This article implies that “natural” is the same thing as “good” or at least “acceptable.” The basic argument that natural equals good or acceptable is constantly repeated in debates about legalizing marijuana, supporting organic produce, lbgt rights, environmentalism, self-interest, and many more. Most of the time people don’t stop to think, “Is natural the same thing as good or desireable?”

Well, it’s not. Whether something is natural or artificial has nothing to do with something’s goodness or badness. Think of unnatural things we do all the time that are usually considered good things: brushing your teeth, paying your taxes, donating to charity, obeying traffic laws, etc. Conversely, think of all the natural things that are usually considered bad (by natural I mean that other primates or animals do it): infanticide, killing sexual rivals, cannibalism, defecating outside, etc.

So, the next time you hear a pothead tell you that marijuana is natural or some soda company claim that it only uses “all-natural” ingredients, remember that natural does not equal good. And, for the sake of intelligent public discourse, please don’t equate naturalness or artificialness with goodness or badness.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

June 16, 2008

Morning Edition

Story #1
State by State: The Legal Battle over Gay Marriage
text size A A A June 16, 2008
As gay couples in California head to the courthouse starting Monday to get legally married, there are signs of a coming storm. Two titanic legal principles are crashing on the steps of the church, synagogue and mosque: equal treatment for same-sex couples on the one hand, and the freedom to exercise religious beliefs on the other.

The collision that will play out over the next few years will be filled with pathos on both sides.

Act One: A Love Story

Harriet Bernstein, mother of two and grandmother of six, realized a few years ago that she was drawn to women. She lives in Ocean Grove, N.J., a quiet beach town known as “God’s Square Mile,” because the land is owned by a Methodist retreat center, formally known as Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

Eight years ago, she went on a retreat with Jewish gay men and lesbians in the Poconos Mountains and met her future wife.

“I took a chance and went up for a weekend of cross-country skiing and ice skating,” Bernstein recalls. “And I saw this lovely lady across a crowded room, as they say in South Pacific, and immediately decided she was somebody I wanted to get to know. And I did.”

“We came together like magnets,” Luisa Paster adds. “We had all our meals together. We went cross-country skiing. And we exchanged phone numbers at the end of the weekend.”

Bernstein and Paster formalized their union last year, a few months after New Jersey legalized civil unions.

Bernstein fetches the wedding album and flips past photos of the rabbi, the cake (adorned with two brides), and various shots of the two outdoorsy, gray-haired women smiling as they stood on the boardwalk in their white tunics and pants.

Paster then reads the invitation to their civil union, emphasizing the ambiguous wording.

“Location to be announced,” she reads. “That’s because we had to send out the invitations before we had final word on whether we could use the pavilion.”

Act Two: The Conflict

The pavilion in question is an open-air building with long benches looking out to the Atlantic Ocean. It is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

“A building very similar to this has been on this site since the late 1800s,” says the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the group’s administrator.

During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.

When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.

“The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman,” Hoffman says. “We’re not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It’s just, that’s where we stand, and we’ve always stood that way, and that’s why we said no.”

The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.

“We were crushed,” she says. “I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful.”

Luisa says that initially, they walked away from the situation. “We were so stunned, we didn’t know what to do. But as we came out of our initial shocked stage, we began to get a little angry. We felt an injustice had been done,” she says.

So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey’s Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.

“Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they’re religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,” Lustberg says. “Religion shouldn’t be about violating the law.”

The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization’s tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.

Now, with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal firm, Hoffman is appealing the case to state court. He says religious freedom itself is in jeopardy.

“And that potentially affects every religious organization in America, not just Christian organizations, but every religious organization. And I get calls from Jewish rabbis who are equally concerned — people from across the spectrum who think it’s a battle worth fighting. And we agree,” Hoffman says.

Act Three: A Nationwide Story

As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.

“What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say ‘No, we’re not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they’re a bad example?” Stern asks.

Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.

A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

And then there’s the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.

On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.

Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: “We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!”

Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.

“A variety of emotions,” she said, holding back tears. “There was a shock and anger and fear. … We were planning a very happy day for us, and we’re being met with hatred. That’s how it felt.”

Willock declined to be interviewed, as did the owners of Elane Photography. At the hearing, Jonathan Huguenin said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.

