The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[scottie]

A quick viewpoint read from The Daily Universe:

http://universe.byu.edu/node/10417

...

It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must accept this explanation, along with all its consequences for good or ill on our own relationship with God and his children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting reasons that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.

[All-American]

A quick viewpoint read from The Daily Universe:

http://universe.byu.edu/node/10417

Wow. That's ballsy.

[RobinFinderson]

As a one-time-Daily Universe-rabble-rouser, I approve of this letter to the editor.

[SoCalCoug]

Really? i thought it was a cop-out argument: some dude in salt lake says it's right so since we believe he talks to god, it must be right

no offfense to TJM...perhaps he does talk to god...just that the letter was generally pathetic, in my view

Your view sucks, then. I agree with AA - that was a ballsy letter. The faith-based reason is the only one LDS can reasonably rely on - the "rational" arguments that were making the rounds during the Prop 8 madness were nothing but propaganda.

[Green Monstah]

What is more thoughtless than saying, "Someone else told me to support Prop. 8."

What a douchebag. While I'm no fan of Prop 8 (I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether...and if gay people want to be as miserable as married people, I say let 'em have it), there are some pursuasive arguments in favor of the proposition. For example, I have friends in Massachussets who cannot have kids, but LDS family services was out of Mass. b/c they didn't offer their services to same-sex couples.

I realize much of the Prop 8 dialogue (for and against) was mere propoganda. What else is more effective when dealing with a popular vote, but the writer is assuming that if an argument is not admissible or preferred by a judge, then it has no merit whatsoever. Unfortunately, lot's of relevant, pursuasive evidence is not admissible or favored in court because of the strict Rules of Evidence that the judicial system prescribes. Furthermore, there are lots of reasons a person may wish to refuse to testify...personal safety, job security, etc.

I'll give the kid credit for having the eggs to write a controversial letter to the editor, but it' snothing more than an articulate, but poor, argument.

Furthermore, if he wears suspenders, I'm pretty sure he's gay.

[LA Ute]

There are two subjects that will divide any room: illegal immigration and Sarah Palin. For Mormons on this board, I'd add a third: Prop 8!

[Non Sequitur]

What I got out of the letter was that we shouldn't spout offensive and indefensible arguments against gays and lesbians. We should leave that to the brethren in Salt Lake.

[LA Ute]

A friend just sent me this. I am no fan of Jim Garlow or or Glenn Beck, but this is interesting (too long, but interesting):

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Printer.aspx?id=1144072

Rather than let it drive you up the wall, I suggest a detached reading from he standpoint of observing a fascinating phenomenon.

[Jeff Lebowski]

... For example, I have friends in Massachussets who cannot have kids, but LDS family services was shut down in Mass. b/c they didn't offer their services to same-sex couples.
...

I am calling BS on this story.

[Green Monstah]

I am calling BS on this story.

Look it up Lebowski. LDS Family Services does not provide adoptive services in Massachusetts anymore. You have to go to NH or another neighboring state. The Catholic equivalent to LDS Family Services had to do the same thing. I'm sure Google will give you all the answers you need.


Edit: To my knowledge it was the threat of discrimination-based litigation that forced these groups to shut their doors and not any action by the state. However, the Church wouldn't simply run from spurious litigation, IMO, but would react only if they reasonably believed they were fightin a losing battle.

[I.J. Reilly]

Really? i thought it was a cop-out argument: some dude in salt lake says it's right so since we believe he talks to god, it must be right

no offfense to TJM...perhaps he does talk to god...just that the letter was generally pathetic, in my view

I could be wrong, but I read Robin's comment no so much as an approval of the content of the letter, but rather the style in which it was written. Letters to the Editor of the Daily Universe is no more than an old-fashioned place to troll and I think Robin was commenting on that.

[Tim]

Look it up Lebowski. LDS Family Services does not provide adoptive services in Massachusetts anymore. You have to go to NH or another neighboring state. The Catholic equivalent to LDS Family Services had to do the same thing. I'm sure Google will give you all the answers you need.


Edit: To my knowledge it was the threat of discrimination-based litigation that forced these groups to shut their doors and not any action by the state. However, the Church wouldn't simply run from spurious litigation, IMO, but would react only if they reasonably believed they were fightin a losing battle.

Man, you are full of crap. You obviously haven't researched the situation beyond a visit to Drudge Report and a conversation with whatever wacko conservative in your ward that you favor for hot-button political "news." Catholic Charities was not faced with litigation nor the threat of it. They were a semi-governmental organization in that they primarily relied on financial assistance from the state of Mass. for their operational budget. In light of that fact, the state told them that they couldn't discriminate as long as they were receiving state operational funds, but that they would be free to create their own internal placement policies if they were willing to stop taking state funds. Since the organization couldn't cover their financial obligations without the financial assistance being provided by the state, they chose to close their doors rather than face the state's (completely reasonable) requirement that they not discriminate as long as they were accepting state funds.

As for LDS Family Services, you're again incorrect. LDS Family Services closed their Massachusetts office and moved ALL of their functions (not just adoption services, but individual and family counseling services, substance abuse recovery programs, general addiction recovery programs, etc.) to New Hampshire. But this has nothing to do with any threat of litigation or the gay marriage/adoption debate. LDS Family Services operates on a regional model wherein there are hub offices used to support multiple states. There are a large number of states that don't have LDS Family Services offices: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. That's 22 states/districts out of 51 that don't have LDS Family Services offices.

Get your crap together and then you can start joining discussions with the adults.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Look it up Lebowski. LDS Family Services does not provide adoptive services in Massachusetts anymore. You have to go to NH or another neighboring state. The Catholic equivalent to LDS Family Services had to do the same thing. I'm sure Google will give you all the answers you need.


Edit: To my knowledge it was the threat of discrimination-based litigation that forced these groups to shut their doors and not any action by the state. However, the Church wouldn't simply run from spurious litigation, IMO, but would react only if they reasonably believed they were fightin a losing battle.

What Tim said (minus the mean stuff of course).

[LA Ute]

Man, you are full of crap. You obviously haven't researched the situation beyond a visit to Drudge Report and a conversation with whatever wacko conservative in your ward that you favor for hot-button political "news." Catholic Charities was not faced with litigation nor the threat of it. They were a semi-governmental organization in that they primarily relied on financial assistance from the state of Mass. for their operational budget. In light of that fact, the state told them that they couldn't discriminate as long as they were receiving state operational funds, but that they would be free to create their own internal placement policies if they were willing to stop taking state funds. Since the organization couldn't cover their financial obligations without the financial assistance being provided by the state, they chose to close their doors rather than face the state's (completely reasonable) requirement that they not discriminate as long as they were accepting state funds.

As for LDS Family Services, you're again incorrect. LDS Family Services closed their Massachusetts office and moved ALL of their functions (not just adoption services, but individual and family counseling services, substance abuse recovery programs, general addiction recovery programs, etc.) to New Hampshire. But this has nothing to do with any threat of litigation or the gay marriage/adoption debate. LDS Family Services operates on a regional model wherein there are hub offices used to support multiple states. There are a large number of states that don't have LDS Family Services offices: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. That's 22 states/districts out of 51 that don't have LDS Family Services offices.

Get your crap together and then you can start joining discussions with the adults.

He may be wrong but I'm calling you on the personal attack on him. We don't need that nonsense here.

[DU Ute]

I'm sure Google will give you all the answers you need.

That's funny.