tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post5253669309813719632..comments2023-05-18T08:46:59.064-06:00Comments on from the desk of Denver Snuffer: SlipperyDenver Snufferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13850530477432070456noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post-33072397894090414012010-02-28T20:16:09.435-07:002010-02-28T20:16:09.435-07:00Leading by opinion polls and focus groups is what ...Leading by opinion polls and focus groups is what politicians and corporations do. I signed up for a church that leads by inspiration and intelligence from the Spirit.<br /><br />The Church didn't simply encourage California members to vote on Prop 8 to deny marriage rights to gays, but actively encouraged them to give money and be vocal activists. It seems to me that the Church's quick turnabout really left those people hung out to dry after putting themselves on the line. If the members there put their necks on the line, could the leadership not do the same? <br /><br />I agree with Elijah: the gay movement will not stop at equal housing and employment rights. They will want it all, and the church giving way certainly looked like it caved. The gay activists will be back, you'll see, and once same-sex marriages are legal everywhere, temple marriage will be in their sights. <br /><br />The homosexual issue is a direct attack on the moral foundation of Christianity. It's ripped apart other churches and they'll see to it that it rips ours apart.<br /><br />But I suppose that will be the subject of another focus group.jwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post-46084060518783234162010-02-25T10:35:05.132-07:002010-02-25T10:35:05.132-07:00Brother Snuffer:
Thank you for your thoughtful re...Brother Snuffer:<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on one point. First, I agree completely that it isn't clear whether the church received inspiration or revelation regarding its support of housing and employment rights for homosexuals. <br /><br />My point of contention with your statement is in your characterization of what the church has done as a change in its position. Maybe I'm trying to be to charitable to the church, but I find nothing incongruous in the church condemning same-sex marriage and at the same time promoting legislation affording gays employment and housing rights. I actually had this debate with some of my buddies in law school back when prop 8 was being promoted. I reasoned that Utah's legislature could afford housing and employment and similar rights to gays and still condemn same-sex marriage, because all the church has ever said is that it is against gay marriage. <br /><br />The interesting/tricky issue for opponents of same-sex marriage, as you mentioned, is that by affording some rights to homosexuals the church and legislatures around the nation are tacitly if not explicitly acknowledging sexual orientation as a protected class. This will make it difficult to later argue that sexual orientation is not a protected class and that marriage can be denied homosexual couples without offending the equal protection clause. <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />ElijahElijah Lawrencenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post-10430402976126352902010-02-24T13:24:31.175-07:002010-02-24T13:24:31.175-07:00Gia Đình Vĩnh Cửu:
Your uncle baptized me. There...Gia Đình Vĩnh Cửu:<br /><br />Your uncle baptized me. Therefore you must hold him to account for all the mischief which has followed in the wake of that ordinance. He is one of my dearest friends.<br /> <br />I taught Institute to the UofU law students for two years. It was a great experience. I still have some of those former students contact me from time to time.<br /> <br />As to Q1: The Church told us why they changed their position to support legislation. I quoted the statement in the post. They believe it will "resonate on the basis of fundamental fairness" and will only be opposed by those on either end of the spectrum. Significantly, the Church did NOT say this was a matter of either inspiration or revelation. It was a change in policy to the extent that the Church had never supported such legislation before. Done for the reasons they explained. If they want to amend or supplement the explanation, they can obviously do so and then I will respect that additional statement. But in the absence of a further explanation, they said why they did it and I accept their explanation. The Church had been quite clear their opposition was as to marriage. Their silence on other "rights" was something which would not allow someone to read into, or out of the silence any meaning other than the Church opposed same-sex marriage. I don't impute motive when there is no basis to do so. But it was a change to support the ordinance, and the meaning which can be read into it is the meaning the Church itself gave for the change.