“We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs,” he said.

The defendants’ attorney, Jordan Lorence at ADF, says that of course a Christian widget-maker cannot fire an employee because he’s gay. But it’s different when the company or a religious charity is being forced to endorse something they don’t believe, he says.

“It’s a very different situation when we’re talking about promoting a message,” Lorence says. “When it’s ‘We want to punish you for not helping us promote our message that same-sex marriage is OK,’ that for me is a very different deal. It’s compelled speech. You’re using the arm of the government for punishing people for disagreeing with you.”

In April, the state human rights commission found that Elane Photography was guilty of discrimination and must pay the Willock’s more than $6,600 attorneys’ fee bill. The photographers are appealing to state court.

In the meantime, they wonder whether all the hassle is worth it and whether they should get out of the photography business altogether.

Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum says it is a compelling case of what happens in a moment of culture clash. Feldblum, who is an active proponent of gay rights, says the culture and state laws are shifting irrevocably to recognize same-sex unions. And while she knows it’s hard for some to hear, she says companies and religious groups that serve the public need to recognize that their customers will be gay couples.

“They need to start thinking now, proactively, how they want to address that. Because I do think that if a gay couple ends up being told their wedding cannot be filmed, five couples will not sue, but the sixth couple will.”

And as one legal expert puts it, the gay couples “would win in a walk.”

Story #2
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group’s view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, “parachurch” organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill “condoning discrimination” — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state’s highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City’s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls’ parents sued, saying the school was violating the state’s civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state’s civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee’s religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association’s tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city’s marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts’ leases. Meanwhile, the mayor’s office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts’ $1-a-year lease for a city building.

My surprise came from the fact that, even in a very liberal environment, there were still several people who did not support all aspects of LBGT rights. With incidents like this happening, is it any surprise that polls seem to constantly overstate support for same-sex marriage and other LBGT issues? These students clearly had an interest in endorsing the LBGT agenda, but they didn’t.

There is historcal reason to worry about the government redefining marriage as well. In the late 1800′s, when the federal government outlawed bigamy and polygamy, Mormons who supported polygamous marriages were stripped of several basic rights. Via the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, Mormon women were stripped of their right to vote, people were penalized for refusing to testify in court, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was unincorporated, and several Mormon men were imprisoned. Utah and other Western territories were later forced to include prohibitions on polygamy in their state constitutions. For more information on these historical events, check out the following wikipedia articles: Edmunds Act, Edmunds-Tucker Act, History of civil marriage in the USA, History of Utah.

Most advocates of same-sex marriage argue that religious organizations would never be forced to perform same-sex marriages. That may (or may not) be true, but the issue is broader than that. Will religious wedding photographers be forced to photograph same-sex ceremonies? Will religious people be able to find public education that doesn’t indoctrinate their children with the idea that same-sex marriage is a positive thing? Will university professors, businesspeople, and others be able to publically hold the view that same-sex marriage is immoral without being sued or fired?

These questions are not fearmongering. They are based in actual events and questions like these are one of the reasons many religious people are concerned about efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

This incident backs up same-sex marriage opponents’ claim that they will face religious discrimination should same-sex marriage be legalized. If a professor cannot respond honestly to students who ask what their opinions are because those opinions are influenced by religious beliefs, than the first amendment is being violated. This incident took place in a public institution in a state where same-sex marriage isn’t even legal. I doubt the professors extremely mainstream religious beliefs would have been tolerated any more had same-sex marriage been legal in Illinois.

Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-uofill-instructor,0,7203504.story?track=rss ;
HuffingtonPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/kenneth-howell-fired_n_643270.html

The Devil doesn't even look like Mitt Romney

Without getting in too deep, I just want to point out that people who criticize the LDS Church rarely are criticizing the Church as Mormons see it. Usually they find their anti-Mormon material by delving into quotes from prominent Mormons that were never accepted by the worldwide church as doctrine. These quotes are usually representations of the opinions of those men (they are almost always men), but are not believed or taught by the vast majority of the Church. There are several examples and if you read the articles you’ll find a couple.

