Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Good thing Romney has the Massachusetts Constitution on his side. I just finished reading the pertinent parts, and it was as I assumed. A minimum number of signatures is required, and then the legislature must vote on it. If at least one-quarter of the legislature doesn't vote for it, it dies. Otherwise, it goes to the next session, where it must be voted on again. If at least one-quarter of the legislature votes for it, it goes to the people. If not, it dies. There's no wording allowing the legislature to refuse to take it up.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I've read the passages myself now, and I can see how you could read it that way. However, it can be read another way also: <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/11/20/romney_seeks_to_force_gay_marriage_vote/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/news/loc al/massachusetts/articles/2006/11/20/romney_seeks_to_force_gay_marriage_vote/</a> A specialist on Massachusetts constitutional law said Romney's legal appeal is unlikely to succeed, in part because it is premature. Legislators still have one day to vote on the same-sex marriage ban on Jan. 2, the last remaining day for current legislators, said Lawrence Friedman, an assistant professor at the New England School of Law. He also said Romney's legal argument is wrong. "That's a lawsuit that is probably a waste of taxpayers' dollars," said Friedman , who filed a legal brief in support of same-sex marriage when it came before the SJC in 2003. He said he is not involved in the current debate. "The constitution doesn't actually require the Legislature to take a vote. It says that they have to discuss it and debate it, and I don't think there is any good argument that there hasn't been a lot of discussion and debate." I guess it's up to the court to make the call.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "The constitution doesn't actually require the Legislature to take a vote. It says that they have to discuss it and debate it, and I don't think there is any good argument that there hasn't been a lot of discussion and debate." I think he's wrong. It says "Final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays". I don't see anywhere where it says it needs to be discuss and debated.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, apparently the Mass. legislature has done this exact parliamentary procedure before, and it hasn't been deemed unconstitutional: <a href="http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=146784" target="_blank">http://www.metrowestdailynews. com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=146784</a> (This is a pretty balanced piece, with time given to people who both agree and disagree with the legislature not voting on things. But there's no question they've done this before.)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well, apparently the Mass. legislature has done this exact parliamentary procedure before, and it hasn't been deemed unconstitutional> It doesn't sound like it's been challenged. Hopefully the courts will tell the Legislature it's not acceptable.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> "Did John F. Kennedy have to disavow the more unpopular policies of the Catholic Church?" Actually, kind of, yes. He had to state that he would not follow the dictates of the Pope in making decisions regarding public policy while President. That's not the same thing as disavowing the Catholic Church. And Romney has likewise said that the LDS church will not tell him how to do his job. By the way, over history, Catholics, Protestants and evangelicals have owned slaves. Mormons did not own slaves. Why is it that a Mormon candidate is the only one you call on to address the issue of religion and race? >>> And Mormons were A-ok with this and made almost zero effort from within the faith to change the policy Not true. Top Mormon leadership pleaded with God on multiple occasions, decades before the 1970s, to have the prohibition lifted. They felt it was not yet the right time. You can disagree with that, and I won't criticize you for it. But it has no bearing on the job Romney would do as president. The leaders of the LDS church, in the day, were no different towards black people than were typical of that time. They were no more "racist" than the views of Abraham Lincoln. There is no doubt that, given today's sensibilities, there are aspects of the policy that cause discomfort. They did back in the 70s, 60s, and 50s. But back in the 1800s, viewed in the context of 1800 sensibilities, LDS policy was "progressive" (liberal, if you will) and the LDS church got itself into hot water with the majority of the population for the manner in which it treated black people with acceptance. >>> To a non-Mormon, your post essentially says "Mormons believed blacks and Indians were going to hell so they were kind enough to go out and teach the truth to these ignorant people. But they weren't about to let them have leadership positions or be equal with other people in the Church." Nothing I wrote says anything close. The same goes for church leadership. You are crafting your own views, and ignoring the vast majority of comment