Home » The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints » News, Politics and Events » Gay Marriage - Proposition 8 - Supreme Court Rulling (What the heck!)
| Gay Marriage - Proposition 8 - Supreme Court Rulling [message #2587] |
Sat, 29 June 2013 16:48  |
Amonhi
Messages: 237
Registered: June 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV.
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ok, I had to voice my thoughts on this somewhere!!!
Some time ago, the Church joined with other churches to push proposition 8. I find significant fault with the way the church pushed members to support the Proposition 8 vote to include donations of time and money. I have no issue with people saying, "Hey I support this and want to give money..." I do have issues with the church stake presidents calling up members and saying, "Brother Smith, we see that you are paying "X" tithing and so are making about "$X,000" a year so we think that is it reasonable for you to donate about $X,000 to the coalition of churches for the proposition 8 agenda. We will get a receipt back from the coalition of churches telling us how much you donated so that we can add it to your tithing settlement interview and get a write off. Thank you so much for your support." Now, I wasn't there, I am hearing this from my California friends who were seeing this happen and hearing the weekly talks from the pulpit that in their words, got very old very quickly. As well as the broadcasts from SLC Church HQ about supporting the topic and encouraging members to support and work with their local leaders to push this through. Yeah, I feel the church was way out of line here... (The documentary "Proposition 8" is relevant.) Now, some of the local leaders might have been acting on their own initiative in regards to some of this, but the leadership of the church up to the prophet seemed to egg this on and encourage it but did not stop or curb it at all.
I was very pleased to see that the Supreme Court did in fact through out Proposition 8 and is allowing Gay marriages this last week. It wasn't that long ago that the LDS church was pressing for the freedom to have plural marriages. How happy our early leaders would have been to have the freedoms that we are now trying to deny to others today. (Rolling eyes...)
Here's what gets me... I read the churches response to the Supreme Court ruling... Here is what they said:
Quote:"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates," said Church spokesman Michael Otterson. "Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."
I am wondering if there is something fundamentally wrong with the church spokesman Michael Otterson or the church for allowing him to outright say that the church believes that the popular vote should be so powerful that the majority should have the right to force the minority into compliance with their beliefs! I cannot believe how many people are OK with the idea that the majority should have the right to enforce laws against the minorities based on religious belief systems. Like the government telling Daniel that he can't pray.
The majority should be protecting the rights of the minority. It is the ONLY way that freedom for all and ultimately peace can be achieved. Peace can be and is ONLY achieved when we are moving toward greater equality first followed closely by greater freedom. The right to choose who you marry is a freedom which is not equally extended to all people and groups. (I agree that the government should have no say in who you marry, and so we should be trying to take that power from the government as an end goal, but until then, if the government does think that they have the power to allow you to marry or not, then it should not discriminate or even say that you can marry who you like as long as you marry in this criteria.)
The church is also strongly against interracial marriages. If they succeeded in preventing Gay marriage, then would they also press for denying interracial marriage? Pressing for the government to have more control over who we marry is going the wrong way, moving away from freedom and leading to anger, unrest, strive and war.
I am sure that some on this forum will disagree with me. That is ok. The funny thing is that I would still vote for their freedom to choose to disagree with me and even act on it as long as they were not hurting me or my rights or others and their rights. BUT, even though I would vote for the freedom of those that disagree with me, they would not not for me to have the same freedoms that I would extend to them. This means that they would live happily if I were the majority and we would have peace. But if they were the majority and had the right to take the freedoms of the minority then they would and they would not have peace.
Also, those who are willing to take the freedoms of others by the vote of the majority will be happy only when they are the majority. When they become the minority they will find that the system they supported sucks because they are having their freedoms taken in the same way they took the freedoms of others.