The other strategy they take is representing what to most people is an unoffensive doctrine in the most offensive way possible. An example of this is the ever popular “Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers.” When many people read that statement they seem to conclude that Mormons think Jesus and the Devil are somehow similar or that the devil is somehow viewed positively or worshipped in Mormonism. That conclusion could not be further from the truth. Mormons actually believe that Jesus and the Devil are as opposite as possible. Jesus has a glorified and perfected body, is the Father of righteousness, and is the way to eternal salvation. The devil has no body, is the father of lies and wickedness, and is the way to eternal damnation. The reason Mormons technically believe they are brothers is that they believe that Jesus, angels, people, and demons are all children of God; but that the devil and demons rebelled against our Heavenly Father and were cast out of Heaven. We do not worship the devil and view Lucifer as the epitome of wickedness, evil, and deceit.

Granted, the belief that angels, people, and demons are all children of God is distinct from traditional Christianity. However, anti-Mormons intentionally present this belief in a way that leads people to jump to incorrect conclusions about Mormon theology.

My suggestion is to ask a Mormon about what they believe rather than assuming that all Mormons believe what anti-Mormons tell you. They may believe something different than you do, but they don’t worship the devil.

In commenting on accusations that Mormonism is racist, I want to make clear that I do not deny that there are and have been racist Mormons. Mormons, like any other group of people, has its racists. My main contention here is that the theology of Mormonism is not racist and that people who think that other are inferior because of the color of their skin need to repent. Gordon B. Hinckley acknowledged and decried racism in Mormonism when he addressed the worldwide membership of the Church in 2006. A large quote from him is found below:

I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. We are involved in terrible wars with lives lost and many crippling wounds. Coming closer to home, there is so much of jealousy, pride, arrogance, and carping criticism; fathers who rise in anger over small, inconsequential things and make wives weep and children fear.

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

Most of the fuel for accusations that Mormons are racists come from quotes from prominent Mormons. The vast majority of these quotes are taken from publications where these Mormons were expressing their opinions and not the opinions of the Church. The evidence in the HuffingtonPost articles falls into this category. These quotes are from politicians and other figures who happen to be Mormon and their comments aren’t meant to represent the view of the church.

However, there are a few racist comments that have been directed from the pulpit or some other forum to the worldwide membership of the church. None of these comments are or should be considered canonical, and at least one apostle (Bruce McKonkie, now deceased) who is often quoted has apologized and retracted his comments. In order to be considered canonical be the worldwide membership, statements must be received by “common consent” in the Church (see Doctrine and Covenants section 28 where the Lord explains why statements from Hiram Page, a prominent member of the Church, should not be considered canonical). Common consent means that the scripture or statement is presented to the body of the Church and the members raise their right hands to signify their acceptance of the document as scripture. This pattern was followed for all of the LDS canon. The most recent scripture to go through this process is “Official Declaration 2″ located near the back of current versions of Doctrine and Covenants. This scripture extended the opportunity to participate in priesthood ordinances to all worthy male members of the church regardless of race or color. “…every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color” (Official Declaration 2). This scripture also corrected an erroneous interpretation of the scriptures leading some to believe that anyone of African decent would never be able to receive the priesthood.

Here are what the LDS doctrine on race DOES say:

1 Samuel 16:7b “…for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”

Doctrine and Covenants 101:79 “Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.”

2 Nephi 26:33 “For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

I realize that this explaination on race and Mormon theology will be insufficient for some people. If you are not satisfied and want to learn more on this subject, I encourage you to do more research. Some good places to start are wikipedia, lds.org, and ldsgenesisgroup.org. An excellent article on this issue that goes much further in depth than I did here can be found at http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/newhowtoreach.html. It was written to white members of the church by an African-American member of the Church.

If you have questions, please e-mail me or comment. I’ll get back to you as soon as my schedule permits me to.

Image of suspected Arsonist

This is just further evidence that anti-Mormon bigotry is increasing and that anti-Mormons are becoming more brazen.

Past anti-Mormon activities have included sending suspicious white powder to temples, vandalism, and the publication of anti-Mormon books, websites, and movies. Anti-Mormonism reached its worst point in the 1800′s with Missouri Governor Bogg’s extermination order and the Mormon War. Check out the links below to learn more.

