Watch the video or read the article from this link. I am curious to know any background information any of you know or your opinion about the clip or article.
While I have not read the proposed bill, I am in support of a bill that reinforced that marriage is between a man and a woman. I am always concerned when people start talking about legalizing same sex marriage and discrimination. What happens if same sex marriage becomes legal. It could produce a flood of discrimination lawsuits against clergy or judges that refuse to perform such marriages due to conflicts in their personal religious beliefs. But who cares about protecting their rights...they are all racist any way, right.
My main concern if this is passed is the comment the representative made. "It can all be decided in the courts." Aren't we trying to keep things out of the courts? What David said is true. Judges would then be considered prejudice if the decision does not go the way of the plaintiffs. Our judges are already overloaded. If they make a policy, the lawmakers should enforce it an not rely on the courts to do their jobs.
Lawmakers don't enforce the laws. They make them. The executive enforces (or EXECUTES) the law. Minor detail.
When I was studying at the University of Alabama, I had a class in which we discussed issues of gay rights. I commented that I could show love and friendship toward a homosexual, welcome him or her into my home, share my food and substance with him or her, and enjoy his or her company--and that simultaneously, I could abstain from condoning the person's chosen lifestyle. A person in the corner of the classroom stood up and shouted at me, "You're a bigot!"
I say, bring on the irrational name-calling and bigotry against those who take a stand against dangerous anti-family policies. Whatever the cost, we must do the right thing and take a stand for the family--the FAMILY--the father, mother, and children united in a legally binding marriage commitment--the backbone of America, even if stable father-mother-children families are the exception in our increasingly corrupt society. We must take a stand for them, because without them, we will fall.
How do we take a stand for the family? With regard to this blog post and the proposed bills under investigation, we must maintain that true, legal marriage takes place ONLY between a man and a woman. Victory in this battle will not simply tickle the senses of those in favor of the legislation--because the battle is not simply one between two equally legitimate, yet opposing, viewpoints. It is a battle between right and wrong. It is a battle between religious liberty and bondage.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle, Constitutional scholar, and former Utah Supreme Court justice gave this address on February 4 at Chapman University. He analyzes the threat of proposals to extend marriage rights to homosexuals on the freedom of the exercise of religion. Read the whole address. I will only quote a small portion that describes such threats against free exercise of religion. I won't include his footnotes, so you can go to his article for references.
"Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so.
"Religious preaching of the wrongfulness of homosexual relations is beginning to be threatened with criminal prosecution or actually prosecuted or made the subject of civil penalties. Canada has been especially aggressive, charging numerous religious authorities and persons of faith with violating its human rights law by 'impacting an individual's sense of self-worth and acceptance.' Other countries where this has occurred include Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Singapore.
"In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay. In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies. A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties. Professors at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful. Candidates for masters' degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities were penalized or dismissed from programs for their religious views about the wrongfulness of homosexual relations. A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor. The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.
...
"Even more alarming are recent evidences of a narrowing definition of religious expression and an expanding definition of the so-called civil rights of 'dignity,' 'autonomy,' and 'self-fulfillment' of persons offended by religious preaching. Thus, President Obama's head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Feldblum, recently framed the issue in terms of a 'sexual-orientation liberty' that is such a fundamental right that it should prevail over a competing 'religious-belief liberty.' Such a radical assertion should not escape analysis. It has three elements. First, the freedom of religion—an express provision of the Bill of Rights that has been recognized as a fundamental right for over 200 years—is recast as a simple 'liberty' that ranks among many other liberties. Second, Feldblum asserts that sexual orientation is now to be defined as a 'sexual liberty' that has the status of a fundamental right. Finally, it is claimed that 'the best framework for dealing with this conflict is to analyze religious people's claims as "belief liberty interest" not as free exercise claims under the First Amendment.' The conclusion: Religious expressions are to be overridden by the fundamental right to 'sexual liberty.'"
The implications of such attacks on religious expression and the failure to enact legislation such as the two bills under consideration in the posted article, California's Proposition 8, etc. are beyond our capacity to express.
Again, we all must fight on behalf of families. We all must fight to protect the foundational liberty for which the Founders gave their lives.
