Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[LA Ute]

When was the last time a law was passed (or even proposed) in the U.S. that impinged on religious freedom?

Educate me.

This could be a very unsatisfying debate that you are asking for. Whether or not a law does impinge on religious liberty is a matter courts usually decide, and by the time the matter gets to a court, it is deeply controversial. Debating whether or not a court got something right, especially in the First Amendment arena, is not a lot of fun.

I'll give you one example, however: North Coast Women's Care Medical Group vs. Superior Court (44 Cal. 4th 1145), a case decided by the California Supreme Court on August 19, 2008. The case involved two physicians at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in San Diego County. They declined to artificially inseminate an unmarried woman (a lesbian) and argued that their religious freedom and free speech protected them from being compelled by the government to do so.

The physicians had referred the patient, Guadalupe T. Benitez, to other physicians for her insemination, and she was inseminated and now has three children. The woman was unhappy about being denied the service, however, and sued on principle.

The Calif. Supreme Court held that the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, essentially trumps a physician’s claim of religious freedom or conscience. Without getting into the legalese, the Court held that the state's interest in preventing discrimination outweighed the physician's religious freedom interests. Basically, if you're open for business in California you have to provide services to all comers, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I believe the decision was unanimous (7-0).

That was a hard case and its outcome is debatable (I think it was wrong, but that's just me), but the Court clearly held that religious freedom had to give way in this case. (Physicians who are morally opposed to abortion can refer the patient to another doctor, even in a public hospital, and the doctors in the North Coast case thought they were doing something essentially like that. But there is no civil right statute involved in that situation.)

So there is your example.

[SloanHater]

The outcome is already here. Gays are already getting married in America, and public opinion is rapidly moving in favor of gay rights. The Prop 8 business in California won't last long either.

I think the decision to fight against gay rights will turn out to be one of the worst decisions our Church leaders have ever made.

It may have been a public relations disaster, but you underestimate the experience the Church gained in mobilizing members to a political cause.

I guess decisions are valued differently based on perception.

[SoonerCoug]

I think it did. The Church believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that the issue is a moral one. I think there comes a time when you have to stand up and say, "That's not right," and fight for your belief. If the Church sat back and let California defeat Prop. 8, it would be too late to put up a successful fight because a lot of states would follow California. In our legal system, it's hard to overcome a lot of precedent, and like it or not, there are states that follow California's lead.

I think one practical example is that Catholic Charities of Boston decided to stop adoptions because the state was going to force it to do adoptions for gay couples rather than allow it to follow the Catholic Church's belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Do you have a prediction for the Church's future position on gay marriage 50 years from now? 100 years from now?

[TripletDaddy]

It may have been a public relations disaster, but you underestimate the experience the Church gained in mobilizing members to a political cause.

I guess decisions are valued differently based on perception.

lol. I am sure the Church wishes you not speak on its behalf.

[TripletDaddy]

I think one practical example is that Catholic Charities of Boston decided to stop adoptions because the state was going to force it to do adoptions for gay couples rather than allow it to follow the Catholic Church's belief that homosexuality is immoral.

This is a rather spurious synopsis of the case. Are you sure that is how it went down? The Catholic Church was going to be "forced" to do adoptions why exactly?

hint: I already know the answer.

[scottie]

I'll give you one example, however: ...

Good example. For those interested, the full transcript of Oaks' speech is here.

Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences.

LA, you're smart and you're an attorney -- do the Yogyakarta Principles really propose what Oaks is saying there?

[Solon]

I think one practical example is that Catholic Charities of Boston decided to stop adoptions because the state was going to force it to do adoptions for gay couples rather than allow it to follow the Catholic Church's belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Even though Catholic Charities had already placed 13 children between 1986 and 2006 with homosexual couples. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06022010.html

(not a rebuttal, saint - just an interesting observation about who was calling the shots in this decision).

[New Mexican Disaster]

This is a rather spurious synopsis of the case. Are you sure that is how it went down? The Catholic Church was going to be "forced" to do adoptions why exactly?

hint: I already know the answer.

Please tell the answer because my mother in law is always spouting off about this and I am not familiar with the case.

[SloanHater]

lol. I am sure the Church wishes you not speak on its behalf.

I didn't think I was speaking on its behalf. Just pointing out the fact that people at Church headquarters recognize some of their mistakes and will be better prepared for the next political fight.

[thesaint258]

Do you have a prediction for the Church's future position on gay marriage 50 years from now? 100 years from now?

If the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is deciding what to do, they need to be thinking about the here and now. If the Church's position doesn't change in the future, the time to fight was now rather than fifty or one hundred years in the future.

[thesaint258]

This is a rather spurious synopsis of the case. Are you sure that is how it went down? The Catholic Church was going to be "forced" to do adoptions why exactly?

hint: I already know the answer.

I admit I jumped a step. Catholic Charities had already done some adoptions to homosexual couples to comply with the anti-discrimination statute that Massachusetts passed (I don't remember the name of the act). When the story broke that this was occurring, a few bishops got involved, and ultimately the decision was made to get out of the adoption business. The step I skipped was a hypothetical lawsuit against Catholic Charities for discrimination. LA Ute's example is better.

[BlueHair]

I think it did. The Church believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that the issue is a moral one. I think there comes a time when you have to stand up and say, "That's not right," and fight for your belief. If the Church sat back and let California defeat Prop. 8, it would be too late to put up a successful fight because a lot of states would follow California. In our legal system, it's hard to overcome a lot of precedent, and like it or not, there are states that follow California's lead.

Couldn't the church just have continued to preach their brand of the gospel and leave others to live their lives? I have no problem with the church having the religious liberty to preach their beliefs, but legislating them goes too far.

Seeing the church openly seek to break up families put the final nail in the coffin for me. They want liberty for themselves, but want everyone else to be forced to live under the rules of a church to which they don't belong.

They should have never stirred up the hornets nest. The next couple of hundred years will be spent explaining why they missed the boat again.

[thesaint258]

(not a rebuttal, saint - just an interesting observation about who was calling the shots in this decision).

I think it was the same thing that we're seeing in the LDS Church. Members fall on both sides of the issue, and in this case, the board members wanted to continue the practice while the clergy didn't.

[scottie]

I think it did. The Church believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that the issue is a moral one. I think there comes a time when you have to stand up and say, "That's not right," and fight for your belief. If the Church sat back and let California defeat Prop. 8, it would be too late to put up a successful fight because a lot of states would follow California. In our legal system, it's hard to overcome a lot of precedent, and like it or not, there are states that follow California's lead.

D&C 134:4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;

[TripletDaddy]

I admit I jumped a step. Catholic Charities had already done some adoptions to homosexual couples to comply with the anti-discrimination statute that Massachusetts passed (I don't remember the name of the act). When the story broke that this was occurring, a few bishops got involved, and ultimately the decision was made to get out of the adoption business. The step I skipped was a hypothetical lawsuit against Catholic Charities for discrimination. LA Ute's example is better.

also, one important distinction....catholic charities was going to be forced because they accepted state funds. They were on the state's dime, so they were under the state's thumb. when considered in this context, it is not shocking that the state would exercise some control over where the money goes.

If the Catholic Church stopped taking state cash, then the government would not be able to intervene.

the lds church does not accept state or federal aid, as far as I know. LA Ute would be the better definitive source on this.