Balancing Rights Requires Wisdom

Dallin Oaks: This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms

 "This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more 
tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting 
pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and 
to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. 

Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but
equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by 
applying labels like “homophobic.”

In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have 
even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homo-
sexual behavior is sinful. 

Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on 
doctrine and principle. 

This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious 
freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach."                                                                                                                     

 Dallin H.Oaks
Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman
 Click here to read entire interview

*Ryan T. Anderson  May 2014  

"Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms...

Indeed, a regime of free association, free contracts, free speech, and free exercise of religion should protect citizens’ rights to live according to their beliefs about marriage. And yet, a growing number of incidents show that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation have created a climate of intolerance, intimidation, and even government coercion for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of a man and woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage.

State laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity (dubbed SOGI) are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

Under such laws, family businesses — especially photographers, bakers, florists, and others involved in the wedding industry — have been hauled into court because they declined to provide services for a same-sex ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs.

Conservatives, indeed all Americans, must work to prevent the passage of such laws and to call our fellow citizens to embrace the best of the classically liberal form of government. Although Americans are free to live how we choose, we should not use government to penalize those who think and act differently."

Can Religious Freedom and Same-Sex Marriage Co-exis

Maurine Proctor - Meridian Magazine

Why? Why can’t we just all get along, respecting each other? Robert P. George, an expert on this topic, from Princeton University, said in a recent lecture, “Gay marriage proponents will not allow for religious freedom of their political opponents because their belief system does not allow for the fact that dissenters can be reasonable people of good will.”

He said that “most of those arguing in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples do not understand, or even know the arguments of those who oppose the redefinition of marriage. They assume there are no reasonable arguments against gay marriage and those who oppose it are simply driven by hatred of gays.

“The whole [gay marriage] argument was and is that the idea of marriage as the union of husband and wife lacks a rational basis and amounts to nothing more than ‘bigotry,’ reflecting animus against a certain group of people,” he said. “Therefore, no reasonable person of goodwill, we are told, can dissent from the liberal position on sex and marriage, any more than a reasonable person of goodwill could support racial segregation and subordination,”

Justice Anthony Kennedy said that same idea in the Windsor decision last year that invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and added that “the principal purpose …of this law [is] to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage.”

What? The principal purpose of a law passed by 85 senators and 342 representatives was to demean a group, rather than to buttress traditional marriage? Certainly one group getting demeaned by this statement was the majority of Congress itself who were defined by the justices as bigoted and petty.

But there you have the very reason that those who rally for same-sex marriage and those who stand by traditional marriage are in a zero sum game. The idea goes that if you are the hateful and the bigoted, you have to be wiped clean of those ideas or hammered into the hidden places of the community. You do not deserve to have those ideas protected in any way, even if they are the result of your deepest religious conviction. What you do deserve is to be fined, disdained, fired, boycotted, or subpoenaed. In their thinking, there can be no excuse for standing for traditional marriage.     CLICK HERE to read entire article