White powder:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27707413/ ; http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/14/local/me-mormon14 ; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403508.html

Vandalism: http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/38016

Anti-Mormon media: just Google “Mormon” and find whatever anti-Mormon stuff you want.

The Extermination order and the Mormon War (there are three listed on wikipedia) are explained on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_order ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Mormon_War#The_.22Mormon_War_in_Illinois.22_and_the_Mormon_Exodus ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_(1838)

I’m personally glad that the Church is standing by its principles on this one. Let some AM station pick up Hannity.

Here’s the link to the article:

http://www.rbr.com/radio/25461.html

The article is quoted below in its entirety.

The Threatened Demise of Religion in the Public Square – Talk Given by Elder Lance B. Wickman at J. Reuben Clark Law Society

——————————————————————————–

Print Email Article

——————————————————————————–

23 March 2010 The following is a transcript of a talk given by Elder Lance B. Wickman, a member of the Seventy, at J. Reuben Clark Law Society on 11 February 2010.

Introduction

My dear brethren and sisters, it is a great honor to have been invited to speak to you tonight as the curtain goes up on the 2010 annual meeting of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society. It has been my honor to do so on a number of other occasions. When I was invited to speak to you again this year, I was not sure whether that resulted from (a) the fact that the officers of the law society turn over every year without sufficient institutional memory or (b) an overabundance of courtesy and generosity. For whatever reason, I am honored by this opportunity.

As I travel about in my current capacity as a General Authority of the Church and as the general counsel of the Church, I often hear this question: What is the greatest challenge faced by the Church? I suppose there are a number of candidates for an answer—a continuing rapid growth that makes retaining new converts a top priority or perhaps finding and training local leaders. But from where I sit, the greatest challenge faced by the Church is the challenge to religious liberty that is growing worldwide. These challenges have a number of faces—from galloping secularism in some places, to the dominant sectarian or non-Christian religions in other places, to authoritarian governments that feel threatened by religion in still other places. I have chosen to address one aspect of this challenge to religious liberty that I believe confronts us here in our own country. And so I have entitled these remarks “From Plaza to Postage Stamp: The Threatened Demise of Religion in the Public Square”

UK Equality Bill

For the past year, the United Kingdom’s Labour government has been seeking to consolidate and strengthen the UK’s antidiscrimination legislation—specifically with respect to homosexuals. Labour’s so-called Equality Bill would have labeled—and forbidden—a church’s employment practice of requiring its employees to adhere to its moral standards. In the case of the Church, this legislation would have prohibited the application of a temple recommend standard of employment. Worthiness for a recommend is a prerequisite to virtually all Church employment and is vitally important to the work of the Church.

At the eleventh hour a coalition of churches—including our Church—was instrumental in persuading the House of Lords, in a very close vote, to amend the Equality Bill so as to adequately circumscribe its application to churches and preserve our recommend standard. That bullet was dodged—but barely!

Notwithstanding, the Pope decried the bill as an unfair assault on people and organizations of faith. In substance, he said that the most fundamental rights of freedom of conscience—what we Latter-day Saints refer to as “free agency” or “moral agency”—were being forced to give way to social rights.

One British commentator endorsed the Pope in an article entitled “The Pope is Right About the Threat to Freedom.”[i] Said he: “There are times when human rights become human wrongs. This happens when rights become more than a defense of human dignity, which is their proper sphere, and become instead a political ideology, relentlessly trampling down everything in their path. This is happening increasingly in Britain, and it is why the Pope’s protest against the Equality Bill, whether we agree with it or not, should be taken seriously.”

He added that “using the ideology of human rights to assault religion risks undermining the very foundation of human rights themselves.”

Sadly, the specter of such an assault is looming large in the United States as well.

Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez

Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez will be argued in the United States Supreme Court this spring. In that case, the Hastings College of the Law (affiliated with the University of California) denied on-campus recognition to CLS because CLS requires voting members and officers to adhere to its “Statement of Faith,” which rejects homosexual conduct among other things. This membership standard is counter to Hastings’ nondiscrimination policy, which includes sexual orientation.

CLS filed suit in federal court in San Francisco in 2004. Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit rejected its claim. The United States Supreme Court now has accepted certiorari.