I think that gay rights community have cause to be concerned from these two bills, I also think other minority groups should have cause for concern. HB 109 has an appealling title "religious liberty recognition" to me it seems like a free pass to bigotry as long as it's done in the name of religion. (Mark your bigot story was kinda funny, and kinda sad, and I don't view your comments to your class as biggoted). What I do view as bigoted is; not allowing a minority to rent an apartment, freely attend school,participate in the community, enjoy employment, etc; only because of their minority status. HB109 would strike down city ordinances that prevent this. HB 109 says" (3) "Religious liberty" means the free exercise of religion and freedom of conscience, 44 including acts or refusals to act that are substantially motivated by sincerely held religious 45 principles and beliefs." That is way to general of a statement. The way that reads to me is that the KKK can come to Utah, do whatever they want, and be protected by the law, as long is their actions were motivated by "sincerely held religious beliefs". Members ofAlQaeda are sincere enough in their religious beliefs that they give their lives, a sincere belief does not have it a right belief. A sincere religious belief should not be allow discrimination, this bill would.
HB 270 seems what most of the conversation has been about. I have been pro civil union for a while, I am slowly drifting toward becoming more pro gay marriage. Not quite there yet though mainly because of my religious beliefs. With one exception I will keep my comments directed towards the specific bill. The one exception I would say is about the effect of gay marriage on children. Limited research suggest that having homosexual parents has little effect on children. I'll include a link to an article that sums up the effect of the same-sex laws on children from pediatric/pediatrician point of view. It's interesting and definetely has a family impact perspective. I don't care for HB 270. The Utah constitution already defines a family as married father and mother, and children. This bill is directed towards the nuts and bolts operations of the government. It would direct services to those who fall under the definition. The article says single mothers would not be prohibited from goverment family services, but I don't see that prohibition in the bill anywhere. The article says the bill, "also requires publically funded social programs, services, laws and regulations designed to support families "be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they support the family." Again that sounds good, but does that mean that a same sex couple with children should not receive any governmental support. I think the bill is more about prohibiting same sex marriage than it is about having the government focus on family.
I hate discussing politics. When reading the article, all I see is a mess of opinions, hopes and fears that I do not understand. Does what they're saying really have a basis in what I would call truth? What does the bill actually say? How will it actually be interpreted in the legal system? I have no idea. Even after reading the bill I would still have no idea about how other people will interpret it, or how it will be applied. I have more or less definite opinions about gay marriage, but that doesn't really help me much when reading this article. Perhaps I am overcautious, but I feel I have made an idiot of myself far too many times coming to decisions about things I don't understand. Thus, I have nothing to say, but this is why I have nothing to say. I don't believe that my comment has contributed in any way to the discussion, but these were my thoughts as I read this. I hope this wasn't too irrelevant or rambling.
I may be a little late coming to this discussion but I appreciated everyones comments. Aaron, thanks for sharing the informaiton you had and I agree that I too get a little worried when we start considering any legislation that limits the rights of any individual, minority or not. Unfortunately it seems that we are quick to throw up the freedom of religion card when we feel our own religion is being attacked but we quickly withdraw it when it comes to protecting a religion we don't agree with. If we believe that we as Americans should have certain rights than we also need to recognize that those rights extend to all Americans not just the ones who act, look, or believe the same. This is not a new debate, reserved only for gay and lesbian rights, but has been occuring in our country since the first Europeans arrived. Just as the article we read suggested a compromise to the issue of same sex marriage I too endorse a comprimse. People should be able to have their religious beliefs protected, whether LDS, Muslim,Jewish, Athiest, Hindu, Christian, Wiccan, or any thing else . . . and people should be able to hold those beliefs dear, but the flip side is that their expression of their beliefs can not tread on anyone elses beliefs and that is where a sense of community, regardless of faith or lifestyle is important. We are all human beings and need to recognize that rights we hold dear are rights everyone holds dear and we should support those. Like Alex, this may be a bit rambly but it is what I believe :)
While I have not read the proposed bill, I am in support of a bill that reinforced that marriage is between a man and a woman. I am always concerned when people start talking about legalizing same sex marriage and discrimination. What happens if same sex marriage becomes legal. It could produce a flood of discrimination lawsuits against clergy or judges that refuse to perform such marriages due to conflicts in their personal religious beliefs. But who cares about protecting their rights...they are all racist any way, right.