from LDS church leadership on matters of race, from Joseph Smith to the present day. You aren't even close, either in substance or in tone. You are not holding Mitt Romney to the same standard as everyone else. Everyone as ancestry and religious history that is at odds with the way we generally think today. But you single-out today's Mormons as needing to trash their own faith in order to appease you. Clearly, I can't change your mind. But I can point-out your double-standard. >>> Who did the message go to? The LDS church is led by a president. He is considered a prophet, as Moses was. There is a body of twelve apostles who lead with him, but it is the prophet and church president who makes policy. The first prophet of the LDS church was Joseph Smith, and he was succeeded by Brigham Young. Just as Moses, LDS people do not believe their current prophet (Gordon B. Hinckley) is perfect. Like scriptural prophets, they have their own failings, and personal views with which people might disagree. Yet they do believe he is entitled to receiving instruction from God for the entire church. His scope of authority does not go beyond the church. The prophet receives instructions in whatever way God desires. There is no set way, but the church teaches that everyone can receive revelation from God for their own scope of authority (a local congregation, a family, a child), and it usually comes through very strong but quiet impressions ... not (as people mockingly joke) by mail, or phone call, or trumpets and singing choirs. The church does not involve itself in politics beyond giving its opinion on issues it considers of serious moral consequence (gambling, same-sex marriage, etc.) On those moral issues, they have come down on both the "conservative" and "liberal" sides over the years. It does not endorse candidates. >>> 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. Then the vast amount of Christian and Jewish history would bug you. God had the ancient Hebrews wait, in captivity in Egypt, for hundreds of years, before Moses delivered them, according to scripture. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ made it clear that his mission was only to the Hebrews. The vast majority of "Gentiles" (non-Jews) would have to wait for his message, and they did. Of course, no one likes waiting. But to characterize the idea of God doing things on his timetable as some quirky, weird Mormon thing is not accurate at all. It's a huge part of Judeo-Christian history. It does require a leap of faith, which is why some people are not religious. And that's fine. >>> 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. I agree with the first part of your statement, sort-of. I acutally think the evidence shows that the general population was more racist, because of their actual persecution of blacks. Mormons were, and have always been, against slavery and persecution of anyone. What you are asking Mormons to do is not to disavow a policy. You are trying to back us into a corner, and force us to disavow our faith, and our God. You clearly will not be content until you coerce Mormons to turn their back on their faith. So of course, that isn't going to happen. I wish there had never been a such a priesthood prohibition, but I am not wild about Noah's flood either. It wasn't what I would have done if I had been calling the shots, but I wasn't. God was. He makes a number of decisions I wouldn't ... WE wouldn't. But I don't tell God what to do. Viewed in the context of religious history, the Mormon church policy has clear precedent. Are you condemning all Christianity and Judaism? Are you calling for Christian and Jewish candidates to repudiate the New Testament and the Torah, which DO have racist and discriminatory themes? If not, then you are practicing a double standard. Clearly, Romney won't get your vote for anything. But I don't think for a minute the rest of the country (even in the media) are going to be so insistent to see Romney speak ill of his faith before they give him their vote of confidence. Most people want to know that a candidate is a good, responsible, honest man who will run the country well, keep a budget, and defend us against harm. In those regards, Mitt Romney is as good as any other candidate, or even better.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper I would also point-out that no gays or gay advocates that I know of support the extension of marriage 'rights' to polygamists. When asked if they support the extension of marriage rights to anyone who asks for them (i.e. polygamists), gay rights advocates get very angry. They say it's a red-herring, and it's not even close to the same thing. So either they say that marriage has to be defined in terms of number, but not gender, or they refuse to directly address the issue at all. The point is that gay rights advocates say that government is not obligated to legally acknowledge any lifestyle ... except the ones they want acknowledged (their own). That's fine. If they don't want government to support polygamy, I'm okay with that. But they are obligated to stop labeling as 'bigots' anyone who opposes governmental sanction of same-sex marriage on the same grounds. Again, it all comes down to a matter of holding a double-standard.
