Comments for Mormon Paradox at http://byronspeaks.com/_home , comment 1 to 9 out of 9 comments http://byronspeaks.com/_home Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:43:32 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20091016262/Latest/Mormon-Paradox.html#comment-39 First I thank you for your very lucid and intellectually honest remarks. I agree that simple solution would be for the state to simply get out of the marriage business altogether and grant every couple a domestic partnership license which contains the same rights for all, thereby limiting marriage strictly to a religious ceremony with the church, mosque, temple, etc, free to exercise their right whether or not to conduct the ceremony. But doesn’t that get us into Churchill observation that “America always does the right thing after it has tried everything to the contrary?” I think actually raise a false choice because, as you stated sexual orientation would deserve the same classification as race, raising the question why would the SCOTUS give sexual orientation heightened protection? The 14th Amendment does not make any distinctions, it states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is on that premise I believe the 14th Amendment is blind to every category of individual—except one—American. It further states in Section one: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Civil marriage, which is all we’re discussing, by its very definition, suggests government involvement. How can you take the tax dollars of all citizens to support this service, but deny certain individuals access to that service? Granted the amount levied is miniscule, but it is still a tax nonetheless, where certain services are denied. I view this as antithetical to the American experiment. If the 14th Amendment specifically mentioned certain individuals, I may be incline to agree with you, but it clearly states “all persons,” which suggests to me all means all and equal means equality and whether one likes it or not there can be no qualifiers. - revbyron Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:16:51 +0100 http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20091016262/Latest/Mormon-Paradox.html#comment-38 Rev. Byron, I'm interested in your arguments that the right to marry is a civil right. Personally, I think the Government should get out of the business of defining marriage altogether, but I'm interested in your opinion. It seems that the question depends on how the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to be applied. Those who oppose gay marriage proclaim that there is no equal protection issue because all persons are treated equally. Neither a straight or gay man may marry another man. Of course, this brings to the forefront whether sexual orientation deserves the same classification as race according to the Supreme Court. I doubt it strongly. Gender does not enjoy the same classification as race, so why would the SCOTUS give sexual orientation heightened protection? It is unfortunate that the tax code discriminates the way it does against unmarried persons. Perhaps that is a reason to challenge the constitutionality of the code. Surely, this has occurred already. If unsuccessful, then, it would indicate that the Court is unwilling to protect married/unmarried classification. Even as a Mormon, I think Elder Oaks' comments were not on point. First, if any religious group could find justification for not supporting traditional notions of marriage, it's probably us. We weren't always one man-one woman folks, if you know what I mean. Second, Mormon history has a questionable relationship with civil rights. There were Mormons on both sides of the Civil Rights' Movement question, but it was not until 1978 that we shed an antiquated, amorphous policy of denying our priesthood to persons of African descent. So, to evoke the images of the Civil Rights movement was slightly distasteful, in my opinion. I look forward to your response. - Austin F. Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:16:11 +0100 http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20091016262/Latest/Mormon-Paradox.html#comment-34 Paul: Individual Mormons contributed to the campaign, the Church itself only spend a paltry sum on mail to its ward units in California to encourage the members to get involved in the issue. But Paul that is merely a technical distinction that ensures no IRS violations have been conducted. But remember the individual people you cite--the ekklesia--the gathering are the church, not the brick and mortar or the org chart; it is the people. Therefore, it is the Mormon church that contributed millions. Second, you accuse Oaks of cheap historical analogies. I disagree. He was talking in a very narrow sense about voter intimidation through threats and vandalism. This type of intimidation occurred in both the civil rights fight and during the more recent Proposition 8 fight. Just because the intimidation was greater in the former than in the latter doesn't make it a cheap historical analogy. Indeed, Oaks is raising a voice of early warning. If these types of tactics are allowed to go unchallenged they will escalate, just as they did in the 1960s. I never stated whose intimidation was greater. The cheapness lies in Oaks being part of the dominant culture seeks to align with a group who was fighting for rights that they were denied. Oaks already has the right, that was the distinction I drew not once did I mention who suffered more. In fact, I stated in terms of intimidation practically everyone has the historical legacy in America. After attacking cheap historical analogies you make your own, comparing the debate over same sex marriage to the....you guessed it...the civil rights struggle in the 1960s. Really? Gay people have the same rights as everyone else. They are not denied