Can't defend this one

[RobinFinderson]

We will have to disagree. Official proclamations are very rare in the history of the Church, and to the extent you are dismissing the one on the family as simply a political instrument primarily directed at gay life, I think you are taking an unsustainable position that adopts the conspiratorial view of the Church as primarily a political organization.

I bet you are one of the few who also believes the timing for officially ending polygamy had nothing to do with the prospect of Utah achieving statehood.

Or maybe you believe that lifting the ban on black males holding the priesthood had nothing to do with social pressure from outside the church?

So the coincidence of the proclamation on the traditional family coming out just when the church dives headfirst into the battle to prevent gay people from officially be recognized as families is just that? Coincidence?

You are right. The official proclamations coming out from the top of the church are indeed rare... rare and conveniently timed.

[LA Ute]

You are right. The official proclamations coming out from the top of the church are indeed rare... rare and conveniently timed.

Yes, and things are always darkest just before they go completely black.

[SeattleUte]

Just giving you a hard time. If I can't do, what are apostates good for?

I wasn't offended.

[SeattleUte]

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that they are responding to the outrage over his comments and the pressure being put on the Senate to silence or remove him from office. No in the sense that they are not worried about legitimate democratic processes. They are in fact arguing that we should let them work.

Here is the ACLU press release:

http://www.acluutah.org/FreeSpeechPR22009.pdf

See anything in there about the church?

Here is the church's statement in its entirety:

“From the outset, the Church’s position has always been to engage in civil and respectful dialogue on this issue. Senator Buttars does not speak for the Church.”

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...6w.cspx?rss=20

Both releases came out simultaneously.

What I find absurd is you thinking that his freedom of speech has somehow been violated by the church's statement.

Here is another article on the story:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11752522

Note that nothing in the article supports the link you suggest. Rather, it supports my argument:

I have been searching the blogs and I can't find a single comment yet that would support your ACLU-church link. I'll keep looking.

In the meantime, I liked this comment:

http://senatesite.com/blog/2009/02/word-from-aclu.html

Amen to that.

By all means, I would love to have PAC and LAUte weigh in.

We may never agree on this. But it seems logical to me that colleagues in the Senate calling for his sanction or resignation, or the people of Utah doing so, or the Senate President stripping him of a committee post, without more, is part of the political process. It is something that happens all the time in the legisative proces. If Orrin Hatch said what Buttars had said the same thing would happen in the U.S. Senate. The reaction would not seem that unusual, and I have a hunch the ACLU would not coplain or issue any admonition. The ACLU is not concerned about this kind of stuff. It has no interest in interfering with rough and tumble politics. On the contrary. Buttars is not going to go to jail for what he said. NO judge will issue an injunction. The political process will sort this out. These politicians will stand or fall on what the voters decide sooner or later.

What's different here is that all these senators are active Mormons. When the Mormon church tells its members to jump, they say how high. When BYU offered Kyle Whittingham the BYU job he called GA's to find out if it was "a calling." So Waddoups, a Mormon, sanctions Buttars on the day their common religion issues a press release disavowing Buttars (what hypocrites!). It just so happens that the LDS Church issued its disavowal of Buttars on the day Waddoups sanctioned him, effectively giving Waddoups cover. Coincidence? Yeah, right. I don't know what the ACLU knew, but no doubt it knew something about the LDS Church's displeasure with Buttars. The ACLU has fought with the LDS Church many times about its entanglements with government. No, the press release didn't mention the LDS Church. It was a shot across the bow.

[Jeff Lebowski]

We may never agree on this. But it seems logical to me that colleagues in the Senate calling for his sanction or resignation, or the people of Utah doing so, or the Senate President stripping him of a committee post, without more, is part of the political process. It is something that happens all the time in the legisative proces. If Orrin Hatch said what Buttars had said the same thing would happen in the U.S. Senate. The reaction would not seem that unusual, and I have a hunch the ACLU would not coplain or issue any admonition. The ACLU is not concerned about this kind of stuff. It has no interest in interfering with rough and tumble politics. On the contrary. Buttars is not going to go to jail for what he said. NO judge will issue an injunction. The political process will sort this out. These politicians will stand or fall on what the voters decide sooner or later.

You are rambling. And building strawmen. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is claiming that Buttars should go to jail.

What's different here is that all these senators are active Mormons. When the Mormon church tells its members to jump, they say how high.

Except for two years ago when Marlin K. Jensen admonished the legislature that they were going too far with immigration bills. Didn't have much of an effect.

