that leads to it.

Consider this hypothetical: a decision is made, and tragedy results.

If one can point to a rational decision process based on the free exchange of ideas resulting in a consensus, one can pin the tragedy on a rational target: ignorance of the facts or lack of data, faulty analysis of the data, or even the simple lack of expertise in that particular area on the part of the decision makers.

If, however, the decision process was the result of prayer meetings (please bear with me, I am exaggerating for the sake of brevity), the simple act of reading the word of God, those wishing to assign responsibility and blame are stuck. Prayer has no objective component. Stipulate that the person who read the word of God is the unchallenged leader of that religion. The entire process and any recourse is non-rational.

I would prefer to keep irrational as the appropriate word, including all of those belief areas and without the scare quotes. It is a word with difficult connotations, no doubt. However, it does not necessarily include good/evil value judgments. The only personal comment I have is to ask you to find a less accusatory way of requesting clarification. I find the full context of my post to be without any support for an accusation of bigotry, and I have little respect for such an accusation based on an out-of-context quote. If, upon reading such clarification you are convinced that I am a bigot, I would have no grounds to complain.

That is...

"...in my opinion, not the place to start."

You're really a true believer Mr. Evans. The scare quotes are just my postmodernism winking at your quaint beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, your non-rationality is as welcome to the conversation as anyone else's, but your not recognizing it as such and not extending the same consideration is rather annoying.

“By allowing gay marriage, no one is forced to either have one or perform one. By forbidding it, the wishes of the tyrannical majority are indeed imposed upon a minority.”

Not so. By allowing gay marriage marriage is forever altered for those who “had it first”, one might even say that this alteration is forced upon them, as are all of the things that will surely follow. Once marriage is redefined in this way it must be addressed at every level, everything’s up for grabs. From the education of our children regarding literature with heterosexual themes, (ie fairytales), to separate sex bathrooms everything will be challenged. What I can’t understand is how the right to make your sex life public became equated with the right to the pursuit of happiness. I am not being crude. But isn’t that what both homosexuality and heterosexuality are? Our sex lives? If homosexuals want to define themselves as regular people who happen to have different sexual appetites, then it seems to me that they have to agree with this. And if they agree, why is having a public thumbs up to your sex life so important? Religion as a whole is not suppressing gays in America. ALL religions have a right to hold to their tenants just as homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) have a right to disagree and or disbelieve, and members of both “parties” have a right and perhaps an obligation to stand up for what they believe. But to say that not being allowed to take what has belonged to others for all of history, simply because you want it, is unfair and suppressive, puts me in mind of a toddlers tantrum.
It is not as easy as turning marriage over so that someone else can have a turn, if it were, it would not be nearly so desirable or divisive.

Well, forestwalker, I definitely missed the playfullness part. It puts quite a different angle on your posts. I'll accept your apology if you'll accept mine in return.

I'm preparing to be out of town for four days, with unknown (if any) time or access to post more comments after tonight. I'll check in as I can, and I hope to revisit some of our contentions above in the new light before we hit the road.

For the record, I fully subscribe to the notion that an irrational person is capable of seeing himself as perfectly rational. I'll try to be more conscious of that in future comments.

Be well.

Gay people should take a page from the religious right's play book. Since religion is a choice, and has demonstratable harmful effects, they should campaign to prevent the legal recognition of marriages that aren't carried out in a secular fashion.

the problem is, that all the religious-right can do is throw up lies and red-herrings. the only argument they have which isnt a lie is that their religion disagrees with gay marriage, that, and that they just dont like gay people. there is no rational reason to deny gays the right to marry.

A lot of people dont like mormons, they also dont like various other religious groups, for whatever reason. How would it be if the tables were turned on mormons, and the state passed a constitutional ammendment banning the recognition of mormon marriages? or christian marriages, or any marriage by persons of a particular faith? and what if it was opinions of those who disliked those marriages that voted for the ammendment?

"How would it be if the tables were turned on mormons, and the state passed a constitutional ammendment banning the recognition of mormon marriages? or christian marriages, or any marriage by persons of a particular faith?"

But no one is proposing this. Gay marriages aren't banned b/c the people entering them are homosexual, or that they aren't "liked." They are banned b/c they aren't marriages. Marriage is a relationship of one man and one woman.

PS: lest there be a misunderstanding, in the above comment obviously I don't think there is an equivalence between 19th century anti-black people and 21st century opponents of gay marriage. But I'll bet that is how the cultural ball is going to bounce, in some form, somehow.

Like it or not, religious opinions, just like secular ones, do make it into the ballot box.

TK, I'll be gone for four days and not likely to post until Monday evening, so you'll have to mull over this too quick response:

The language of religion has no place in the secular debate over laws. People of conscience are of the highest value in our society: they are the most likely to understand the concepts of common good and the need to compromise in a pluralistic society.

