Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Well it turns out that while the Pope was wandering around the U.S. he had a private audience with Kim Davis. It's apparently in line with speeches he made about Religious Freedom. Apparently the right to keep homos from being marriage trumps her being remarried multiple times.


Same shit, different Pontiff.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Ms Davis is to fall under the category of conscientious objector then she should be given the opportunity for alternative service. Soem job other than county clerk...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I find myself unsurprised that the pope is Catholic.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Father Lombardi: Thank you, Holy Father. Now it is the turn of Terry Moran of ABC News, one of the great American networks.

Terry Morgan: Holy Father, thank you very much, and thanks to the Vatican staff as well. Holy Father, you visited the Little Sisters of the Poor, and we were told that you wanted to show your support for the Sisters, also in their court case. Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their personal conscience, comply with certain laws or carry out their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Would you support those of claims of religious freedom?

Pope Francis: I can’t foresee every possible case of conscientious objection. But yes, I can say conscientious objection is a right, and enters into every human right. It is a right, and if a person does now allow for conscientious objection, he or she is denying a right. Every legal system should provide for conscientious objection because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise, we would end up selecting between rights: “this right is good, this one less so”. It is a human right. I am always moved when I read, and I have read it many times, when I read the “Chanson de Roland”, when there were all these Moors lined up before the baptismal font, and they had to choose between baptism and the sword. They had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It’s a right and if we want to have peace, we have to respect all rights.

Terry Morgan: Would that include government officials as well?

Pope Francis: It is a human right. And if a government official is human person, he enjoys that right. It is a human right.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I don't think that can work with an elected official.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Today the Vatican is saying that the meeting was not private and was not an endorsement of Kim Davis and what's she's doing. Somehow I trust their version more than I trust Ms. Davis and her lawyer.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

That’s not out of character for Staver, who was forced to admit last week that a photo he presented at the Values Voters Summit, which he claimed showed a 100,000-person prayer rally to support Davis in Peru, was taken in 2014 and did not, in fact, have anything to do with Davis.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The statement stressed that “the only real audience” — private meeting— “granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.” As CNN reported Friday afternoon, that student, Yayo Grass, happens to be an openly gay man who brought along his partner of 19 years.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square,” Elder Oaks said. “But when acting as public officials, they are not free to apply personal convictions, religious or other, in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices. All government officers should exercise their civil authority according to the principles and within the limits of civil government.”

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder if Oaks got to thinking about all the bad ways Mormons were treated, especially early on, and figured another group of people shouldn't have to go through that.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
To my mind, it's likely the outcome of the Utah War of the 1850s also had something to do with it. While the Mormons managed to avoid major bloodshed in their confrontation with the U.S. Army, the end of the conflict brought the (slow) decline of Mormon power in the western U.S.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
To my mind, it's likely the outcome of the Utah War of the 1850s also had something to do with it. While the Mormons managed to avoid major bloodshed in their confrontation with the U.S. Army, the end of the conflict brought the (slow) decline of Mormon power in the western U.S.

---

Yeah, now they only control Utah, southern Idaho, and bits of Arizona.

---

They certainly don't have the level of control they did in the early 1850s - at that point, Brigham Young was territorial governor, and the government and church hierarchy were virtually indistinguishable. While there are a large number of Mormons in public office in the region, simply due to demographics, it's not the theocratic regime it once was.

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm fond of the opening of a speech of a Utah delegate to a Democratic Convention;
"And from Utah, where the separation of Church and State is exactly one city block...."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And on a less happy note, Mormons sharpen stand against same-sex marriage

Mormons in a same sex marriage are guilty of apostasy and drummed out. Any child of a same sex married family will not be given religious rites until they are over 18 and not living with the family and denounce same sex marriage.

This formalizes the church position against same sex marriage, but it's sad to watch them treat kids that way. Then again, it's probably a pretty toxic place for a kid from a same-sex parent family.

It will be interesting to watch as they turn away part of the next generation of Mormons. It will also be interesting to see if this inspires the Catholic Church to similar actions.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
You'd think they'd WANT to give the kids every religious support that they could, given that they think the parents are living in sin.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not quite. The Mormon decision focuses on one aspect of otherwise practicing faithful.
Your Christian example is about general disregard to the entire belief system.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In response to the turmoil ( a thousand Mormons resigned in a mass rally) the Mormon Church issued a clarification that children of divorced couples who were not residing with a same sex couple could have the benefits of the Church ceremonies.

---

However, this still means that a child living with same-sex parents cannot be baptized if they hadn't been already. Of course, they can always baptized after they die--I'm sure that's comforting for all.

--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!

Posted                      

1. Add something called "matrimony" to the civil code of Kentucky and specify that while anyone can "marry", only opposite sex couples who are married can enter into "matrimony".
   -
2. Remove all benefits currently assigned to "marriage" from Kentucky law and assign those benefits to "matrimony.

quote:

---

The bill is over 450 pages long because, once it defines “matrimony,” it proceeds to add the term throughout all of Kentucky law. For the statutes that define the basic parameters of marriage, duplicate language is added defining “matrimony” by the exact same parameters. But anywhere that the law outlines a privilege, benefit, or responsibility previously made available to marriage, the word “marriage” is replaced by the word “matrimony.”

For example, the bill amends Kentucky statute 216.515, which addresses the rights of residents of long-term care facilities. Where that law grants married residents the right of private spousal visits as well as the right to a shared room with their spouse if they both live in the same facility, HB 572 replaces the word “is married” to “has entered into matrimony.” Thus, the law would only apply to married different-sex couples, not married same-sex couples.

A cursory glance at the long bill suggests that it effectively removes all marital rights from every possible state statute, from parenting rights to insurance rights and so on — reserving these privileges only for couples that have “entered into a matrimony.”

---