Hence, a battle is looming over the effort to acquire civil social rights at the expense of civil religious rights. This battle represents the acceleration of a disturbing slide downward in the law regarding the place of religion in the public square.

Elder Oaks’ Benchmark Address

Elder Dallin H. Oaks chose a devotional at BYU-I last fall as the venue to deliver an address on this very subject.[ii] That address promises to become a classic—a benchmark. Here are some excerpts from that talk:

“Speaking of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the ‘free exercise’ of religion—our sometimes-stated ‘first freedom,’ [one author] said, ‘[U]nless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom?’

“A writer for The Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be ‘very secular and religiously antagonistic,’ with intolerance of Christianity ‘ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.’ Other wise observers have noted the ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by forces who reject the existence or authority of God. The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing. The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom.”

Elder Oaks continued:

“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . . For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening. For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8: ‘I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.’ ”

And then he said:

“A [significant] threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged ‘civil right’ of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage. We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to ‘deny’ people or ‘strip’ people of their ‘rights.’ After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.”

Brief Review of Landmark USSC Religious Liberty Cases

I would like to now very briefly trace the evolution of the law of religious liberty as articulated by the United States Supreme Court over the past 60 years. It reflects a definite diminishing of the role of religion in the public square and a marked increase in skepticism toward the free exercise of religion. In reviewing briefly these decisions, it is not my purpose to either criticize or commend any decision, much less to further any political philosophy. Rather I wish only to trace the facts of the historical record.

I turn first to key United States Supreme Court interpretations of the Establishment Clause.

I begin in 1947 withEverson vs. Board of Education.[iii] There the Supreme Court held that public funds cannot be used to reimburse parents for the cost of bus transportation to parochial schools, because doing so is a violation of the Establishment Clause. Next came Engle vs. Vitalein 1962. [iv] There an official scripted prayer in public school was held to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. Close on the heels of Engle came Schemp vs. Abbington Township[v] in 1963, where the court held that requiring prayer at all in public school is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Schemp was followed in 1968 by Epperson vs. Arkansas.[vi] Epperson wasboth an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause case. The court ruled that Arkansas’ anti-evolution statute was unconstitutional as an interference with the free exercise of religion. It is worth noting that the Free Exercise Clause was used as a sword to strike at religion instead of a shield to protect it. The court also held per the Establishment Clause that government cannot take sides on such matters as evolution.

In 1980, the court decidedStone vs. Graham.[vii] It ruled that the required posting of the Ten Commandments on the wall of every public school room lacked a valid legislative purpose and thus violated the Establishment Clause. The statute was not saved by a “small print” notation on the posted statement that it fostered a legislative purpose because the Ten Commandments reflect the values of Western civilization. Neither was it saved because of private donations to pay for the postings.

To be true to all the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area, mention must be made of the 1983 case of Marsh vs. Chambers.[viii] There the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer in Nebraska was held not to violate the Establishment Clause or the 14th Amendment, even though the same denomination had offered the prayer for 16 years. The court noted that this is a practice that has been observed in the U.S. Congress for more than 200 years and in many states for more than 100 years. It is part of the “fabric of society.” Moreover, said the court, the framers made it clear that they did not intend the Establishment Clause to apply to the practice of legislative prayers.

However, Marsh represents only a minor detour in the steady march toward constricting the sphere of religious expression in the public square. Two years later, in Wallace vs. Jaffree,[ix] the court struck down an Alabama statute providing for a one-minute period of silent prayer or meditation as a violation of the Establishment Clause because there was no secular purpose in doing so. After Wallace, prayer of any kind—even silent, private prayer—was a dead letter in public schools.

The 1987 case of Edwards vs. Aguillard [x]returned to the controversial subject of science vs. religion. A Louisiana statute that required the teaching of “creation science” if evolution was being taught was held to violate the Establishment Clause because it had no secular purpose. The court stated that the law endorsed religion by teaching that a “supernatural being” was the Creator.

In County of Allegheny vs. ACLU[xi] —a 1989 decision—thedisplay of a Christmas crèche on the steps of the Pittsburgh Pennsylvania courthouse violated the Establishment Clause because it was on public property and displayed a sign that said “Gloria in excelcis Deo.”

