McCain, Romney urge Jan Brewer to veto Arizona’s religious freedom bill

posted at 6:41 pm on February 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

So did Arizonan Jeff Flake, but the marquee names here obviously are the last two GOP nominees for president.

Ramesh Ponnuru asks a good question:

Yeah, that’s … interesting. Everyone can understand why a gay-marriage supporter would oppose the bill and everyone can understand why a gay-marriage opponent would support it. You can also understand why someone would support both: Gays should be free to marry and religious believers should be free not to accept an offer to provide services to them. Accommodation and MYOB coexistence, libertarian-style. The fourth position, though, where someone opposes gay marriage but also opposes letting believers decline service is less obvious. Could be that McCain and Romney simply think the bill’s overbroad; they might be fine with a bill that granted a religious exemption from serving at a gay wedding specifically, but they can’t condone one that would let people refuse to serve gays under any circumstance. Or maybe both of these guys, as centrist Republicans, are more supportive of legal gay marriage than they’re letting on and simply haven’t, er, come out yet.

Actually, skip to 1:20 below and you’ll see that neither is true in McCain’s case. He’s brutally frank about why he opposes the bill: The boycotts that ensue could damage Arizona businesses, and right now there’s no stronger Republican champion of business, both in Arizona and elsewhere, than John McCain.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Schadenfreude

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Arizona, as a state, can do what it wants in its borders, despite whatever the NFL may think about it.

I haven’t had time to review the proposed bill, but as I understand it, it seems to just be designed to say, “see those Freedom of Association, Speech and Religion clauses in the First Amendment? Yeah, we really mean those, and we’re passing this say how super serious we are about them.” In a sane world, it would be unnecessary.

If that is the case, it’s the trap that conservatives are forced into – we’re told that “conservatives aren’t active enough”, and that’s taken to mean they don’t “pass enough laws” to push what they want.

But the point of what they want is LESS legislation, not more. The point of what they want is to ENFORCE what ALREADY is on the books, not to trash what works in favor of an untested policy that will cause more harm that good.

The left is the polar opposite – break down existing law, regs, standards, etc. and either leave a chaotic mess or replace it with their own ill-thought substitute, and quickly move on to the next issue when the consequences of their disastrous approach arise (see Obamacare then immigration/minimum wage, etc.).

And it’s the left that forces conservatives to do this, since the left sets the agenda – they urinate all over the Constitution, law or traditional social mores, and thus, conservatives are forced to restate the obvious – “Freedom of Association means what it says”.

It’s beyond frustrating – it’s fighting a tidal wave of liquid stupid/ignorance that keeps pushing us hell bent for leather into new legal and social situations that the left hasn’t even begun to consider the consequences of.

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 9:57 AM

M

cCain, Romney urge Jan Brewer to veto Arizona’s religious freedom bill

Do it for the Children.

ToddPA on February 26, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Now the NFL is blackmailing AZ in the name of sodomy. As penance they have to draft the Queen of Missouri.

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Easily remedied.

Arizona should “see them and raise”, and spin it on the NFL and declare that the State of Arizona doesn’t want to do business with a “greedy tax-exempt corporation/organization” that employs convicted (or accused) dog abusers, child abusers, women-beaters, rapists, murderers, drunk drivers, drug users and thugs, and unless they clean up THEIR organization first, no NFL games will be played in Arizona at all, Cardinals included.

Goes for NFL merchandise, too.

THAT will cause Goodell and the NFL lefties to go “oh”.

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Yeah. Conservative bigots are the new blacks.

lostmotherland on February 25, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Quick legal question – what protected class do homosexuals belong to?

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 10:02 AM

RINO, RNC battle cry….”FOLLOW THE LOSERS”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 26, 2014 at 10:07 AM

According to law profs from across the idealogical spectrum:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/25/Law-Profs-Send-Letter-To-Gov-Brewer-Warn-SB1062-Being-Egregiously-Misrepresented

The law doesn’t actually does not say businesses can discriminate on religious ground.

And I’ve also read that gays aren’t a protected group in AZ anyway so…?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Old hotness: Don’t push your morals on me socons. Gay marriage doesn’t effect you. Don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one

New hotness: I will use the force of law to push my morals on your socons. Gay marriage will effect you and you will like it and celebrate it! Equality, privacy and liberty is only for us gays. YOU are second class citizens..