Originally Posted By ecdc Hyper, it's abundantly clear you only read my posts to respond, not to learn. For example: >>Clearly, Romney won't get your vote for anything.<< You say this despite the fact that I said: >>Depending on who he's up against, I'd have no problem voting for Mitt Romney. I'm bothered most by his anti-gay position, but we'll be hard-pressed to find someone who's much better. Even if a Democrat is elected, they won't do anything to further gay rights for fear of being unpopular. Romney's a sharp leader with a pretty well proven track record.<< So your post is way off base their and you're assuming and reading into things that aren't there simply because you don't like what I have to say. But nice attempt at creating a strawman. You also claim: >>What you are asking Mormons to do is not to disavow a policy. You are trying to back us into a corner, and force us to disavow our faith, and our God. You clearly will not be content until you coerce Mormons to turn their back on their faith. So of course, that isn't going to happen.<< This is just ignorant, hyper - but not surprising. Mormons have that tiresome need to circle the wagons and fall back on the old persecution complex. Mormons are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as somehow against them and their faith. The reality is, Mormons have backed themselves into a corner. As I said, they stubbornly cling to the notion that God was responsible for the Priesthood ban when there's not a scrap of evidence to back it up. Every single teaching about African Americans in Mormonism were simply lifted from Protestantism. There's no scripture to back them up and nothing within their own faith to support the ban. It was a product of the times, period. And because leaders insisted it was God's will, they refused to just change it on their own. I'm not asking anyone to disavow their faith - that's nonsense. I'm not asking my grandfather, who goes and works in the Salt Lake Temple every Monday and Thursday, to disavow his faith. I'm not asking my friends or neighbors to disavow their faith. All I'm doing, and you're turning into the typical Mormon persecution conmplex, is bringing up the things Mitt may have to answer for. And you keep ignoring the fact that if Mitt stands in front of the TV cameras and says that God wanted Mormons to deny blacks the same blessings as white, then best of luck to you and his campaign. You clearly don't get that. You keep doing what I've said all along will sink Romney's campaign - you provide justification after justification, assuming that reasonable people must somehow understand why God justified racism. But non-Mormons don't believe Mormonism (suprise, surprise!) and Mitt will have to reach out to them and possibly explain aspects of his faith to them. >>You are not holding Mitt Romney to the same standard as everyone else. Everyone as ancestry and religious history that is at odds with the way we generally think today. But you single-out today's Mormons as needing to trash their own faith in order to appease you. Clearly, I can't change your mind. But I can point-out your double-standard.<< Nonsense. I'm holding Mormonism to a different standard because they hold themselves to a different standard. They believe everything in their faith comes from God. Therefore, if Mitt Romney believes he doesn't need to be as fair to certain segments of society because of God, that's a valid issue. I said that if Mormons simply acknowledged that their racist past was simply a product of their times then the issue would be dropped or probably not brought up at all. They would be held to the same standard as other faiths who dropped the issue long ago. But Mormons won't do that - they bring the so-called double-standard on themselves. I'm not trying to get anyone to trash their faith. Again, you're trying to claim that I said things I didn't to make yourself feel better about my comments. If I'm an anti-Mormon who's just against the faith, then I'm easy to dismiss. But I won't fit into your neat little worldview so easily. I'm someone who has tremendous respect for much of Mormonism, who finds it to be a powerful, unique faith. I admire Joseph Smith and am simply riveted by his life. My library has over 500 books and journals on Mormonism - including over two dozen books on Joseph Smith alone. It's a rich, remarkable faith. Again Hyper, try dealing with the fact that people who disagree with aspects of Mormonism doesn't equal "disavowing" their faith. No doubt you have plenty that you disagree with in other faiths. Are you trying to get people to disavow their faith because you disagree? I know plenty of Mormons who go to Church every Sunday, who sustain leaders, who are truly Mormon through and through, who also believe that the Priesthood ban was not divine or of God, who happily voted for John Kerry, and who support gay rights. Suggesting that by doing one or any of these things is trying to get someone to disavow their faith is absurd.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Biblical events/beliefs from the book of Exodus is a little different than things that happened in the 1970s! <<God had the ancient Hebrews wait, in captivity in Egypt, for hundreds of years, before Moses delivered them, according to scripture.>> I suppose saying that they were waiting for God to give them permission to leave Egypt is one way to look at it. I understand the concept of things happening according to God's will...but I think God gives us free will to do the right thing at the beginning. In this case, it was apparently God's will to treat Black's unequally until the president (a human being) decided to tell people that God had changed his mind. People have the ultimate control over how they treat others this world, not God. People's belief in God may or may not affect how they treat people, but ultimately, people have free will. I'd respect them more if they just stated that they were wrong (along with millions of other people throughout history) instead of saying that God finally gave them permission (God changed his mind!) to treat Blacks equally.