Videos from the Church on Prop. 8

Clips from Church’s broadcast:

Elder Bednar discusses Proposition 8:

This entry was posted in General by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B has had three main careers. Some of them have overlapped. After attending Stanford University (class of 1985), he worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. In 1995, he took up his favorite and third career as father. Soon thereafter, Heavenly Father hit him over the head with a two-by-four (wielded by the Holy Ghost) and he woke up from a long sleep. Since then, he's been learning a lot about the Gospel. He still has a lot to learn. Geoff's held several Church callings: young men's president, high priest group leader, member of the bishopric, stake director of public affairs, media specialist for church public affairs, high councilman. He tries his best in his callings but usually falls short. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

10 thoughts on “Videos from the Church on Prop. 8

  1. Interesting videos. Thanks for posting these, Geoff.

    I have a concern about the argument (articulated about halfway through the first video by the young blonde woman) that “four judges overturned the will of a majority of the people.” However, that is exactly the job of the judicial branch — to strike down laws passed by the legislature or by ballot initiative if such laws conflict with the constitution, even if a wide majority of the population supports those laws. That’s the wisdom of our American political system: We are not held to “mob rule.”

    It’s pretty clear the majority of Alabama residents believed in segregated schools, but that doesn’t mean Brown v. Board of Education was just a bunch of “activist judges” overturning “the will of the people.”

  2. There was some tyrannical stretching of the constitution by 4 judges Mike Parker so now it is up to Californians to make it clear to judges what the constitution says.

    Here is what to expect:
    1. families pull the children out of schools because they don’t appreciate an aggressively gay curriculum.
    2. They stop supporting tax initiatives for the schools
    3. The Courts step in and set tax rates.

    This scenario hasn’t played out yet by step 3 has. Will it take bullets (like it did in 1776) to get leaders to see the light.

  3. WHY CALIFORNIA SHOULD RETAIN CURRENT MARRIAGE STATUTES

    Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine California’s marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in California’s marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.

    When same-sex couples seek California’s approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.

    Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, “it is force”. An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as “marriage” would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. The Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality.

    Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

    If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.

    The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states’ marriage laws must be based on “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”

  4. Yes, religious freedom. A Pastor in Canada has been fined for preaching for traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage. In Sweden, a pastor has been jailed for doing the same.

    In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities (and I assume LDS Social Services) have stopped their adoption services, because the state is requiring them to place children in homosexual households.

    One blogger has said LDS Bishops in California have stopped performing marriages because they are afraid they will be required to perform same-sex marriages.

  5. I was grateful for these videos. Gotta fix the post title though, Geoff. Just seeing the title and the author I skipped past the post until I saw E. Bednar’s name and put it together with the news of the fireside on Prop 8.

  6. mmiles who said anything about a war for independence? Overthrowing tyranny does not mean war for independence.

    The courts are placing a chokehold on the constitution’s division of responsibilities between the three branches of government. Somehow the balance needs to be restored. It can only be done by the other two branches of government working together to restrain the courts or by the will of the people who consent to be governed. But the right of the people to express their will is also being constrained. Do a News Google on ACORN and ask yourself if one man can vote twice and you can only vote once if your rights are not being constrained.

Comments are closed.