So, telling the electorate that God has decreed this or that, while an example of freedom of expression that must be protected, contributes nothing to the decision making process... indeed, those who insist on the word of God as the only source of authority are going to be disappointed time and again, as we have seen throughout our history. I would rather have such people as disgruntled participants in the larger goals than see them drop out and become hermits.

Remember: post in haste, regret in leisure. Please offer me some leeway until I have a chance to expand on my points.

Be well all. Go carefully.

Michael

"I wonder how the anti-gay churches will be treated in 50 years."

- Not sure. But I bet it can't be worse than what the Church has experienced in the past... See Nazis, Chinese, Soviets, Romans, Islamic invaders, etc.

WMA

"Yes. Religious opinions belong in church. If your imaginary friend and his/her spokerpersons want a voice in public policy, let them pay for advertisements and lobbyists just like any other citizen."

- Not sure where you are going with this... Is someone proposing that the Feds pay for advertisements and lobbyists for Churches? I would think that would probably run afoul of the anti-est. clause.

"The Church frames this in terms of the natural law and working towards the common good... That is not a theocracy. She just knows the truth about man and is clear about the ends to which we should strive."

"Natural law" is a con game whereby a church can demand that non-members accept its view of reality. And as for knowing the truth about man, it might help if the church were to apply itself to learning the truth about woman.

Pertaining to the idea of divorce having already changed marriage, I couldn’t agree more. I imagine though, that in the beginning of divorces rise in “popularity” in this country well-meaning people maintained that it was a private matter that effected no one, and that everyone has the right to “the pursuit of happiness” . . . We can now see that the rise in the divorce rate has crippled the American family, making single parent families more prevalent and acceptable. Everyone suffers by this, firstly those directly involved, but the hurt is passed into the society in the form of more people who have and have had less help and hope than they needed. One of the differences, of course, between divorce and same-sex marriage is that sometimes divorce is necessary and inevitable. (In cases of abuse, for instance.) So here we have an alteration to marriage which is bad yet sometimes necessary, and yet even this has weakened our countries foundation. Same-sex marriage, which is never “necessary” will continue this weakening as it will undermine nearly every aspect of society that we take for granted.

"REP, not sure what you mean by "prevents freedom of religion" in the context above, but there is and has always been limits in the law to religious liberties."

How hard is it to understand how my religion is prevented from marrying people htey wish to, but the Catholic church is not prevented from refusing to marry those they don't wish to.

Max, if you can't understand that my freedom of religion is prevented by the imposition of anti-gay laws, then there's simply no helping you to understand.

" Not all is permitted simply because one considers it a religious act."

We aren't speaking of ritual human sacrifices, Max. It's marriage. And no church is forced to marry couples against their tenets. Current laws (and the proposed 'amendment' to the Constitution) prevent many faiths from following their own tenets. How hard is that to understand?

kursten,

" By allowing gay marriage marriage is forever altered for those who “had it first”"

Ya mean like whites only marryin' whites? Or do ya mean for King Solomon and his hundreds of wives (not to mention concubines)? I'm pretty sure both of those examples "had it" way before you got married to 1 man of the same (or another?) colour.

"one might even say that this alteration is forced upon them"

If one did, one would not be telling the truth.

"Once marriage is redefined in this way it must be addressed at every level, everything’s up for grabs."

Ya mean like once blacks were allowed to marry whites, America was inundated with marriages to animals, children, plants, desks, multiple partners? Those would be examples of 'everything being up for grabs once marriage was redefined' - and they aren't true or real either.

"From the education of our children regarding literature with heterosexual themes, (ie fairytales), to separate sex bathrooms everything will be challenged."

Speaking of fairytales ...

"What I can’t understand is how the right to make your sex life public became equated with the right to the pursuit of happiness."

Is your sex life "public" when you admit to being heterosexually married?

"I am not being crude."

True. You're just being non-sequiturish.

"why is having a public thumbs up to your sex life so important?"

I ask the exact same thing of anyone who is heterosexualy married.

"Religion as a whole is not suppressing gays in America."

Demonstrably false. Do you not read newspapers? Watch TV/Internet news?

"ALL religions have a right to hold to their tenants"

Tenets, shurely. But again, you have typed a falsehood. Those religions that do wish to marry same-sex couples are prevented - by law - from holding to their tenets.

"both “parties” have a right and perhaps an obligation to stand up for what they believe."

People sure do seem to get upset when I stand up for what I believe.

"But to say that not being allowed to take what has belonged to others for all of history"

It hasn't "belonged" to heterosexuals; only heterosexuals were allowed to partake. That is simply unjust. As for "all of history", you haven't shown much awareness of it.

"simply because you want it"

No. Simply because the constitution says all citizens are to be treated equally before the law.

"is unfair and suppressive"

You don't seem to know much about unfairness OR suppression.

"The Church frames this in terms of the natural law ..."

Perhaps your

Perhaps your church does. I assure you that in many, many Churches, the phrase "natural law" is never uttered.