Resty: “There is no error in the Church position!”
Sure there is, and it’s indisputable.
Their stated position: “The Church supports these (’sexual orientation’) ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage.”
Yet if you read the original post above, you can follow the links to the decisions of both the California and Massachusetts supreme courts, which in both cases specifically and expressly cite those states’ “sexual orientation” laws as the basis of their decisions to declare so-called homosexual “marriage” legal. The state prohibits “discrimination” based on “sexual orientation,” the courts said, thus we can no longer allow the state’s marriage laws to “discriminate” against two men who want to marry.
Thus, Church officials just endorsed the very legal construct cited by left-wing activist judges as justification for their imposing so-called homosexual “marriage” in the first place, which the Church and Church members (to their substantial credit) then spent millions of dollars to overturn.
Such “sexual orientation” laws have also been used in jurisdictions that have adopted them to discriminate against and penalize individuals, businesses, and community organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Salvation Army, and Catholic Charities. Click the following link for multiple examples:
http://www.responsiblevoters.org/SpecialRights/Key3Victims.aspx
On top of that, the Salt Lake ordinance the LDS Church officially endorsed included so-called “gender identity,” a concept so radical that even openly homoexual Democrat Barney Frank initially refused to put it into his federal “gay rights” bill (legislation which Mitt Romney endorsed, by the way).
Prohibiting so-called “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity” literally means you can be forced to hire a man who wears a wig, makeup, and high heels to work and demands to use the women’s restroom and shower, and it would constitute “discrimination” not to let him.
Did LDS officials knowingly endorse that concept, or were they ignorant? (I’m hoping they were merely ignorant, though grossly so, and may yet see fit to “adjust” their position.)
That said, on the other issue of Resty bearing false witness, apparently he does not have the integrity to (1) admit that he cannot document or prove his false accusation that I have “trashed LDS before” on FR, and (2) apologize for the false witness.
(As previously stated, my multiple posts criticizing Mitt Romney for his public policy record of supporting abortion on demand and homosexual activists’ political agenda before running for president don’t count, since I was slamming him for positions that themselves were at odds with the values of his own church.)
What openly homoexual Congressman Barney Frank said in explaining why he initially refused to add the term “gender identity” to his federal legislation prohibiting “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation”:
“There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress,” Frank said. “I’ve talked with transgender activists, and what they want, and what we will be forced to defend, is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women. There are no votes for that. And if that is the price
for this bill, it is wrong.”
Quoted by various sources including THE LABOR LAWYER, Winter/Spring 2006, page 25, paragraph 102 at the following link:
http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/laborlawyer/21.3.pdf
Thus, LDS Church officials just endorsed a legal concept so radical that even Barney Frank wasn’t comfortable with it. He eventually relented, however, and added the “gender identity” term after being condemned by the same “transgender activists” he cited in his comments.
Do I believe LDS officials understood the language they endorsed and intentionally expressed support for the radical concept of cross-dressing “rights” as explained by Barney Frank?
No, I think they acted out of ignorance, and a desire to prove they’re not “bigots” because they oppose so-called homosexual “marriage.” I hope, once better educated on the legal effects of the language they endorsed, they’ll see fit to adjust their stand as they have on other issues in the past.
Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. [13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” [14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship.
Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,
Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. [15]
The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.
13] Matt. 19:19.
[14] John 8:11.
[15] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999.
Transcript
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6647
Audio
http://media.byub.org/mp3/devo/1999/2/devo199929-361.mp3
HE is a SHE.
Or so claims.
(She also claims to have been a PRESBYTERIAN at one point in her life; but has never shown any evidence of it one way or another.