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Well said

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 10:09 AM

check out http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

Thread on “fake science” papers submitted and published by science magazines that where generated by a computer program that writes them from random items from other science papers.

This where we are at, a world made up of fake fraud feel good ideas from the loon liberal commies of the democrats, enabled by rino’s and published as the truth by the msm piss ants.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 26, 2014 at 10:11 AM

So our enlightened liberal posters want to force a black photographer to help the local KKK chapter celebrate their founding?

And force a gay baker to make a beautiful cake for the Westboro Baptists for their biweekly “God Hates F***” gathering?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Liberals are so feeble minded.

Supposedly if we don’t have anti-discrimination laws then it will usher in “Jim Crow” for every “minority” group.

Of course they’re completely ignorant. AZ and many other states don’t have laws that give gays anti-discriminatory protections and their predicted Jim Crow apocalypse hasn’t occurred.

Of course they’re also ignorant of what Jim Crow was – Jim Crow laws were the government forcing businesses to deny service. And only the mind of a liberal could twist that into the same as government not interfering with private businesses and citizens discriminating.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Hey? How come no post on Black Pastors wanting Eric Holder impeached? To controversial?

oldroy on February 26, 2014 at 10:18 AM

I think the Arizona bill was a bit of an overreach. It would have been better off had it just provided that “No business or individual shall be required to provide goods or services to any event or assembly which they believe violates their religious convictions.”

tommyboy on February 26, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Hey? How come no post on Black Pastors wanting Eric Holder impeached? To controversial?

oldroy on February 26, 2014 at 10:18 AM

The black pastors also don’t like the “gays are just like the blacks” line either.

And they don’t support SSM.

So, of course they’re not worth mentioning. Especially since it would make all the local trolls heads explode.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 10:25 AM

I think the Arizona bill was a bit of an overreach. It would have been better off had it just provided that “No business or individual shall be required to provide goods or services to any event or assembly which they believe violates their religious convictions.”

tommyboy on February 26, 2014 at 10:21 AM

I’d prefer a bill that got rid of anti-discrimination laws without any appeal to religious convictions – allow for refusal of service for whatever reason the proprietor wishes because freedom of speech and association are also at stake.

The problem with that is that the Civil Rights Act provides for anti-discrimination laws based on race (it also provides religious protections). You’d have a problem with a blanket elimination of anti-discrimination laws at the state level.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 10:27 AM

So, of course they’re not worth mentioning. Especially since it would make all the local trolls heads explode.

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 10:25 AM

It would draw libfree out of hiding so he could explain that the black pastors that are against gay marriage are actually a small minority, and the the black community is actually very accepting of gay lifestyles and gay marriage.

oldroy on February 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM

But don’t ya see these Black Pastors are not Black enough and they pray, obey the 10 commandments, can not have that going on in public.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Take here in Texas, you go to a CW bar/dance hall and start fights, get to bullying people,, you get your ass kicked out by the bouncers and the owners will ban you from the club.

Now these liberals want to stop that too?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 26, 2014 at 10:31 AM

So… if the KKK walks into a Gay-owned t-shirt shop, the shop owner will HAVE to print shirts that state, “I hate Fa@s and Ni@@ers!” – no questions asked, if that is what the customer wants?

Think about it.

BoomJunkie on February 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM

I can’t comment on the bill per se, however every American has the right to be as prejudicial, bigoted, homophobic, or what ever term the Left wants to bestow on them; it’s guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

Since when did a private business become a public domain? Yes I know they are open to the public, however the public can choose not to shop there.

Tater Salad on February 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Christians-the only “unprotected” class left in America.Apparently we need a Second American Revolution.

redware on February 26, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Americans in name only! too.

I guess the First Amendment is now Hate Speech.

jaydee_007 on February 26, 2014 at 10:48 AM

First, who cares what John McCain thinks or says! Second, someone posted, “Do it for the children!”. Since there can never be any children born to a homosexual couple “man and wife!???”, how can you be doing it for the children?

LarryK on February 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Intolerant conservative racism erects its head once again. You all fail to realize that we will not soften our attacks, we will stand firm and we will insert our tolerance laws throughout the land.

The polls show liberals have this issue well in hand…and one glorious day we will discharge all homophobes from this nation.

The seeds of change have been laid, and all proud Americans are coming to our team.

Frank Lib on February 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

My word. Even the Republicans are fine with letting religious people be forced to do something that violates their beliefs.

Dems are concerned about deviant buttsex.