These is a universal law called "The universal Law of Application" which is akin to the golden rule that suggests that we treat others the same way we want to be treated. The difference between the "Golden Rule" and the "Law of Universal Application" is that that the Golden Rule is good advice where as the Law of Universal Application says that you WILL receive back what you have given. For example, here are some ways that the Law of Universal Application has been applied:
- Judge not lest ye be judged
- Forgive that ye may be forgiven
- Make other's equal with you and God will make you equal with Him
- Take and it will be taken from you, Give and it will be given to you
Remember the story about the Widow Zarephath who gave her last oil and meal to make bread for Elijah and the miracle happened in which the barrel and oil renewed itself until the end of the drought. That was a miracle that relied on the Law of Universal Application to work. If she did not give to Elijah, then the miracle could not have happened. This is a Universal Law that even God cannot break just as God can't lie without being God.
When you apply the Law of Universal Application to the Church pressing to limit the freedoms of people to choose who they marry, the results are terrible! The church is creating a world in which their rights will be limited by the majority. Not a good plan, not in line with eternal truth. Sure they can try to play Satan's role and force everyone to heaven through laws that require others to live righteous lives, (according to the Church's current views of what is right), but that was what Satan got kicked out of heaven for doing!!! He was trying to make his heaven but in the process he was making it hell for the rest of the people there.
Heaven requires freedom. If we want to live in heaven we need to know how to be free without taking the freedoms of others. Our presence in heaven can't make it hell for others, God included, or we won't be allowed in. We need to learn to live in heaven not only for ourselves, but for others as well. The Only way to do it is to give others the freedoms we want for ourselves. The only way is to make others equal with us and us equal with others, then extend increasing freedom to everyone, ourselves included. Then we can live in peace and love and ultimately Heaven with God.
There was a time when expecting that the majority should have the right to force the minority into conformance was a better way of living. When we were moving away from dictators where a single person had the right to force everyone else into compliance, having the majority make decisions was a better way, but still lacking. The higher way is for the majority to protect the rights of the minority rather than the majority to take the place of the dictator and rule over the minority.
Quote:Church spokesman Michael Otterson. "Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."
No sir, something is VERY RIGHT when the government will protect the freedoms of the minorities when the majority attempts to dictate over the minorities! And it is the majority that is out of line for attempting to interfere with the governing of the lives of others who are not seeking freedoms beyond what they have already given to others.
It seems funny that so many will say that giving Gays the rights to marry is contrary to the heavenly society and so we have gone away from it, when actually this is a BIG win for the progress of our society toward a heavenly society.
Remember that we sinned in the presence of God before coming to this earth and were not kicked out of God's presence. It was not sin that got Satan kicked out of heaven, it was taking or attempting to take the agency of others that was so bad that it merited exile. Also, remember that eternal increase resulting from the marriage or sealing of a man and a woman is not the only type of life available in the Celestial Kingdom. It may be the highest of the degrees of Glory, but there are two other degrees of glory in the Celestial Kingdom which do not require sexually active male/female relationships. Celestial beings do not have to be married at all. And they will be completely happy in the other degrees of glory in the Celestial kingdom.
Thanks for letting me vent...
God bless,
Amonhi
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gay Marriage - Proposition 8 - Supreme Court Rulling [message #2596 is a reply to message #2587] |
Fri, 05 July 2013 22:26  |
 |
JulesGP
Messages: 357
Registered: May 2012
Location: Davis County, UT
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Amonhi wrote on Sat, 29 June 2013 16:48
Thanks for letting me vent...
God bless,
Amonhi
Amonhi! This is great. I've done a complete 180 in my thinking about issues like these over the past couple of years. I'll skip discussing the way I used to feel and behave, and express my thoughts and feelings now.
I did not realize that the church was pushing for financial support from the members in California.....  . Wow.