the vote, they can go anywhere they want to, eat in any establishment they prefer, engage in any behavior they wish to from holding hands to outright public indecency (have you seen any pictures of gay pride parades?). Their experience is nothing like that of black people before or during the 1960s. So spare me the whining about cheap historical analogies. What is the classical definition of civil rights? I would encourage you to look it up. I would say that every group has its individuals who take things too far, African Americans, Mormons, and yes gays. But the question before us do you think the government should take the tax dollars of gays and deny them a service? Moreover, I think we could agree the civil service does in no way harm your belief system or mine. Luckily, your fellow African-Americans understand that there's nothing remotely similar between the two issues and turned out in droves in California to support Proposition 8. And no community understands better the consequences of the destruction of the family than the black community. It's too bad you can't see that as well. I'm not clear on how two people that I don't even know who love each want to marry and that somehow destroys my family--please explain. I want to keep this short, but if you wish to continue, email me directly, but I can assure you there is a flawed understanding of history when that led a number of African Americans to not see where the analogy is similar. I've written a lot on this subject and would be happy to sen you the links that document why I don't see it that way. - revbyron Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:15:02 +0100 http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20091016262/Latest/Mormon-Paradox.html#comment-33 Reverend Byron, I conceded the point that my first comment was off topic and out of context. After reading your response I had to agree that I had missed the point of your piece. I decided to re-read your article and read and listen to Elder Oaks' speech. After doing so I believe I came to a better understanding. Paul does a much more succinct job of describing the pertinent issues with your opinion. I would also suggest that you have found fault with one sentence of a 30 minute speech that was focused not on gay marriage, but on the critical importance that religious freedom has played and continues to hold in modern society. I would suggest that everyone who reads your piece also read and/or watch Elder Oaks' discussion because it gives both context for the analogy and is a great discussion of the role of religious freedom in modern society. It can be found at this web address: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/apostle-says-religious-freedom-is-being-threatened - John Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:25:22 +0100 http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20091016262/Latest/Mormon-Paradox.html#comment-32 John, you wrote: "It is easy to see the plight of your own people and assume that others have not suffered, but it would serve you well to see that members of the LDS Church have their own history of struggle to obtain even basic rights." If I stated in my piece that members of the LDS have not suffered like African Americans that would indeed be a valid point. But did not write that nor did I infer it, I suspect you're emotion, albeit with good intentions surmised that point. I do not believe suffering can or should be compared like some sort of competition. I did write: "I am always troubled by the use of cheap historical analogies in order to make a self-serving point in the moment. I view it as “cheap” for if it were simply about intimidation tactics against the Mormon Church that is a profoundly American story that practically everyone shares who has immigrated to this country by way of Ellis Island or in the bowels of a slave ship." I have to believe Oaks is aware of the suffering of the LDS church as you are? If so, why didn't he make that comparison instead of making a cheap analogy that does not hold historically? - revbyron Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:58:22 +0100 http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20091016262/Latest/Mormon-Paradox.html#comment-31 Individual Mormons contributed to the campaign, the Church itself only spend a paltry sum on mail to its ward units in California to encourage the members to get involved in the issue. Second, you accuse Oaks of cheap historical analogies. I disagree. He was talking in a very narrow sense about voter intimidation through threats and vandalism. This type of intimidation occurred in both the civil rights fight and during the more recent Proposition 8 fight. Just because the intimidation was greater in the former than in the latter doesn't make it a cheap historical analogy. Indeed, Oaks is raising a voice of early warning. If these types of tactics are allowed to go unchallenged they will escalate, just as they did in the 1960s. After attacking cheap historical analogies you make your own, comparing the debate over same sex marriage to the....you guessed it...the civil rights struggle in the 1960s. Really? Gay people have the same rights as everyone else. They are not denied the vote, they can go anywhere they want to, eat in any establishment they prefer, engage in any behavior they wish to from holding hands to outright public indecency (have you seen any pictures of gay pride parades?). Their experience is nothing like that of black people before or during the 1960s. So spare me the whining about cheap historical analogies. Luckily, your fellow African-Americans understand that there's nothing remotely similar between the two issues and turned out in droves in California to support Proposition 8. And no community understands better the consequences of the destruction of the family than