The Respect for Marriage Act passed the threshold needed to begin debate in the Senate.

I could have tacked this onto the existing thread, but that subject line was too good to pass up. :)

Mitt Romney voted for the bill. Mike Lee did not. Shame on him, going against LDS Church Leaders.

I have been puzzled by the LDS support of the bill. There is zero chance the government would decree that churches have to perform same-sex marriages. I mean churches are not required to perform heterosexual marriages. Who they do and don't marry is in no way mandated by the government. Whether the government recognizes the marriage is another issue, but a church can marry somebody for eternity, and the government doesn't care. The govt just rejects the existence of the marriage after death.


The only rationale I can see for LDS supporting the "religious liberty" amendment to the act is that they, notably Dallin Oaks, has been harping on "religious liberty" exceptions to laws - like the archetypal refusal to sell gay wedding cakes. Their goal with this act is to establish precedent for so-called religious liberty exceptions, even though there is no need for such an exception in this case.

IOW, they are playing the long game. They want to establish in law that religious belief gives one the right to discriminate. The church already has that right, but I am sure they would like that right extended to church schools like the BYUs, and to individual members in their private businesses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2022 05:09PM by Brother Of Jerry.

What? We here on RFM acted?! Har.

I think the church might be glad they have a conservative senator and a crazy senator. That way the bases (meant two ways) are covered.

Like with evolution, I think the church will remain very fuzzy on this topic so people don't really know what is acceptable in or out of the church. Every member can point to the GA or Mormon Senator who holds whatever view they want to remain active.

I think you might be right that the bigger move is to become even more discriminatory in the name of religion. Getting favors and breaks for religion is a huge goal and problem as it is already.

Mitt is no hero. He knows what he needs to do to get the alliances and special interests he favors. The fact Lee got reelected again is chilling enough.

The church is being very cleaver here. They are disarming the negative perception while protecting the core religious beliefs. This will work because society cares about marriage equality. They don’t give a rat’s ass about obscure temple ceremonies.

The SLTrib did an article on some of the comments on their story about the LDS Church support of the bill. Some comments were very supportive.

Some comments basically held that LDS Inc has gone all squishy-liberal since it got stomped on for supporting Prop 8. I imagine this would be Maca’s view of their action.

Rusty and company probably lost a few more of the hard-right crowd. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion.

Agree.

Imagine thinking the church has gone all woke and libtard.
Now imagine how far out there do you have to be to think that.

The whole point was to protect religion's right to discriminate.

Yep. Free Man wrote that just yesterday.

In his words, the church has gone all "liberal and woke. The Prophet now instructs members to just do what the all-knowing government tells them."*

Here we have the typical populist extremist, someone who as a farmer sucks at the state's teat like an infant in the Quiet Room, someone who for four straight years applauded every paternalistic and reverse-Robin-Hood fiscal distortion that the Former Guy could devise, someone who applauds judicial activism in historically unprecedented form, complaining that LIBERALS favor the nanny state.

People like that must be crying in their Coco Puffs as they watch their beloved party struggle to regain its footing after a nearly fatal bout of Pyrrhic paranoia and appalling alliteration.



*https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2452216,2453046#msg-2453046

Here's the text of the amendment to the RFM Act that got LDS Inc all tingly. Note the third item and its subitem in particular.

Item 3 is obviously about protecting BYU. Universities are specifically mentioned in the subsection. Benefits to the university not granted because of marriage cannot be withdrawn through this act. My question: can rights and benefits be withdrawn from a university because a student is expelled for getting legally married to a same-sex partner? I am sure the LDS Church's answer is "no", but I am also sure this claim will be tested in court.

Item 2 about churches simply confirms (their word) existing law about churches not being required to marry anyone. It is feel-good boilerplate.

Item 4 about polygamy is interesting too. LDS Inc worried about polygamy getting legalized?




Respect for Marriage Act & Bipartisan Amendment

The Respect for Marriage Act is a narrow but important bill that would do two primary things.

First, it would require the federal government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.

Second, the bill would guarantee that valid marriages between two individuals are given full faith and credit, regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin, but the bill would not require a State to issue a marriage license contrary to state law.

The bill’s sponsors worked with their Senate colleagues and stakeholders to develop an amendment to the House-passed bill to confirm that the bill will not lead to the recognition of polygamous unions and has no negative impact on religious liberty and conscience protections.

The amendment:

• Protects all religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution or Federal law, including but not limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and prevents this bill from being used to diminish or repeal any such protection.

• Confirms that non-profit religious organizations will not be required to provide any services, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

• Guarantees that this bill may not be used to deny or alter any benefit, right, or status of an otherwise eligible person or entity – including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, grants, contracts, agreements, guarantees, educational funding, loans, scholarships, licenses, certifications, accreditations, claims, or defenses – provided that the benefit, right, or status does not arise from a marriage.

[indent] • For instance, a church, university, or other nonprofit’s eligibility for tax- exempt status is unrelated to marriage, so its status would not be affected by this legislation.

• Makes clear that the bill does not require or authorize the federal government to recognize polygamous marriages.

