Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The issue is bigger than gay marriage. The issue is who gets to decide what social agreements the government will support? A few justices? Or the elected representatives of the people? > Except that that's not what Romney's recent actions have been about. He's trying to get those same few justices to force a referendum on the ballot, specifically because those elected representatives of the people won't do so. Massachusetts law is clear. It takes the legislature voting "yes" in two consecutive sessions, and then the populace saying yes in a referendum, to overturn the equalization of marriage. But the legislature - perhaps mindful of the polls that show a solid majority of Mass. citizens in favor of equal marriage - have not voted to do so. So Romney is trying to do an end run around Mass. law and get the Mass. supreme court to order the question on the ballot as a referendum. Considering this is the same court who insisted that marriage be made equal in the first place, his chances of success are slim. But it got him notice and no doubt props from some in the religious right. That said, I hadn't heard that he was pro-choice. This is what I found on that: "Romney was asked to clarify his position on abortion. Romney's stance appeared to have changed between his 1994 campaign against Sen. Kennedy and when he moved to Utah. He recently told a Salt Lake City newspaper that he preferred not to be labeled "pro- choice." "On a personal basis, I don't favor abortion," he said. "However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman's right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That's the same position I've had for many years." Source: Erik Arvidson, Lowell Sun Mar 20, 2002 " Even that stance, though, probably sinks him in the GOP primaries, much as Guiliani's much less ambivalent pro-choice stance will sink him.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You still aren't getting my point, jonvn." I guess I don't. What is your point? It's a religion. It's run by a guy they call the president. What he says goes, and it's not a democracy. They finally caved in the late 70s under societal pressure to allow black people access to the church. The Catholics don't vote on church teachings, neither do the Mormons. That's just how it goes.... Unless you mean something else?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Who did the message go to? Is there just one guy who gets the message? How does he get the message? By band of angels, by a dream? Really, who makes the BIG decisions after they get permission from God?<< Mormonism's leadership is patterned loosely after the New Testament, or more accurately, their interpretation of the New Testament. There is a group called the First Presidency that is made up of a President and a First and Second Counselor. The President is the leader of the Mormon church and is often called the Prophet. There is also a group of Twelve Apostles, called the Quorum of the Twelve. Together, these 15 men lead the Mormon church. Historically, there were occasional power struggles between the two groups and sometimes years would pass between the death of the old prophet and picking a new one. Today the First Presidency, for all practical purposes, trumps the Quorum of the Twelve. But now these groups are highly self-censored to ensure they don't do or say anything that might be construed as contradictory, controversial, etc. As for the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood (as Mormons call it), then Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball (Mormons have a thing for middle initials, I'll tell ya!) had pushed internally for years for a change and had gotten many other leaders on board. But there were several holdouts still. In June 1978, he claimed to have had a revelation on the subject and asked the other members of the Mormon leadership to pray with him. They all agreed that God told them (a few claimed to hear an actual voice, but most say it was an impression) the time had come to remove the ban on Blacks holding the priesthood and leadership positions. Outsiders see this as simply an attempt to have success in Africa and other nations, and because of a more progressive leader; Mormons regard it as a sacred revelation from God. >>It's the waiting for the message part that bugs me. I could understand if people gradually changed their minds and, i don't know, maybe voted on whether it was the right thing to do. The fact that they all supposedly thought it was the right thing to do yet needed permission to change things bugs the hell out of me.<< Me too. But welcome to Mormonism. Internal dissent is rarely tolerated, though things have gotten much better. But in my opinion, I think most outsiders would be shocked to see grown men and women, otherwise intelligent, functional members of society, so deferential to these 15 men who lead the Mormon church, to the point of being worshipful. There's an old Mormon saying (ironically repudiated by a Mormon prophet, but largely unknown to the general church body) that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done." Mormons have grown up in this culture, so I think the oddity of it is lost on them. But imagine having an authority figure you never questioned or never disagreed with, regardless of what they said. They tell you not to see R rated movies, so you don't. They tell women to not wear more than one pair of earrings, so they don't. And on and on. And yet, Mormonism functions as a largely normal, traditional faith. You'd expect a group with that kind of submissiveness to leaders to be holed up in a compound somewhere, but Mormonism works just fine.