I have a little sister who is homosexual, and I love her, and I disagree with her lifestyle. But that's OK - she and I are in much different spheres of understanding about ALL things, and she disagrees with my lifestyle too. But then that goes for everyone else I know.... How many of us are on exactly the same plain of progression? If more of us looked at each other with less condemnation and more understanding that we are all progressing at our own rate with much different circumstances, what a peaceful world we would have. I was just thinking of this scripture that you alluded to Amonhi in discussing the Universal Law of Application:
Quote:Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
I too believe the government has no business legislating personal relationships - among other things. And frankly, I think the church has no business doing more than expressing that homosexuality is a weakness to overcome if we choose to be part of the highest levels of godhood in the eternities - like any other. It may not be exactly what Joseph Smith intended, but it reminds me of this:
Quote:"I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine."--Joseph Smith
The point is, that we do not need "thought police" or micromanagement from the church, any more than we need it from the government. That (as Amonhi pointed out), was Satan's plan. CHRIST's plan, however, was all about LOVE. And that is what we should extend to others - regardless of their "sins", and regardless of whether they are public, or private. When we are told to be our brother's keeper, it does NOT mean this kind of micromanagement of their personal life and progression. It means we will BE their brother (or sister), and extend the same pure love of Christ and charity toward all, without judgment.
Regarding the rights of the minority - this applies to me is SO many ways! I certainly would not want to be forced to conform to the views, methods, restrictions, etc. of the majority. I pray my rights to be "weird", and quirky, and unusual, and individual, and unconventional, and odd, and alone in my plain of progression and understanding (though others may be confused or even repulsed by me), will be protected. And at the same time, I will share with LOVE - my understandings, but never expect others to conform to MY ways, simply because I believe I am right.
~Jules
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gay Marriage - Proposition 8 - Supreme Court Rulling [message #2622 is a reply to message #2587] |
Sun, 28 July 2013 11:00 |
Seeker
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2010
Location: Las Vegas
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Amonhi wrote on Sat, 29 June 2013 16:48Quote:"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates," said Church spokesman Michael Otterson. "Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."
I was talking with a lesbian woman I worked with this week. She pointed out that this type of thinking would mean that the majority could vote for the minorities to loose their rights like the freedom of speech or that the majority could vote in slavery and make some minority group slaves...
I spoke with my younger brother who said that the church will fight for morality any way they can even to the point of enforcing it by law. I said, "Who's morality will they enforce?" He said "God's."
To me, that is scary! That would come down to enforcing their religion on others by law.
Now the church openly teaches that the priesthood is the government of God on the earth and it is prophesied to fill the whole earth like a rolling stone that smashes all the other kingdoms of the world.
I don't think the church would go so far as to enforce their beliefs on others by law like my brother said, but I have to wonder still if the church accomplished its goal and became the government of the world, what would they be like?
I know that right now if the church gained power in the government it would be awful! Right now the members of the church do not know or support the principles of peace which made the city of Enoch great and that Melchizedek lived and taught when he established peace and became known as the prince of peace. Until they do, they are not fit to govern and I cannot support the church in its mission to destroy all the other governments of the earth.
(Also, I don't believe that the church itself is the rock cut without hands. There are too many hands involved in the organization and operation of the church. It was cut by the hands of Joseph Smith and others when the church was reorganized and the Law of Moses was restored. On the other hand, the Church of the Firstborn remains unorganized and yet grows and is increasing in membership. Each individual being organized not by the hand of men, but by the hand of God through the spirit and angels.)
Right now, we are loosing many of our rights and freedoms as citizens of the US, BUT, we have far more rights and freedoms as American citizens than we do as members of the Church of Jesus Christ off latter-day Saints. On the other hand, the Church of the Firstborn maintains and protects the freedoms of its members far beyond that of the American Government.
Finally in my discussion with my brother, I pointed out that I would protect his right to govern his life according to the dictates of his own conscience as long as he was not preventing others from doing the same. I would give my life to protect his freedoms to life according to his desires but that he would try to put me in bondage by enforcing his moral code and one me against my will. That is the bottom line.
Christ gave his life so we could choose to sin. Why should we go back and Choose Satan's plan of forced righteousness when Christ was willing to die so that we could have that choice.