• Recognizes the importance of marriage, acknowledges that diverse beliefs and the people who hold them are due respect, and affirms that couples, including same-sex and interracial couples, deserve the dignity, stability, and ongoing protection of marriage.

The term "full faith and credit" should be redundant since it's already in the constitution and applies to legal status bestowed on individuals. That Congress has to say "we really mean it this time" demeans the constitution and indicates again how far the country has floated from its moorings.

:-(

From the LDS perspective civil marriage is a lower form of marriage. They just decided it was no longer worth the bad publicity to fight against same sex civil marriages because public opinion and the government have accepted the concept.

What the church really cares about is keeping its temple marriages heterosexual and the church is being very cleaver. First. Allow couples to be sealed immediately after a civil marriage. This gets the legal marriage part out of the temple. Once the term marriage is removed you use the term sealing. We were married at such and such reception center but we were sealed in the Draper temple.

Sealing in the public and government eye is a religious ceremony and not a marriage. Then you support legislation for same sex marriage as public relations move. Oh see. We are a nice understanding church.

It’s all PR. The church’s view on homosexuality hasn’t changed. It’s still a sin. If you want that lower civil marriage go ahead. You will be dammed from exaltation because you can’t be sealed in the temple. That’s the real perspective. Ok. Society has changed. We have to put on a nice face. In reality, nothing has changed.

I don’t think this is about protecting the Church’s right to discriminate at all. That right is already secure. It is about protecting BYU’s right to discriminate.

That third item in the amendment was very carefully crafted in language only a lawyer could love, to be bullet proof and to protect universities.

Thanks for this information, BoJ.

It's not a surprise slick Romney would manage to get everyone thinking he is a hero working over the isle while he is actually doing more to protect religion. I do think it is intended to be more than just for BYU when it comes to discrimination.

I wish university accreditation could be expanded or interpreted to combat this. Programs are supposed to be offered equally to all. BYU is already smelling like Liberty University Lite which is not a good look.

Dallin Oaks reminds me of Yosemite Sam in this old clip.

"I'll take your word for it, ma'am."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TaKyB8teIHY

Wondering if the fresh as a flower support for same sex marriage has to do with money. The CBC Fifth Estate show exposed the $1B that was moved out of Canada to BYU, all completely legally under existing Canadian charity legislation. This gift cost Canada $280M in taxes. The show then reported BYU's issues with LGBT people. I am wondering if they now think the Canadian government may change tax/charitable law so that institutions that oppose Canadian Charter rights are ineligible to receive tax deductible contributions. One billion CAD over years seems insubstantial but with declining LDS tithe paying numbers it might matter.
Remember the 'blacks can now hold the priesthood' revelation came when the church and BYU were pressured by the IRS and NCAA.

There is zero evidence that BYU was under pressure from the IRS over Black males and the priesthood. Bob Jones University temporarily lost their tax exemption because their rules specifically prohibited interracial dating, so the university required discriminatory behavior from its students as a condition of enrollment.

BYU was scrutinized under the same standard and came up clean. The priesthood ban was a church policy, not a BYU policy. One did not need the priesthood to enroll at BYU, or to stay enrolled, or to graduate. There was no official policy banning interracial relationships. An interracial marriage would not get the couple expelled or otherwise sanctioned by the university.

The civil rights division of the Justice Department was OK with BYU’s policies.

The Bob Jones University case started in the early 1970s (well before the LDS policy change re priesthood) and they fought it in court until 1983 when the Supreme Court ruled against the university. I just check on the aftermath, and was surprised to see they didn’t fully get their tax exemption restored until 2017.

The persistent urban legend that the IRS gave the church a tap on the shoulder and said they were planning to take away the church’s or BYU’s tax exemption and the Church immediately folded and changed their policy is nonsense.

Had the IRS tried that, especially when Ezra and BKP were alive and well, the Church’s law firm would have gone nuclear defending the Church against the government. That never happened.

There were plenty of other reasons to change the policy. The IRS was not one of them.

I don’t think BYU is on as firm legal ground if there is federal protection of same-sex marriage, and BYU expels students for getting married. The Justice Department might have a problem with that. Hence the LDS support of the amendment to the law, attempting to protect universities.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2022 11:01AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Thanks for the clarification re IRS.

I just had an epiphany wrt the BJU restored tax exemption. They had dropped their interracial dating policy, but for some reason did not reapply for a tax exemption until 2014.

I have no idea how well that reapplication was going, but I noticed that they got their tax exemption back on March 1, 2017. I think that is the same day that the Dakota Access Pipeline received its much protested final permit to complete the pipeline under the Missouri River in North Dakota. [ETA: the pipeline was approved in several steps in Feb and early Mar 2017. None were on Mar 1]

The installation of a new US president 5 weeks earlier may have had something to do with BJU tax exemption approval. It was definitely why the pipeline permit was approved.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2022 12:43PM by Brother Of Jerry.

The paybacks to the supporters seem fairly obvious now, don't they. They expect things for their money and public groveling. Our political system is so bought and corrupt.