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It takes the legislature voting "yes" in two consecutive sessions, and then the populace saying yes in a referendum, to overturn the equalization of marriage. But the legislature - perhaps mindful of the polls that show a solid majority of Mass. citizens in favor of equal marriage - have not voted to do so.> That's not exactly correct. Massachusetts' Constitution requires votes in favor of an amendment from only one-fourth of the Legislature in two successive terms to get it on the ballot. The legislature has therefore used a series of procedural moves to avoid voting on the issue. This is what Romney has objected to.
Originally Posted By ecdc As it affects Mitt Romney, jon makes some great points. The Mormon ban on Priesthood was nothing more than a borrowed doctrine from Protestants who used the Bible to justify slavery. They argued that African Americans were cursed by God. If Mormons like Mitt Romney would say that their policy on priesthood was just a product of the times and was a mistake, then the issue would most likely be dropped. But most Mormons refuse to believe that anything but the divine hand of God is responsible for their policies and beliefs. They have to (as Hyper has demonstrated so very well) come up with lengthy explanations trying to justify the ban while extolling Mormonism's treatment of Blacks in the past. The reality is, Mormons were no more or less racist than other Americans throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. But they're the only ones who refuse to admit they were wrong and who stubbornly cling to the idea that it came from God and it's what He wanted. That's why it becomes a problem for Mitt Romney.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That's not exactly correct. Massachusetts' Constitution requires votes in favor of an amendment from only one-fourth of the Legislature in two successive terms to get it on the ballot. The legislature has therefore used a series of procedural moves to avoid voting on the issue. This is what Romney has objected to.> But such parliamentary moves are also part and parcel of our democracy, and seen in Congress and state legislatures every day.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But such parliamentary moves are also part and parcel of our democracy, and seen in Congress and state legislatures every day.> Parliamentary moves are not supposed to conflict with a state's constitution. It's not Romney doing the end around. It's the leaders of the Massachusetts legislature.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But such parliamentary moves are also part and parcel of our democracy, and seen in Congress and state legislatures every day.>> <Parliamentary moves are not supposed to conflict with a state's constitution. It's not Romney doing the end around. It's the leaders of the Massachusetts legislature.> That's a ridiculous statement. There's nothing in the Mass. constitution that says Bill X must be voted on in any given year. Bills get killed in committee, for instance, all the time in state legislatures and congress, and never see a vote. There's nothing unconsitutional about that. Romney, on the other hand, doesn't like it not coming up for a vote, and insists the supreme court put in on the ballot. Did he do that with any other bill that didn't come up for a vote? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There's nothing in the Mass. constitution that says Bill X must be voted on in any given year.> If a simple majority or less can keep a referral amendment from being voted on, why would the Constitution call for only 1/4 of the legislature to vote for it for two consecutive terms before it could be voted on by the citizens of the State? It's implicit in the language that it would be voted on in two consecutive terms. <Did he do that with any other bill that didn't come up for a vote?> This is not a normal vote. It's to bring a constitutional amendment to the citizens for a referendum vote.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<There's nothing in the Mass. constitution that says Bill X must be voted on in any given year.>> <If a simple majority or less can keep a referral amendment from being voted on, why would the Constitution call for only 1/4 of the legislature to vote for it for two consecutive terms before it could be voted on by the citizens of the State? It's implicit in the language that it would be voted on in two consecutive terms.> What would then prevent any interest group from insisting that their consitutional ammendment, even if it had the support of only 1/4 of the legislature, MUST come up for a vote? Sorry, that's not how legislatures work. Bills fail to get a vote all the time, including prospective constitutional ammendments. There's nothing "unconstitutional," as you claimed, about not voting on it. <<Did he do that with any other bill that didn't come up for a vote?