In 1992 in Lee vs. Weisman,[xii] “non-sectarian” prayer by a selected clergyman at graduation exercises was ruled a violation of the Establishment Clause. The court said that the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to separate religion and government. But it must be said that collectively these cases represent not merely a “separation” but an elimination of religion from the public square when government is involved in any way, even if that government involvement is limited to simply providing a forum for religious expression to occur.

Now let us turn to the Free Exercise Clause. Before 1989, the standard for interpreting the Free Exercise Clause was set forth in Sherbert vs. Verner.[xiii] In substance, that standard was that in order for a government rule or regulation to override a religious practice, the government had to demonstrate that the rule furthered a “compelling governmental interest” by “the least restrictive means” possible. The burden rested on the government. The effect of this rule of interpretation was to place the free exercise of religion on a pedestal.

Then in 1990 came a sea change. Smith vs. Employment Division[xiv] turned the Sherbert rule on its head and declared that a government rule would be upheld so long as it was “neutral and generally applicable” to everyone. Further, the burden was placed on religion to demonstrate otherwise. The net effect of Smith was that free exercise was knocked from its pedestal into the street to compete with all other interests. But cast into that street, religion is now increasingly at risk of being trampled underfoot.

All of this brings us full-circle to Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez.[xv] As I have previously mentioned, the question in Martinez is whether social and cultural interests can trump free exercise and free speech and association rights. Hastings’ policy not only impairs religious freedom, it also purports to narrow still further Establishment Clause rubric. The dimensions of the public square where religious activities can be tolerated are constricting. As one commentator has said, “the Left is trying to create a right that destroys a right.”

Perry vs. Schwarzenegger

If these cases have left religion in the public square dazed and on the ropes, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger—now pending in federal district court in San Francisco—threatens to deliver the knock-out punch. Perry seeks a court declaration that as a matter of law, religious views may not be used to justify the denial of a social civil right. Earlier cases have chased prayer and religious symbols from the square. Now, this case would drive religious opinions off as well.

All here are familiar with the now-famous Proposition 8 battle in California. In the November 2008 general election, the California electorate, by a significant vote margin, adopted an initiative measure that placed the following statement in the California Constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is legal or recognized in California.” This language was the same language that had been adopted by the voters in 2000 in another initiative measure—Proposition 22—as a part of the California Family Code. However, in May 2008 the California Supreme Court declared the Family Code language unconstitutional, pursuant to the equal protection provision in the California Constitution, in its decision in In re Marriage Cases.[xvi]

While the Proposition 22 Marriage Cases were matriculating through the California state courts, a group of concerned citizens banded together to form a coalition known as ProtectMarriage.com to circulate a petition that would put the Family Code marriage definition into the California Constitution. Shortly after the California Supreme Court handed down its landmark Marriage Cases decision in May, the California Secretary of State certified Proposition 8 for the November 2008 ballot.

After the voters adopted Proposition 8, a petition was immediately filed in the California Supreme Court by Proposition 8 opponents seeking to declare the vote invalid on procedural grounds. However, in June 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 had been validly adopted by the voters.[xvii] Proposition 8 had trumped the California’s Supreme Court’s decision in Marriage Cases.

As dramatic as these events in California had been, it has now become clear that the drama was only beginning. The day after the California Supreme Court announced its decision validating Proposition 8, two of the most prominent lawyers in the country—Theodore “Ted” Olson and David Boies—held a press conference in Los Angeles to announce the filing of a challenge under the United States Constitution to Proposition 8. Perry vs. Schwarzenegger was filed in federal district court on behalf of two homosexual couples—one male and one female—who allege that the passage of Proposition 8 denied them the opportunity to marry and that this denial was a violation of their rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.

The plaintiffs in Perry base their claim primarily on three U.S. Supreme Court decisions—Loving vs. Virginia,[xviii] Romer vs. Evans,[xix] and Lawrence vs. Texas.[xx] Time tonight does not permit reviewing further the argument that these plaintiffs are attempting to stitch together based on these cases. Suffice it to say that they make essentially two arguments. First, they claim that gays are a suspect class and that denying them the right to marry cannot be justified under the 14th Amendment. Second, they assert that allowing voters in California to be influenced by faith-based advocates or arguments in adopting Proposition 8 is an insufficient governmental purpose—even under a lesser standard of review—to prevent gays from marrying. Stated differently, they essentially claim that the voters—from whom all authority in a democracy flows—may not consider religious views and values when deciding these alleged social and cultural civil rights.

