LDS Church agrees to be outlawed forever if a majority votes to outlaw it

[msongs]

Listening to the mouthpieces of the LDS church on the radio yesterday and they were consistent and unified.

Each of the three said the same thing (paraphrasing): The ban on gay marriage is the WILL of the MAJORITY in the election and when the majority wins, everyone must comply and the glbt community needs to shut up and go home and quit protesting out on the streets.

By this logic if there is a vote to outlaw and ban the LDS Church, evidently that will be ok with that church so long as a majority votes to outlaw it, and the LDS church and its members will shut up and go home and not protest out on the streets

So, how did majority rule work for the Mormons in the midwest back in the 1800's? Oh, that was bad. What the LDS church is doing now is good, however. Amazing what a little money can do for a religion.

Msongs

[nickgutierrez]

1. As a sidenote: why is California's Constitution amended by mere majority vote?

It seems antithetical to the idea of a democratic repubic that simple majorities can alter something that is the fundamental basis for government. This system is set up as a safeguard against a tyranny of the majority.

[Maat]

4. It's been a big problem for a long time.

However, now, if we correct the problem, at this moment, we will have a harder time repealing Prop. 8!

[nickgutierrez]

9. I figure that's more likely to happen in the courts.

Romer v. Evans, a 1996 Supreme Court case, held that states could not pass amendments to their constitutions that removed laws that banned discrimination against people of "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships".

Ok, that's confusing. Let me try again.

Cities in Colorado passed ordinances banning discrimination against LGBT people. The state passed an amendment to its constitution, throwing those laws out. The Supreme Court then tossed out that Amendment, and allowed the ordinances to stand.

It seems to me that a law banning a right that previously existed, as happened with Prop. 8, is similar enough to this case that there is a pretty clear precedent.

[Maat]

10. I think so!

Now, we need to get a stay - so that Prop. 8 is NOT implemented as it winds through the courts.

I still feel that it is a good idea to make the general public aware that this is a civil rights matter, and that the GLBT community will NOT accept "separate but equal."

[FredStembottom]

14. Thanks, AWW!

Yes. What you say starts some rusty old wheels turning in my under-educated head about laws revoking previously established rights. Thank you, I needed that reminder to help me deal with this Prop 8 awfulness!

:hi:

[drm604]

6. I've wondered the same thing.

Why even have a constitution? If it can be changed by a simple majority then it's no different than regular laws. I thought that one of the main points of a constitution (along with laying out the architecture of government) was to have a set of basic principals that couldn't be changed by a simple majority of either the legislature or the citizenry.

A constitution is meant to protect certain principals from transient fads. If you open it up to change by a simple majority than you're risking the destruction of the basis of government.

[nichomachus]

12. It's a case of unintended consequences

Many many years ago, big money interests had a stranglehold on the California assembly (so, what else is new). Legislators would do only what the robber barons told them to do (so, what else is new). The whole proposition thing was designed to give the people more direct input into lawmaking, since they could circumvent the stranglehold. I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.

However, it's been corrupted to the point where people with enough money can get a confusing proposition put on the ballot -- sometimes a lot of them -- and then the vote goes to whoever has enough money to put out the slickest ads.

Except in a very few cases, most people don't know what they're voting for. And, in cases like Prop H8, people vote on the basis of a well-funded campaign of lies and fear-mongering.

[curse of greyface]

15. Lets not forget their own hatred and bigotry.

I think letting the voters of California (or Arkansas or Florida) of the hook completely cause they are easily confused and don't know their own hatreds is naive and dangerous.

[Maat]

2. Well, yes, someone was quoted in the San Diego tribune today ..

as saying "the voters have spoken."

O.K., so I can take away his rights now?

[lapfog_1]

3. You don't have to ban the church

Just ban the "magic" underwear. They will collectively burst an aneurysm over it.

[TexasObserver]

5. LDS church should be labeled as a HATE GROUP, and dealt with as one.

[knitter4democracy]

7. When they ran into bans like that, they left and formed their own state.

So, no, they didn't shut up and go home and not protest. The irony here is massive.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. California is a weird fucking state, period

Sometimes I'm glad I live in New York, where our government is so dysfunctional nothing new ever happens here, good or bad.

[Starry Messenger]

11. So ridiculous.

No one should have to vote on stuff like this. It shouldn't be on ballots. While I would vote against the Mormon religion in a heartbeat because I am pissed as fuck, I realize intellectually that is no way to have a community. Besides, they would just dig deep again and fund the fuck out of the opposition--the money part is what they are being massively dishonest about. That and the secretive ground war they've been waging for years on this issue.

[ourbluenation]

13. The constitution protects the minority against the oppression of the majority...

at least it should. In the meantime, the mormons should lose their tax exempt status.

[FredStembottom]

16. ....or, at least

...the oppression of a simple majority.

Like ballot proposition majorities.

[jonnyblitz]

17. STOP BASHING HATE GROUPS....er...RELIGION!!11

:sarcasm: :hi: