Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
At a recent talk I heard given by the University of Utah's president and by Bill Atkin, LDS General Counsel, both expressed tremendous concern over the stifling of minority cultures within Utah. Their theory, which I absolutely agree with, is that the LDS church and its members have no room to complain about their religious freedoms being stifled outside of Utah if they stifle minority views within Utah. As an example, public pools in Utah county are not allowed to be open on Sundays in Utah County as a direct result of the LDS members' influence in lawmaking there.
|
Every group that believes certain laws discriminate against it is free to seek redress through the legislative process and through the courts to correct such discrimination. High density LDS populations have a right to enact laws they see fit to enact and people who are not LDS are free to seek redress if they think such laws are unconstitutional. Likewise, low density LDS populations also have a right to enact their own laws and LDS people are free to seek redress if they think such laws violate their freedom of religion. I'm not sure how codified Sabbath Day restrictions violate anyone else's constitutional rights, but if they do then such people should take it to their legislatures (I know -- that's not going to help in Utah!) and to the courts. That's the process we have. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
So how does this relate to homosexual marriage? While homosexual marriage probably doesn't relate to religious freedom, it is a question of morality, a question with widely divergent viewpoints. Is the church right to enforce its moral views on others? How can the church then complain about others enforcing their moral views on the church?
|
First, the Church isn't enforcing its moral views on others. The church is expressing its opinion on an issue, and the populace, through its elected leaders, is choosing to prohibit gay marriage -- not only in Utah, but in almost every state in the Union.
Second, every organization (the Church included) is free to complain about laws with which it disagrees. I don't see what's wrong with the Church arguing in favor of laws it feels are in its best interest and arguing against laws which it feels are contrary to its interests.
As you pointed out, all laws are based on morality to one degree or another. Therefore, the legislative process is one big moral battle, with the judiciary (and hopefully the Constitution, not foreign law
) as the arbiter. If laws are, at their essence, nothing more than expressions of morality, then isn't it the solemn duty of the Church -- and every other organization -- to advocate the morality it thinks is best? If we are all going to be governed by someone's morality, and we think we have a great moral system, isn't it our obligation to work to advance this morality?
Of course, we should always stay within the framework of the Constitution -- and I am open to arguments that a gay marriage prohibition might be unconstitutional -- but as long as the Church advances good-faith moral arguments that are not clearly unconstitutional, I don't have a problem.