~ Seeker
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gay Marriage - Proposition 8 - Supreme Court Rulling [message #2699 is a reply to message #2587] |
Thu, 22 August 2013 13:51 |
zone
Messages: 17
Registered: March 2013
Location: Middle Earth
|
Junior Member |
|
|
So wasn't the original constitution founded upon the need for a 2/3 vote or something is that the same thing of protecting the majority over the minority? Isn't that what this statement is making? When the government overrides what the people wanted? Anyways we do this in Utah with many things. No alcohol in stores because the majority don't want it, No full strip clubs, etc... etc... There is not a way to protect both at once except to have government step out completely than the people would let "anything go" if they are not of one heart.
As Denver related in his Constitution talk, The Constitution established a country in which each "kingdom" would vary just as the Kingdom's of Heaven vary from Telestial, Terrestrial to Celestial... and the experiment of Freedom in each state. Therefore there is always a group that isn't "covered" in this. Its the minority.
Am I not seeing this right? I see the problems as you mentioned but not that this si what it was referring to.
Quote:Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gay Marriage - Proposition 8 - Supreme Court Rulling [message #2715 is a reply to message #2699] |
Sun, 01 September 2013 12:14 |
Seeker
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2010
Location: Las Vegas
|
Senior Member |
|
|
zone wrote on Thu, 22 August 2013 13:51So wasn't the original constitution founded upon the need for a 2/3 vote or something is that the same thing of protecting the majority over the minority? Isn't that what this statement is making? When the government overrides what the people wanted? Anyways we do this in Utah with many things. No alcohol in stores because the majority don't want it, No full strip clubs, etc... etc... There is not a way to protect both at once except to have government step out completely than the people would let "anything go" if they are not of one heart.
As Denver related in his Constitution talk, The Constitution established a country in which each "kingdom" would vary just as the Kingdom's of Heaven vary from Telestial, Terrestrial to Celestial... and the experiment of Freedom in each state. Therefore there is always a group that isn't "covered" in this. Its the minority.
Am I not seeing this right? I see the problems as you mentioned but not that this si what it was referring to.
Quote:Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens
I think you are right to a degree. But take into consideration that the majority cannot vote to prevent the minority from having the ability to speak their opinions. Freedom of speech is protected for the minority as well as the majority. If the majority don't like what the minority have to say, they can't make laws that limit the minorities freedom to speak out. If the majority don't like the minorities choice of religious belief, the majority does not have the right to vote laws that deny that freedom. Even an individuals right to personal beliefs are protected.
So the country was actually founded on principles that were intended to protect the freedoms of the minorities...
But, there is then a question about what do do when you can ONLY do one thing. Like, we can only have one President. Each group can't have different Presidents, so the groups all vote and the minorities have a voice, but in the end, they are out voted and the majority vote makes the decision for the group including the minority. This is a far better society than the previously known best which was the feudal system which was a far better society than the previously best know systems of antiquity which were largely slave dependant...
My point being that we grow and learn as societies. Over time, we see the problems created by our current system and seek to resolve those problems in the creation of the new society. I am personally convinced that eventually we will live in a society that protects the freedoms of the individual to govern their lives according to their own desires as long as they are not impeding others from exercising the same freedoms. I fully believe from personal experience that as we grow closer to the Celestial kingdom we gain the ability to be more diverse and independent in thought and action rather than as many suppose that we become more clone like, thinking the same things and doing the same things. Agency is HUGE in the eternal scheme and it is not lost or restricted in higher kingdoms, it is enhanced and encouraged as long as we are not interfering with others.
For example, we sinned in the premortal world while in God's presence, but we were not removed from God's presence. But Satan and 1/3rd of the hosts of heaven were removed from God's presence when they attempted to interfere with the agency of the other 2/3rds. They committed a sin that was so great that they were no longer welcome in God's Celestial society.
~ Seeker
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Apr 23 15:02:34 MDT 2024
|
Elliaison.org - Forum
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