RINOs concerned about the almighty dollar.

Lord help us.

bossmanham on February 26, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Intolerant conservative racism erects its head once again. You all fail to realize that we will not soften our attacks, we will stand firm and we will insert our tolerance laws throughout the land.

The polls show liberals have this issue well in hand…and one glorious day we will discharge all homophobes from this nation.

The seeds of change have been laid, and all proud Americans are coming to our team.

Frank Lib on February 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

You may want to up your meds a bit.

bossmanham on February 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Intolerant conservative racism erects its head once again. You all fail to realize that we will not soften our attacks, we will stand firm and we will insert our tolerance laws throughout the land.

The polls show liberals have this issue well in hand…and one glorious day we will discharge all homophobes from this nation.

The seeds of change have been laid, and all proud Americans are coming to our team.

Frank Lib on February 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

I didn’t realize that gay people were a race.. Oye! You trolls are dumb.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Intolerant conservative racism erects its head once again. You all fail to realize that we will not soften our attacks, we will stand firm and we will insert our tolerance laws throughout the land.

The polls show liberals have this issue well in hand…and one glorious day we will discharge all homophobes from this nation.

The seeds of change have been laid, and all proud Americans are coming to our team.

Frank Lib on February 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

You’re going to discharge “homophobes” from the nation one glorious day? What does that mean exactly?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM

I still get angry when I think about Romney. He literally opened the barn door on redefining marriage and let the horse out. He didn’t even have the guts to do it openly because he knew it would harm him nationally when he ran for president. He did it in a passive-aggressive retreating kind of way…. He sold his soul for political points.

INC on February 25, 2014 at 8:03 PM

INC, Where on earth did you read that?

The Courts in Massachusetts forced Gay Marriage, Romney was neither personally, by his religion, or politically, for points, in favor of this? I live in MA. We collected signatures to put gay marriage on the ballot like other states have done, and the legislature deferred to the reasoning of the court and said we could not vote on something defined by the court as a civil right.

You are mistaking Romney on this one too, he favors religious freedom, you don’t know how badly Mormon’s are discriminated against, but they are, they are openly mocked and hated. The Arizona law is trying to define a constitutional value of religious freedom that we have already, but it is not hitting the mark. Legislators write down the popular thing to say, but legal scholars and social muckrakers will pick it apart.

Fleuries on February 26, 2014 at 11:08 AM

and one glorious day we will discharge all homophobes from this nation.

Are you building our camp in Poland?

cbenoistd on February 26, 2014 at 11:11 AM

You’re going to discharge “homophobes” from the nation one glorious day? What does that mean exactly?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM

and one glorious day we will discharge all homophobes from this nation.

Are you building our camp in Poland?

cbenoistd on February 26, 2014 at 11:11 AM

They have no problem using fascist means when it pushes their morals and their pet victim groups. I had a troll say last night that a gay caterer should not have to legally make a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church because they are bad people. They don’t understand that Constitutional rights work both ways. They have absolutely no idea what liberty and equality actually means.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 11:15 AM

First, who cares what John McCain thinks or says! Second, someone posted, “Do it for the children!”. Since there can never be any children born to a homosexual couple “man and wife!???”, how can you be doing it for the children?

LarryK on February 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM

I posted the “Do it for the children”…Sarcasm is your friend..

ToddPA on February 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM

You all fail to realize that we will not soften our attacks, we will stand firm and we will insert our tolerance laws throughout the land.

Frank Lib on February 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

No one cares, Frank. People of faith will continue to refuse to bake cakes or partake in an activity if it violates their religious beliefs.

Punchenko on February 26, 2014 at 11:20 AM

They have no problem using fascist means when it pushes their morals and their pet victim groups. I had a troll say last night that a gay caterer should not have to legally make a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church because they are bad people. They don’t understand that Constitutional rights work both ways. They have absolutely no idea what liberty and equality actually means.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 11:15 AM

They don’t believe in or trust liberty.

They believe in a “benevolent” tyrant who will enforce “equality” and “tolerance” and “justice” (in all it’s crazy lefty flavors).

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Making me bake a cake for the gays is pure fascism fas·cism

1.dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
..

Bullhead on February 26, 2014 at 11:22 AM

I didn’t realize that gay people were a race.. Oye! You trolls are dumb.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Forget it, he’s rolling…

You’re going to discharge “homophobes” from the nation one glorious day? What does that mean exactly?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM

It means you’re going to be shipped off to tolerance camp, h8er.