<br /> <br />Q2: I do not think coming successes by the homosexual community in the Courts will necessarily extend to Temple sealings (at least not at first). But if the Church retains the ability to perform civil marriages, then in my view the progression of the argument will result at some point in the Church not being permitted to use that authority discriminatorily. So LDS Bishops will be permitted (read that required once the Courts have finished ruling on the various claims of discrimination) to perform civil marriages/unions for homosexual unions. The challenge for the litigators seeking to use the law to change social norms, once the door is opened, is merely to put the legal issue to be decided by the Court in the right way so as to compel compliance.Denver Snufferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13850530477432070456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post-90593335824395906632010-02-24T11:01:48.509-07:002010-02-24T11:01:48.509-07:00Of course.Of course.Denver Snufferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13850530477432070456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post-71031407680035430542010-02-24T00:28:04.150-07:002010-02-24T00:28:04.150-07:00Although I don't like the idea personally of e...Although I don't like the idea personally of ever endorsing using government coercion (force) to make landlords give housing to whoever applies, I have to say that I would find it impressive IF the Church made this decision because they believed it was the right thing to do in spite of and in the face of possible future consequences. They (the leaders of the Church) are so careful about whatever they do, I find it impossible to believe that they haven't already considered the consequences you've pointed out. Do you think it's possible that rather than trying to please the greater masses of public opinion, they are trying to do what they believe is right and true? Granted, Elder Ballard's statement doesn't sound that way, but their decision doesn't make sense to me unless they are attempting to do the right thing. I would find it refreshing to see the Church just do the right thing and not make this a strategic move in the never ending game of chess with Babylon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3880654315943365046.post-64830053301635786452010-02-23T22:37:44.924-07:002010-02-23T22:37:44.924-07:00Mr. Snuffer:
First, let me introduce myself. My n...Mr. Snuffer:<br /><br />First, let me introduce myself. My name is Elijah Lawrence, I'm a 3L at the "classless" law school to the north, and I'm trying to be like Jesus. I don't intend to practice law when I graduate but I have a deep respect for good attorneys. <br /><br />I was introduced to your writings by my uncle, Brian Black. I've read The Second Comforter, and am reading Beloved Enos, and both have triggered new thoughts for me, so I consider them to be good. <br /><br />I have a couple questions regarding your assessment of the churches support for ordinances providing employment, housing, and other rights to gays. I understand you are busy and I don't want to further take you away from your family and work, so if time doesn't allow it please don't feel inclined to respond. <br /><br />Question 1: Why do you feel the church has changed its position by supporting this recent ordinance? I actually had an institute teacher say the same thing to me two weeks ago. I have yet to read any statement by the church opposing legislation which allows gays housing, employment, and other rights. My understanding was that the church was and is opposed to gay marriage, but beyond that nothing was ever articulated by the church. I know many members interpreted that to mean granting any rights to gays was in conflict with the church's position, but I think that was based on a misunderstanding by church members. Is there a particular statement from the church opposing legislation affording such rights to gays?<br />I agree with you that any state that passes such legislation is tacitly acknowledging sexual orientation as a protected class, which makes it difficult to then argue that prohibiting gay marriage is constitutional.<br /><br />Question 2: If (maybe when is the more realistic word given the current trends around the nation) the Supreme Court ends up ruling that laws restricting marriage to only a man and women violate the Equal Protection clause, why do you think the church will be required to perform sealings for homosexuals? My humble understanding (and it is humble - I'm a lowly 3L) of constitutional law is that such a ruling by the Supreme Court would merely force state actors to perform civil marriages to any who requested one. The church would still be free to restrict entrance into the temple to those worthy according to church standards, and limit the sealing ordinance to heterosexual unions. Isn't it the case that even if the church had not lifted the ban on the priesthood and continued to deny the priesthood to blacks that it would be in the church's legal prerogative to do so? Again, my knowledge of constitutional law is limited, and I'm excited to see you engaging these issues. <br /><br />All the best, and thank you for Beloved Enos--it is my "escape" from my law textbooks. =)<br /><br />ElijahGia Đình Vĩnh Cửuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10326171497296124086noreply@blogger.com