the black community. It's too bad you can't see that as well. - Paul Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:07:09 +0100 http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20091016262/Latest/Mormon-Paradox.html#comment-30 I will again agree with, it was taken out of context. I paused to reread both Elder Oaks' comment and your own. First, you claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contributed millions to the fight. This is a very misleading statement because it implies that the Church contributed funds to a political cause, when in truth the amount of "church" funds was relatively small compared to the money contributed by individuals who are members of the LDS faith. These people voluntarily gave both their time and money to support a political/moral cause they found to be of extreme importance. That you disagree with them and put them on the historical side of the "dominant" culture, is a reasonable argument. I would, however, argue that the threats of violence, loss of employment, boycotts, and vandalism are comparable to similar efforts made to dissuade individuals and groups in the past from fighting for their own political/moral/religious beliefs. If it becomes allowable to threaten, intimidate, and do actual damage to those with whom you disagree than democracy is threatened. You may not like the analogy because you see the group opposed to gay marriage as in the "dominant" position, withholding rights, but it remains true that the attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are and were intended to bully and intimidate members of that faith, and all those who believe marriage is limited to couples of gender, is comparable to historical attempts to silence the opposition through non-democratic means. It would also be important to note the context and setting of the speech given by Elder Oaks. It was not given as a political speech to a national audience, but rather to a group of LDS university students. It was intended to encourage them to not shrink from their civic duty or beliefs in the face of public dissent. You may wholly disagree with the beliefs of the LDS faithful, but why should Elder Oaks not urge those who hold these same beliefs to stand strong in the face of diversity, especially since the intention of those who have vandalized and threatened is to silence them? While you may attempt to align members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with segregationist and racists of the past, Elder Oaks and LDS faithful did nothing other than exercise their right to political activism. You may not agree with their beliefs, but they are hardly similar to those who denied others their rights historically. Members of the LDS Church represented a tiny percentage of Californians who voted, but have been targeted because they dared to be politically active. Where are the attacks focused at the other groups who voted for this measure? My discussion of LDS history is important to the discussion because it is still politically correct to openly attack the Mormon faith, just as it was in the 1800's. The Church of Jesus Christ has become a whipping boy because no one will come to its defense. When a group of citizens can no longer voice their opinion for fear of retribution without recourse then democracy has been damaged, and a much greater civil right has been lost. If you believe marriage is a right afforded to all you are free to actively contribute to that cause, but are you so adamant in that belief that you would take the right to oppose that belief away from other? - John Chiara Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:15:29 +0100 http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20091016262/Latest/Mormon-Paradox.html#comment-29 Dear John: Thank you for your post. But I'm afraid it is your assumption by reading into what I wrote rather than simply reading what I was actually stated. I wrote: " In this context, Oaks speaks as a member of the dominant culture who already has the privilege that others are trying to secure." Not once did I mention Mormons I specifically stated Oaks and the context in which he spoke, along with anyone else who has the right to marry. Please show me where I made the statement you claimed that I made about Mormons. Your failure to consider this makes the rest of your remarks irrelevant. I find it helpful to read things in context, it tends to make for a more judicious discussion. - revbyron Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:17:55 +0100 http://byronspeaks.com/_home/index.php/20091016262/Latest/Mormon-Paradox.html#comment-28 Although I do agree with you that the LDS faithful have not faced the kind of injury and insult that blacks suffered during their struggle for racial equality, I believe you lack perspective. You look at Mormons and assume that they have always been part of the dominant culture. I doubt that you know much at all of Mormon history. The followers of Joseph Smith were forced by mobs, state militias, violence both real and threatened from Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were harassed, tarred and feathered, and killed without recourse until they eventually fled West to what is now Utah. They actually left the US because they had been denied their rights. Later when Utah became a territory they were denied basic right and bullied by the federal government for several decades. Many Church members, including the prophet Joseph Smith were murdered for their beliefs, and the perpetrators were never brought to justice. It is easy to see the plight of your own people and assume that others have not suffered, but it would serve you well to see that members of the LDS Church have their own history of struggle to obtain even basic rights. - John Chiara Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:04:17 +0100