RINO in Name Only on February 26, 2014 at 11:22 AM

You all fail to realize that we will not soften our attacks, we will stand firm and we will insert our tolerance laws throughout the land.

Frank Lib on February 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Congratulations for making one of the more overt demands for the embracing of fascism.

Does freedom and liberty have any meaning for you?

Athos on February 26, 2014 at 11:24 AM

The seeds of change have been laid, and all proud Americans are coming to our team.

Frank Lib on February 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM

The Heaven’s Gate team cashed in over a decade ago…

..still bummed you missed that journey, huh?

ToddPA on February 26, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Quick legal question – what protected class do homosexuals belong to?

Human beings.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Quick legal question – what protected class do homosexuals belong to?

Human beings.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM

From the same brilliant legal mind that brought you senators being gerrymandered.

So, what you’re saying is that no business owner can discriminate against anyone for any reason?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Quick legal question – what protected class do homosexuals belong to?

Human beings.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Are the business owners also human beings?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Human beings.
lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Our abortion laws make it pretty clear that class isn’t protected.

tommyboy on February 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Human beings.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM

More like human beings who openly encourage and carry out the murder of others.

I wonder why lostmotherland won’t repudiate the calls from the gay and lesbian community to murder Christians?

And I wonder why lostmotherland supports “human rights” for people who murder based on the religious beliefs of others?

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Surprise! Our last 2 RINO loosers cave to the Gaystapo. And you wonder why millions stayed home on election night in 2008 and 2012. We need someone with fire in their belly to defeat the socialists and the sodomites who are ruining our country!

PaddyORyan on February 26, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Human beings.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Yes, just like pedophiles.

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Quick legal question – what protected class do homosexuals belong to?

Human beings.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Are the business owners also human beings?

gwelf on February 26, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Our abortion laws make it pretty clear that class isn’t protected.

tommyboy on February 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM

The subsequent silence speaks volumes.

Athos on February 26, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Now the NFL is blackmailing AZ in the name of sodomy. As penance they have to draft the Queen of Missouri.

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Folks like you need to be more out front on this issue –
with bits like this.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Yes, just like pedophiles.

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Another advocate who deserves a spotlight and a microphone.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Human beings.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM

My patience for stupidity is at it’s end.

Say it with me now – discrimination by private citizens for damn near any reason is LEGAL under law. There are certain rights or protected classes that enjoy added legal protections against discrimination – race, gender, disability, etc. which are classes, and marriage, etc. which are areas/fundamental rights.

Marriage is a “fundamental right”, but that depends on what marriage is socially defined as. Society via 2,000 years of history defined it as man and woman for purposes of stability for raising children, and until society re-defines it from the ground up, top down change by govt. is flawed and unjust. This is because Govt. doesn’t create marriage, it only legally recognizes what is already practiced, and can choose not to recognize any marriage for certain reasons (incest, bigamy, polygamy, etc). That doesn’t mean you can’t marry your dog if so inclined, it just means society and govt. doesn’t have to recognize it for legal status/protection.

So when gays say their “fundamental right to marry” is denied, it’s not – their definition of marriage is not what marriage is, and they actually already have the same right I have – “opposite sex marriage”, as I as a straight guy can’t marry the same sex now – homosexuals just have no desire to use that existing right. So they want a NEW right, and govt. can’t create it.

And generally, since there is no “homosexual” protected class, they are not “special” above anyone else. So they do not enjoy the protection of strict scrutiny to justify a discrimination(race, very hard to meet) or even intermediate scrutiny (gender, hard but not impossible to meet) when it comes to a Constitutional analysis of legislation impacting them. That means that the law can “discriminate” against them for a “damn good asserted reason”.

Homosexuals, like any other lower classification (age, height, etc.) come under rational basis, which means so long as govt. can come up with one rational, reasonable reason to justify the impacting law, it stands. It doesn’t even need to be a reason they relied on when passing the law, just one they come up with after. Thus, 95% of the laws that face rational basis review stand.

That is, until, gays came along and trashed that, when judges claimed from on high that there is no “rational reason” to discriminate against homosexuals for any reason, particularly with marriage, even though gays ALREADY have the same right to marry that I as a hertero do, so no denial of equal protection, and thus they aren’t denied that right to marriage, they want it redefined to something else, to create a new right for them and me (same sex marriage), which is a whole other matter.