ReplyDeleteMy main concern if this is passed is the comment the representative made. "It can all be decided in the courts." Aren't we trying to keep things out of the courts? What David said is true. Judges would then be considered prejudice if the decision does not go the way of the plaintiffs. Our judges are already overloaded. If they make a policy, the lawmakers should enforce it an not rely on the courts to do their jobs.
ReplyDeleteLawmakers don't enforce the laws. They make them. The executive enforces (or EXECUTES) the law. Minor detail.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was studying at the University of Alabama, I had a class in which we discussed issues of gay rights. I commented that I could show love and friendship toward a homosexual, welcome him or her into my home, share my food and substance with him or her, and enjoy his or her company--and that simultaneously, I could abstain from condoning the person's chosen lifestyle. A person in the corner of the classroom stood up and shouted at me, "You're a bigot!"
I say, bring on the irrational name-calling and bigotry against those who take a stand against dangerous anti-family policies. Whatever the cost, we must do the right thing and take a stand for the family--the FAMILY--the father, mother, and children united in a legally binding marriage commitment--the backbone of America, even if stable father-mother-children families are the exception in our increasingly corrupt society. We must take a stand for them, because without them, we will fall.
How do we take a stand for the family? With regard to this blog post and the proposed bills under investigation, we must maintain that true, legal marriage takes place ONLY between a man and a woman. Victory in this battle will not simply tickle the senses of those in favor of the legislation--because the battle is not simply one between two equally legitimate, yet opposing, viewpoints. It is a battle between right and wrong. It is a battle between religious liberty and bondage.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle, Constitutional scholar, and former Utah Supreme Court justice gave this address on February 4 at Chapman University. He analyzes the threat of proposals to extend marriage rights to homosexuals on the freedom of the exercise of religion. Read the whole address. I will only quote a small portion that describes such threats against free exercise of religion. I won't include his footnotes, so you can go to his article for references.
"Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so.
"Religious preaching of the wrongfulness of homosexual relations is beginning to be threatened with criminal prosecution or actually prosecuted or made the subject of civil penalties. Canada has been especially aggressive, charging numerous religious authorities and persons of faith with violating its human rights law by 'impacting an individual's sense of self-worth and acceptance.' Other countries where this has occurred include Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Singapore.
...
Continuing the quotation...
ReplyDelete"In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay. In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies. A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties. Professors at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful. Candidates for masters' degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities were penalized or dismissed from programs for their religious views about the wrongfulness of homosexual relations. A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor. The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.
...
"Even more alarming are recent evidences of a narrowing definition of religious expression and an expanding definition of the so-called civil rights of 'dignity,' 'autonomy,' and 'self-fulfillment' of persons offended by religious preaching. Thus, President Obama's head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Feldblum, recently framed the issue in terms of a 'sexual-orientation liberty' that is such a fundamental right that it should prevail over a competing 'religious-belief liberty.' Such a radical assertion should not escape analysis. It has three elements. First, the freedom of religion—an express provision of the Bill of Rights that has been recognized as a fundamental right for over 200 years—is recast as a simple 'liberty' that ranks among many other liberties. Second, Feldblum asserts that sexual orientation is now to be defined as a 'sexual liberty' that has the status of a fundamental right. Finally, it is claimed that 'the best framework for dealing with this conflict is to analyze religious people's claims as "belief liberty interest" not as free exercise claims under the First Amendment.' The conclusion: Religious expressions are to be overridden by the fundamental right to 'sexual liberty.'"
The implications of such attacks on religious expression and the failure to enact legislation such as the two bills under consideration in the posted article, California's Proposition 8, etc. are beyond our capacity to express.
Again, we all must fight on behalf of families. We all must fight to protect the foundational liberty for which the Founders gave their lives.
