"Gay" in the News: Landmark Legislative Deliberation

In California, and New Jersey, it is now illegal for mental health professionals to mention "gay conversion therapy" to minors, even at the request of parents.  

Because "gays" claim to be "born that way", it is deemed harmful for mental health professionals to try to help them to change their "gender identity".

The argument in California apparently turned on legal quibbling about the distinction between "speech" and "conduct".  Apparently the law can find justification to regulate "conduct", but not from "speech".  Very confusing legalistic nuance.

But in any case it's okay for grade-school children to undergo "transgender" cosmetic surgical procedures - with a note from the parents, of course.

"Gay" in the News: Constitutional Freedom?

Some hail the delay in Indiana as an indicator of a sea-change in attitude.  Perhaps the tide has changed.  People are convinced that deviance is a normal and socially acceptable form of public expression.  To justify this, they promote all kinds of new ideas, such as "gender identity", and the notion that their ideas of "marriage equality", which basically appears to be an approach to government-enforced anarchy, somehow represents newly discovered Constitutionally protected freedom.

"Gay" in the News: Don't Need No Stinking Trials

"Gay marriage" proponents in Idaho now use this rationale in appealing to judges for "justice" absent any need for an actual trial.  Since we all know how inevitable this sentiment, an actual trial is just a bother and a waste of time.  Again, the claim that this is a Constitutional rights issue, but ignores democratic process and goes directly to appeal to federal courts.  It seems to have been quite effective in other places.

"Gay" in the News: Will Not Commit

Mr. Obama is now being characterized as backing away from the "gay marriage" controversy.

Federal judges have recently ruled that Tenth Amendment rights are less compelling than Fourteenth Amendment rights. Apparently Mr. Obama currently disagrees that States Rights are less important, but we are familiar with his history of "evolving" opinions, and "bumps in the road". 

12th Article of Faith: We believe (unless we don't)

Another revealing conversation from Facebook LDS Liberty.  More discussion about ignoring the 12th Article of Faith.

• 

  Nathan A. Coffey

  
  

  As LDS "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." No questions asked, right?
  
  WRONG!!
  
  "And that law of the land WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
  

  
  Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;" D&C 98:5-6
  
  From the October Ensign: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/10/the-voice-of-the-people?lang=eng

  
  

  
  

  The Voice of the People - Ensign Oct. 2012

  www.lds.org
  

  May we be a part of “the voice of the people” that chooses right and blesses our communities and families as a result.

  Share · Yesterday at 7:38am

  • 
    

  • Rachael Campbell Earl likes this.

  • 

    Robin Leota Thank you, Nathan. Can't wait to read it.

    Yesterday at 8:28am · 1

  • 

    Nathan A. Coffey already had a liberal lds friend jump back with "Supreme Court said 'yea' on your law friend....sorry." - funny how she had to come up with the ACA ruling. My post had nothing to do with that specifically.

    Yesterday at 8:34am · 1

  • 

    Rebekah Jacobi Whyte How much you want to bet that guy is voting for romney

    Yesterday at 10:00am · 2

  • 

    Nathan A. Coffey LOL, I totally thought about that Rebekah, in fact I think about that anytime I hear a current church leader mention anything politically related, still has good valid points.

    Yesterday at 10:02am · Edited

  • 

    Suzanna Rickard Nope When two laws contradict each other, which law should you obey? For example, if a local, state, or federal law contradicts or conflicts with the Constitution (which we have been told is the highest law of the land) which law should we obey, which law should we break?

    Yesterday at 10:36am via mobile

  • 

    Rachael Campbell Earl D&C goes on to say that anything more or less than this (the Constitution) cometh of evil. So therein lies the answer.

    Yesterday at 12:11pm via mobile · 2

  • 

    Nathan A. Coffey love that verse Rachael

    Yesterday at 12:16pm · 1

  • 

    Rachael Campbell Earl I want to say it is in D&C 98...that whole chapter is very good talking about the laws of the land vs. the Constitution and what is justifiable before the Lord

    Yesterday at 12:18pm · 1

  • 

    Nathan A. Coffey Yes I've used it a few times this week actually, D&C98:4-7

    Yesterday at 12:21pm · 2

  • 

    Tom N Crystal I find it helpful to take into consideration if members are truly following the Word of Wisdom, too. One of my favorite scriptures to quote is D&C 89:4--"Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—" For many, many years I have listened to the "warned and forewarn you" and have been able to receive further light and knowledge by loving the WOW, not just adhering to the principles of it, but following it by meat sparingly, fruits and veggies in the season thereof, etc. Being a clean vessel allows the Spirit unrestrained access to influence us in all things. Still, you will come across the exceptions...

    Yesterday at 12:44pm · 1

  • 

    Steven Montgomery Suzanna Rickard Nope, see: Laws of God vs. the Laws of Man https://sites.google.com/site/heavenlybanner/laws

    Yesterday at 12:53pm · 1

  • 

    Dan Roberts The Articles of faith are a breif explanation of our beliefs and it is right with two caveats, that is ”while protected in their inherent and unailinable rights, and that sadition and rebellion are unbecoming every saint thus protected". So what is a true saints resposability when he finds himself not protected thusly? :-)

    13 hours ago via mobile · 1

    
    Mention of the fact that the Prophet will direct the Lord's church is conspicuous by its absence.  I admit this is a complicated problem in this day.  But the Lord's instructions are that the voice of the Prophet will guide His church.  He doesn't leave us to make up our minds based on some arbitrary rationale.
    
    One of the prominent articles at LDS Liberty employs careful parsing of the 12th Article of Faith attempting to create revisionist justification for sedition.  The problem that is manifest here again is with advocating something that has never been taught or practiced by Church authorities.