And except for this year when the church explicitly said that they were not against gay rights legislation, short of marriage. That apparently had zero effect as all gay rights bills went down in flames.

I guess these two issues just didn't resonate with the legislators. Or there was sufficient ambiguity that they felt free to ignore it. Prop 8 certainly resonated.

So Waddoups, a Mormon, sanctions Buttars on the day their common religion issues a press release disavowing Buttars (what hypocrites!). It just so happens that the LDS Church issued its disavowal of Buttars on the day Waddoups sanctioned him, effectively giving Waddoups cover. Coincidence? Yeah, right. I don't know what the ACLU knew, but no doubt it knew something about the LDS Church's displeasure with Buttars. The ACLU has fought with the LDS Church many times about its entanglements with government. No, the press release didn't mention the LDS Church. It was a shot across the bow.

Waddoups "sanctioned" him? My goodness, you really haven't been paying attention.

If that's your response, then I rest my case.

[SeattleUte]

You are rambling. And building strawmen. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is claiming that Buttars should go to jail.

The point is that the ACLU gets involved when a Constitutional violation occurs or is threatened. It's not a Constitutional violation if your employer tells you not to criticize or advocate for gays on the job (unless you work for the government), it's not a violation of the Constitution for Waudupps to strip Buttars of his committee chairmanship, it's not a Constituional violation for the senate to issue a statement sanctioning (note: I'm using sanction here to mean penalize; not condone; it has more than one meaning) Buttars. But it is a Constitutional violation for someone, the Senate, you, whoever, to get a court order against Buttars that he stop saying what he's saying or for a prosecutor to charge him with a crime for doing so. I'm merely exhausting the possiblities that would cause the ACLU to jump into the situation.

The only scenario that raises this to a Constitutional dimension thus attracting the ACLU's interest is enganglement between church and state. Otherwise the ACLU's involvement makes no sense and really seems quite bizarre and counterproductive.

[SeattleUte]

Waddoups "sanctioned" him? My goodness, you really haven't been paying attention.

Note: sanctioned doesn't just mean authorize. It also means penalize.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The point is that the ACLU gets involved when a Constitutional violation occurs or is threatened. It's not a Constitutional violation if your employer tells you not to criticize or advocate for gays on the job (unless you work for the government), it's not a violation of the Constitution for Waudupps to strip Buttars of his committee chairmanship, it's not a Constituional violation for the senate to issue a statement sanctioning (note: I'm using sanction here to mean penalize; not condone; it has more than one meaning) Buttars. But it is a Constitutional violation for someone, the Senate, you, whoever, to get a court order against Buttars that he stop saying what he's saying or for a prosecutor to charge him with a crime for doing so. I'm merely exhausting the possiblities that would cause the ACLU to jump into the situation.

The only scenario that raises this to a Constitutional dimension thus attracting the ACLU's interest is enganglement between church and state. Otherwise the ACLU's involvement makes no sense and really seems quite bizarre and counterproductive.

Weak. You have no evidence other than your opinion. I have yet to find a single instance of someone else making that connection.

[Hallelujah]

I actually think this is a fair point. Buttars isn't really saying anything different than what was said this past summer.

However, I think that most LDS are not really shocked or mortified...they are in agreement. Silent agreement, but agreement nonetheless.

Can we agree that their BEHAVIOR of a perversion?

[Hallelujah]

I bet you are one of the few who also believes the timing for officially ending polygamy had nothing to do with the prospect of Utah achieving statehood.

Or maybe you believe that lifting the ban on black males holding the priesthood had nothing to do with social pressure from outside the church?

So the coincidence of the proclamation on the traditional family coming out just when the church dives headfirst into the battle to prevent gay people from officially be recognized as families is just that? Coincidence?

You are right. The official proclamations coming out from the top of the church are indeed rare... rare and conveniently timed.

Proclamations are timed. Just like situations change, the proclamations are proclaimed when deemed necessary to furthering the work. Am I missing something?

Which part of the Proclamation of the Family disturbs you the most and is the most radical?

[TripletDaddy]

Can we agree that their BEHAVIOR of a perversion?

Perversion of what?

Do you agree that all sin is a perversion?

[SeattleUte]

Weak. You have no evidence other than your opinion. I have yet to find a single instance of someone else making that connection.

No. It's called reason. There is no other rationale for the ACLU's involvement or interest in this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No. It's called reason. There is no other rationale for the ACLU's involvement or interest in this.

Nonsense. There is a much more likely and obvious rationale. Believe it or not, the entire universe does not rotate around the LDS conspiracy.