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The point is that gay rights advocates say that government is not obligated to legally acknowledge any lifestyle ... except the ones they want acknowledged (their own). That's fine. If they don't want government to support polygamy, I'm okay with that. But they are obligated to stop labeling as 'bigots' anyone who opposes governmental sanction of same-sex marriage on the same grounds. Again, it all comes down to a matter of holding a double-standard.> No it doesn't. It comes down to a matter of insisting on equality. Right now, straight people can have one legal spouse of their choice. Great. That's all I want. Equality. If we want to have polygamy in this country, that's a separate debate. If we have it, we should have it for straights and gays alike. Again, equality. Sexual orientation is intrinsic to the individual; polygamy is merely a social arrangement. If a straight man is legally allowed one wife or five or 100, he's still straight. The law would change - he wouldn't. And if I'm allowed one legal husband, or 5, or 100, or (as at present) zero - I'm still gay. That's why it makes sense to compare gay people and straight people, which are both intrinsic and two sides of the same coin, but not gay people and polygamous people, as one is intrinsic and one is not.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That's not the same thing as disavowing the Catholic Church." Acutally, it kind of is.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Every single teaching about African Americans in Mormonism were simply lifted from Protestantism.>> This is a very interesting point and I suspect it is probably true. What is curious to me is that Joseph Smith (if I recall correctly) was actually very friendly to African Americans and allowed them admission into the church when it was indeed politically incorrect to do so. I also recall him receiving much grief for this among many members. I wonder if the decision to withhold priesthood and other “blessings†was in part to pacify the contingent of members offended by having to share church services with a **gasp** negro. Anyhow, I certainly understand the questions which could arise in the event of a Romney presidential run i.e., African American and women discrimination issues, etc... I wonder though if he would be the right sounding-board for such questions. First of all, he is not a spokesman of the church and had no role in these decisions whatsoever. Second, the role of these religious edicts seems not to have played any significant part of his executive decisions. For example, almost half of his cabinet in the State of Massachusetts is female, so he obviously feels that women in political or secular leadership is perfectly acceptable. Frankly, if these distasteful activities are not criminal, nor will play a role in Romney’s executive decisions, should they matter?
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I should phrase something in my previous post. “…having to share church services with a **gasp** negro.†I understand that the term “negro†is racially charged and I hope I didn’t offend anyone. I was trying to convey this ideal from their perspective while pointing out its ridiculousness. It would have been more clear to have said: “…having to share church services with **gasp** ‘a negro’.â€
Originally Posted By ecdc I largely agree, tiggertoo. I just wonder if Romney's opponents would seize on the opportunity to challenge him and I personally think the only right answer would be "I'm not a spokesman for the church but I strongly believe in equality and diversity." If really pressed to say whether he agreed with the church's position or not, then I'd hope he would say no. Joseph Smith not only allowed Blacks into the church, he allowed Black men like Elijah Abel to have the priesthood. He was extremely progressive for the time. Brigham Young, on the other hand... He adopted Protestant racism and made the ban policy but never claimed a revelation on the subject. He had all sorts of good racist (but typical for the 19th century) comments.
Originally Posted By fkurucz I wonder what the Apostle Matthew would have thought about all these recist issues. I ask because he went to Africa and founded what is known today as the Coptic Church.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I largely agree, tiggertoo. I just wonder if Romney's opponents would seize on the opportunity to challenge him > I doubt it. I can't see them challenging him on his religion explicitly or expecting him to be a spokesman or to explain the church's policies over the years. I can't see McCain doing that, or Guiliani. Brownback? Slightly more possible, but still unlikely. Shadowy, "swift boat"-like groups indulging in their own ads and/or whisper campaigns? Definitely more likely, but still not a sure thing. I think the problem Romney would have with him Mormonism is just plain old garden-variety bias, largely UNspoken; the sort where person A just would not vote for a Mormon for president no matter what, the same way they wouldn't vote for a Jew no matter what. It's definitely there, and it's not because person A has given a great deal of thought to Mormonism or Judaism, or examined anything in depth - on the contrary, it's largely because he has not.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<…he allowed Black men like Elijah Abel to have the priesthood.>> Really? I do recall Elijah Abel but I didn’t recall that he or other black men were given the priesthood (but then its been more than a decade since I studied church history). Were they also allowed into the Kirkland or Nauvoo temples during this time?
Originally Posted By ecdc They were, although the temple was quite different then. Abel was a Seventy and a missionary - all things that a Black Mormon could not do in 1977, ironically. The best sources are Lester Bush's Dialogue article and Armand Mauss and Newell Bringhurst's work on African Americans in the church.
