Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle

[BlueK]

Here it is:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long expressed its position that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together,” the Church said. “The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families.”

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-calls-for-unity-compassion-in-new-statement-on-immigration?lang=eng

[Moliere]

I vote present.

[BlueK]

lol. Probably? That's not a vote!

I say yes.

Ok, yes.

[YOhio]

Alright, cast your vote. Will we be getting a statement from the Church in the coming days about the current border situation with families being separated by the feds? Other churches have already commented.

I say probably.

lol. Probably? That's not a vote!

I say yes.

[BlueK]

Alright, cast your vote. Will we be getting a statement from the Church in the coming days about the current border situation with families being separated by the feds? Other churches have already commented.

I say probably.

[LA Ute]

The ruling on whether states could revoke their ratifications was given by Judge Marion Callister, a former LDS regional rep. His LDS membership was seen by opponents as a conflict-of-interest, since the church's stance on the ERA was so well known. Callister resigned his position as a regional representative in 1980 and ruled on the case just before Christmas, 1981.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled on the case. Since part of Callister's ruling was on the Congressionally-imposed time-limit for ratification, the ERA was re-introduced to Congress that summer, just as it still is every year. But, I believe 1982 is the last time the bill made it out of committee.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IMxeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tDIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5133,3472468&dq=

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...953287,00.html

I had forgotten all about that, thanks. As I recall, Neal Maxwell's son Cory was a clerk to Judge Callister and that caused a kerfluffle too.

[creekster]

You had to be there in the late 70s. (Were you even alive then?) As I recall (and it's been a long time) the amendment had been approved by almost all the states necessary and the fight was over whether those states could withdraw their approval of the amendment. Those battles went on in other states, which to my 24-25 year-old Utah-based self were distant, obscure places. Sorry, that's just the way it was!

The con-con process was discussed often and it was very clear what a stroll in the wild, wild west one would be.

[Solon]

You had to be there in the late 70s. (Were you even alive then?) As I recall (and it's been a long time) the amendment had been approved by almost all the states necessary and the fight was over whether those states could withdraw their approval of the amendment. Those battles went on in other states, which to my 24-25 year-old Utah-based self were distant, obscure places. Sorry, that's just the way it was!

The ruling on whether states could revoke their ratifications was given by Judge Marion Callister, a former LDS regional rep. His LDS membership was seen by opponents as a conflict-of-interest, since the church's stance on the ERA was so well known. Callister resigned his position as a regional representative in 1980 and ruled on the case just before Christmas, 1981.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled on the case. Since part of Callister's ruling was on the Congressionally-imposed time-limit for ratification, the ERA was re-introduced to Congress that summer, just as it still is every year. But, I believe 1982 is the last time the bill made it out of committee.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IMxeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tDIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5133,3472468&dq=

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953287,00.html

[TripletDaddy]

You had to be there in the late 70s. (Were you even alive then?) As I recall (and it's been a long time) the amendment had been approved by almost all the states necessary and the fight was over whether those states could withdraw their approval of the amendment. Those battles went on in other states, which to my 24-25 year-old Utah-based self were distant, obscure places. Sorry, that's just the way it was!

No worries. Many things in our Church's recent history were the result of how things were back then.

[LA Ute]

You were totally uninvolved in the passage of an amendment for womens rights and female equality? I guess you were too busy studying for a Con Law class.

You had to be there in the late 70s. (Were you even alive then?) As I recall (and it's been a long time) the amendment had been approved by almost all the states necessary and the fight was over whether those states could withdraw their approval of the amendment. Those battles went on in other states, which to my 24-25 year-old Utah-based self were distant, obscure places. Sorry, that's just the way it was!

[TripletDaddy]

I don't know if they do or not. There were people making the case for the ERA and the need for it (like most people, I was totally uninvolved in that battle) so I was just wondering what the passage of time has shown regarding the claims made in support of the pro-ERA case.

You were totally uninvolved in the passage of an amendment for womens rights and female equality? I guess you were too busy studying for a Con Law class.

I'm not exactly sure what the quotes were that you reference, but if they are anything like any of the other hyperbolic, over-charged rhetoric that we see at election time, I think it is a fair bet that much of the predicted doom and gloom never came to fruition.

[LA Ute]

Your quotes are from the Church's POV. I think LA Ute was taking the opposite tact. He was basically saying, "those that were pro ERA and disagreed with the Church's position made X claims...the ERA did not pass...did X claims ever come true?"

I noticed that LA Ute was "too lazy" to produce any such quotes. You seemed to find a bunch of tangentially related quotes within minutes. Maybe those other quotes don't exist?

I don't know if they do or not. There were people making the case for the ERA and the need for it (like most people, I was totally uninvolved in that battle) so I was just wondering what the passage of time has shown regarding the claims made in support of the pro-ERA case.

EDIT: On reflection I am not even sure this is worth exploring. Since the ERA did not pass, both sides of the issue are reduced to speculating about what would have happened if it had passed, or what did happen because it didn't pass.

[Solon]

Your quotes are from the Church's POV. I think LA Ute was taking the opposite tact. He was basically saying, "those that were pro ERA and disagreed with the Church's position made X claims...the ERA did not pass...did X claims ever come true?"

I noticed that LA Ute was "too lazy" to produce any such quotes. You seemed to find a bunch of tangentially related quotes within minutes. Maybe those other quotes don't exist?

Yeah, I don't know what LA was getting at. That's up to him to illuminate or obfuscate.

I thought he was saying that the church's POV implied that the ERA would actually hurt women's rights. But I'm not exactly able to give this thread a close read.

[TripletDaddy]

Maybe LA was thinking of the 1976 statement. I added it in to my original post, but here's the part that might qualify:


FWIW

Your quotes are from the Church's POV. I think LA Ute was taking the opposite tact. He was basically saying, "those that were pro ERA and disagreed with the Church's position made X claims...the ERA did not pass...did X claims ever come true?"

I noticed that LA Ute was "too lazy" to produce any such quotes. You seemed to find a bunch of tangentially related quotes within minutes. Maybe those other quotes don't exist?

[Solon]

Interesting stuff you have linked here.

The LDS lnks didnt seem to contain the paraphrased quote that LA Ute was citing.

The Sonia Johnson stuff didn't either but I remember reading about her previously.

Maybe LA was thinking of the 1976 statement. I added it in to my original post, but here's the part that might qualify:

“There have been injustices to women before the law and in society generally. These we deplore.
“There are additional rights to which women are entitled.
“However, we firmly believe that the Equal Rights Amendment is not the answer.
“While the motives of its supporters may be praiseworthy, ERA as a blanket attempt to help women could indeed bring them far more restraints and repressions. We fear it will even stifle many God-given feminine instincts.
“It would strike at the family, humankind’s basic institution. ERA would bring ambiguity and possibly invite extensive litigation.
“Passage of ERA, some legal authorities contend, could nullify many accumulated benefits to women in present statutes.
“We recognize men and women as equally important before the Lord, but with differences biologically, emotionally, and in other ways.
“ERA, we believe, does not recognize these differences. There are better means for giving women, and men, the rights they deserve.”

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=05c81f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

FWIW