I think that gay rights community have cause to be concerned from these two bills, I also think other minority groups should have cause for concern. HB 109 has an appealling title "religious liberty recognition" to me it seems like a free pass to bigotry as long as it's done in the name of religion. (Mark your bigot story was kinda funny, and kinda sad, and I don't view your comments to your class as biggoted). What I do view as bigoted is; not allowing a minority to rent an apartment, freely attend school,participate in the community, enjoy employment, etc; only because of their minority status. HB109 would strike down city ordinances that prevent this. HB 109 says" (3) "Religious liberty" means the free exercise of religion and freedom of conscience,
ReplyDelete44 including acts or refusals to act that are substantially motivated by sincerely held religious
45 principles and beliefs." That is way to general of a statement. The way that reads to me is that the KKK can come to Utah, do whatever they want, and be protected by the law, as long is their actions were motivated by "sincerely held religious beliefs". Members ofAlQaeda are sincere enough in their religious beliefs that they give their lives, a sincere belief does not have it a right belief. A sincere religious belief should not be allow discrimination, this bill would.
HB 270 seems what most of the conversation has been about. I have been pro civil union for a while, I am slowly drifting toward becoming more pro gay marriage. Not quite there yet though mainly because of my religious beliefs. With one exception I will keep my comments directed towards the specific bill. The one exception I would say is about the effect of gay marriage on children. Limited research suggest that having homosexual parents has little effect on children. I'll include a link to an article that sums up the effect of the same-sex laws on children from pediatric/pediatrician point of view. It's interesting and definetely has a family impact perspective.
ReplyDeleteI don't care for HB 270. The Utah constitution already defines a family as married father and mother, and children. This bill is directed towards the nuts and bolts operations of the government. It would direct services to those who fall under the definition. The article says single mothers would not be prohibited from goverment family services, but I don't see that prohibition in the bill anywhere. The article says the bill,
"also requires publically funded social programs, services, laws and regulations designed to support families "be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they support the family." Again that sounds good, but does that mean that a same sex couple with children should not receive any governmental support. I think the bill is more about prohibiting same sex marriage than it is about having the government focus on family.
link to article about the effect of gay marriage on children
ReplyDeletehttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349?ijkey=c82708dc7e97530f2624ed34c118d8c59ed99d5b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
title
The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children
source
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 1 July 2006, pp. 349-364 (doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1279)
I hate discussing politics. When reading the article, all I see is a mess of opinions, hopes and fears that I do not understand. Does what they're saying really have a basis in what I would call truth? What does the bill actually say? How will it actually be interpreted in the legal system? I have no idea. Even after reading the bill I would still have no idea about how other people will interpret it, or how it will be applied. I have more or less definite opinions about gay marriage, but that doesn't really help me much when reading this article. Perhaps I am overcautious, but I feel I have made an idiot of myself far too many times coming to decisions about things I don't understand. Thus, I have nothing to say, but this is why I have nothing to say. I don't believe that my comment has contributed in any way to the discussion, but these were my thoughts as I read this. I hope this wasn't too irrelevant or rambling.
ReplyDeleteI may be a little late coming to this discussion but I appreciated everyones comments. Aaron, thanks for sharing the informaiton you had and I agree that I too get a little worried when we start considering any legislation that limits the rights of any individual, minority or not. Unfortunately it seems that we are quick to throw up the freedom of religion card when we feel our own religion is being attacked but we quickly withdraw it when it comes to protecting a religion we don't agree with. If we believe that we as Americans should have certain rights than we also need to recognize that those rights extend to all Americans not just the ones who act, look, or believe the same. This is not a new debate, reserved only for gay and lesbian rights, but has been occuring in our country since the first Europeans arrived. Just as the article we read suggested a compromise to the issue of same sex marriage I too endorse a comprimse. People should be able to have their religious beliefs protected, whether LDS, Muslim,Jewish, Athiest, Hindu, Christian, Wiccan, or any thing else . . . and people should be able to hold those beliefs dear, but the flip side is that their expression of their beliefs can not tread on anyone elses beliefs and that is where a sense of community, regardless of faith or lifestyle is important. We are all human beings and need to recognize that rights we hold dear are rights everyone holds dear and we should support those. Like Alex, this may be a bit rambly but it is what I believe :)
ReplyDelete