These are serious allegations and represent an arrow directly at the heart, not only of traditional marriage, but at the place of religion and religious views in the political dialogue of this country. They are made all the more serious because of the exceptionally skilled advocates who are advancing them. Ted Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General, is one of the most accomplished and respected appellate advocates in the country. He has argued more than 50 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. He represented Governor George W. Bush in the landmark case of Bush vs. Gore,[xxi] which made Governor Bush President Bush. His co-counsel, David Boies, is equally respected as a trial and appellate advocate. Mr. Boies represented Vice President Al Gore in Bush vs. Gore. So, we have these two preeminent legal gladiators joining forces to advance the cause of the plaintiffs in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger.

The named defendants in Perry are Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. But since both of these public officials actually support gay marriage and refuse to defend the voter’s decision in Proposition 8, the small band of “citizen soldiers” comprising ProtectMarriage.com once more entered the fray. They were permitted to intervene. Hence, the California voters are being defended in this case, not by public officials elected for that purpose, but by some of their own.

Presiding in the case is Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, a highly respected jurist. Judge Walker has surprised many with his handling of the case. To begin with, he put it on a very fast track for trial, although the complaint was not actually served until last June. He ordered trial to begin—and it actually did begin—on January 11, 2010. Then he indicated, in effect, that he wanted a “show trial.” He wanted the alleged benefits of so-called same gender marriage to be fully vetted through the taking of evidence in his courtroom, and that is what has happened. The plaintiffs have produced a parade of so-called experts—most of them academics—on a variety of issues, ranging from the alleged “political powerlessness” of homosexuals to the purported psychological burdens suffered by gays who are not allowed to marry to the comparative parenting skills of homosexual couples. There was even testimony from a San Francisco official testifying how that city and county would allegedly save money if gays are allowed to marry!

To further amplify this show trial, Judge Walker ordered that it be televised. This ruling was challenged by counsel for the coalition, and the United States Supreme Court reversed that order, stating that it amounted to an inappropriate manipulation of court rules and risked intimidation and harassment for defense witnesses. Nonetheless, Judge Walker still videotaped the trial. Some believe he plans to broadcast it later if and when the court rules can be changed.

The judge also granted a very aggressive, invasive discovery motion by the plaintiffs. His order authorized them to obtain the internal documents of the coalition’s campaign organization, even though these documents reflected mere discussions of strategy and were not communications that were released to or communicated to the public as part of the Proposition 8 ballot campaign. This discovery order was modified to a limited degree by the Ninth Circuit. The circuit court ruled that the internal communications of a handful of people comprising the so-called “core group of individuals” within the coalition were off limits, but everything else was required to be produced. The coalition turned over something on the order of nearly 200,000 documents, most of them e-mails.

The trial is presently in a hiatus. The parties are preparing their proposed findings of fact. After these are received, Judge Walker has stated that he will schedule closing arguments. In all likelihood, this will occur sometime in March. As this case goes to judgment—however it may be decided by Judge Walker—and eventually into the appellate courts, it presents three significant threats:

Marriage. It threatens to replace man-woman marriage with genderless marriage in every state, not just California.
Political Associations and Speech. By allowing invasive discovery of non-public communications within a political ballot measure campaign, it threatens a chilling effect on such associations and speech in future electoral contests.
Religion in the Public Square. And most significantly for my purposes tonight, it threatens to eliminate any discussion of religion in the public square when social or cultural rights are at issue.
CONCLUSION

In January 1793, in a letter to members of New Church of Baltimore, President George Washington made the following observation which seems so very pertinent now:

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty, it is our boast that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the full respect and rights of citizenship to which he is entitled.”[xxii]

And finally, in light of this pungent observation by the acknowledged father of our country, this statement made by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in 1990 reverberates:

“For many of the Founding Fathers, and for many Americans today, religious liberty is the basic civil liberty because faith in God and his teachings and the active practice of religion are the most fundamental guiding realities of life. Thus, for many citizens, religious liberty provides the very reason that all other civil liberties are desired.”[xxiii]