>> <This is not a normal vote. It's to bring a constitutional amendment to the citizens for a referendum vote,> But there's nothing in the constitution that requires that to happen. The people's representatives decided they didn't want it to happen - that's democracy too.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What would then prevent any interest group from insisting that their consitutional ammendment, even if it had the support of only 1/4 of the legislature, MUST come up for a vote?> How about the lack of a sponsor? How about the failure to gather a decent number of signatures? I'm not that familiar with the Massachusetts constitution, but I'd bet there is at least some kind of threshold that needs to be met. <But there's nothing in the constitution that requires that to happen.> Have you read the Massachusetts' constitution? Because your earlier posts sure don't make it clear you have a working knowledge of them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<What would then prevent any interest group from insisting that their consitutional ammendment, even if it had the support of only 1/4 of the legislature, MUST come up for a vote?>> <How about the lack of a sponsor? How about the failure to gather a decent number of signatures? I'm not that familiar with the Massachusetts constitution, but I'd bet there is at least some kind of threshold that needs to be met.> And if such a bill met those thresholds, then AFAIK the legislature would still be within its rights to not vote on it. <<But there's nothing in the constitution that requires that to happen.>> <Have you read the Massachusetts' constitution? Because your earlier posts sure don't make it clear you have a working knowledge of them. > Our posts make it clear that neither of us is THAT familiar with it. But I have friends and cousins-in-law in Mass. (the latter being republicans), and they've all said that the legislature was well within its rights by simply not voting on this.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I have friends and cousins-in-law in Mass. (the latter being republicans), and they've all said that the legislature was well within its rights by simply not voting on this.> Yet the Governor, who would be more familiar with his state's constitution than either you or your friends, disagrees.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<I have friends and cousins-in-law in Mass. (the latter being republicans), and they've all said that the legislature was well within its rights by simply not voting on this.>> <Yet the Governor, who would be more familiar with his state's constitution than either you or your friends, disagrees.> Or he doesn't even disagree, and is simply making this play to shore up his conservative bona fides for his 2008 presidential run. Not unlike the conservatives in Congress who knew they couldn't pass an anti-gay marriage ammendment but brought it up anyway in consecutive election years. We'll see what the supreme court - the ultimate voice on what is and isn't constitutional - says. My guess is that they say "nice try, Mitt, but the legislature isn't required to vote on something they don't want to."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Or he doesn't even disagree, and is simply making this play to shore up his conservative bona fides for his 2008 presidential run. Not unlike the conservatives in Congress who knew they couldn't pass an anti-gay marriage ammendment but brought it up anyway in consecutive election years.> Just because liberals almost always do things purely for partisan gain doesn't mean conservatives do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Or he doesn't even disagree, and is simply making this play to shore up his conservative bona fides for his 2008 presidential run. Not unlike the conservatives in Congress who knew they couldn't pass an anti-gay marriage ammendment but brought it up anyway in consecutive election years.>> <Just because liberals almost always do things purely for partisan gain doesn't mean conservatives do.> Just because you can't possibly back that opinion up as resembling any kind of fact didn't stop you from posting it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Just because you can't possibly back that opinion up as resembling any kind of fact didn't stop you from posting it.> Just as it didn't stop you from posting yours.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Just because you can't possibly back that opinion up as resembling any kind of fact didn't stop you from posting it.>> <Just as it didn't stop you from posting yours.> Except that mine has some credibility to it; the GOP did bring up the gay marriage ammendment in election years only - it doesn't take a political genius to figure out why. And Romney is trying to get the same court that insisted that marriage equality be instituted to force on to the ballot a measure that could take it away. He must know his chances are slim, yet he's doing it anyway, and he's running for president. Hmmmmmmmmm... Your assertion, on the other hand, is simply "your guys bad, my guys good."