So homosexuals are all a twitter that whatever they demand must be provided as if what they are is immutable, like race or gender. While some homosexuals are clearly born that way, others are clearly “made” via conduct, nurture, abuse, mental illness, hedonism, etc. There is no one “cause” like race or gender. A genetic link snuffs itself out (as it precludes natural conception). So since the orientation is defined by the ACT, and reasons for acts can vary, it is not an immutable characteristic (see Anne Heche for a hertero who became a lesbian and then back to a hetero).

Note that sexual orientation can be re-orientated by continued activity (see hetero prisoners “turned gay” via denial of access to women).

If anything, homosexuality is more like a disability for purposes of classification (i.e. some are born without legs, while other lose them to illness, accident, war, etc.). By their own stance, their orientation is “from birth in all cases” and cannot be changed, so they cannot mate naturally - they would have to use reproductive science designed for infertile couples to make it happen, or act counter to their orientation to conceive naturally. Which is a non-no if the Church asks them to, isn’t it.

And by the way, you can’t just protect “homosexuals” as a little class of their own – the class would be SEXUAL ORIENTATION, and thus necessarily includes ALL ORIENTATIONS, including pedo, bestiality, necro, etc (like “race” includes white, black, Hispanic, etc.). Sure, we call those areas illegal ACTS or mental illnesses, but we did the same to homosexuality 20 years ago, didn’t we? Then we legalized the ACT. But look, it became an “orientation” just like that! And if homosexuals keep pushing “sexual orientation as created from birth in all cases, then they will have a hard time DISCRIMINATING against pedos, etc., won’t they?

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Yes, just like pedophiles.

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Another advocate who deserves a spotlight and a microphone.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Are you Implying Nambla needs a Microphone??

ToddPA on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Another advocate who deserves a spotlight and a microphone.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Are you Implying Nambla needs a Microphone??

ToddPA on February 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Um , no –
Saltyron.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Sign it. Seems these yokles have not read it and not read the Bipartisan groups report on its merits and how it has been misrepresented.

jake49 on February 26, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Um , no –
Saltyron.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Believe me when I tell you that I am 100% opposed to NAMBLA and pedo. If it were possible to be 150% opposed, I would be.

My point in that response was to highlight his own legally “broad” response, and to illustrate what else would/will come under it.

If you read my next post, you’ll see that, like it or not, either polygamy or pedophilia are next up for demands for legal protections. I will bet on it. As a lawyer, I’ve watched for it since law school a decade ago, and it’s starting to actually happen. I called it years ago to friends that thought I was nuts, and now email me to say I was prescient.

We ignore it at our peril, and our homosexual friends and their supporters are very good at ignoring it.

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM

The fact that Gollum and Obamacare Daddy is for the veto, is all the reason that we should support the bill.

Brock Robamney on February 26, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Retire and take Flake with you.

nobama1267 on February 26, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Lots of Mormons are supporting gay marriage (Romney, Flake, Marriotts, etc.). I can’t help but wonder if they don’t see it as the next step toward the acceptance of polygamy.

Like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young used to say, “Yon can’t have too many wives.”

bw222 on February 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Lots of Mormons are supporting gay marriage (Romney, Flake, Marriotts, etc.). I can’t help but wonder if they don’t see it as the next step toward the acceptance of polygamy.

Like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young used to say, “Yon can’t have too many wives.”

bw222 on February 26, 2014 at 2:08 PM

I’m sure Yon is very happy with his family, but making up “quotes” from religious leaders is a strange way to support religious freedoms.
Or, as Sarah Palin didn’t say, “I can see Russia from my front porch.”

Mormons counselling obedience to the law are following Church teachings (Article of Faith 12). Mormons tacitly admitting that SSM may be completely legal in a few years and its opponents increasingly circumscribed by prosecution as well as persecution are being pragmatic about society.
Mormons actively supporting SSM are acting contrary to the policies of the Church (see below).

I don’t have a clue what Romney, Flake, Marriott, et al. are thinking.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

On December 20, 2013, a federal district judge in Salt Lake City issued an order legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah, striking down century-old state laws and a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman. The United States Supreme Court has put that ruling on hold pending consideration of the issue by an appellate court. …
Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”
Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

While these matters will continue to evolve, we affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite you to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths of the gospel, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.

AesopFan on February 26, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Follow-up:
Latter-day Saints do not advocate polygamy per se; they attempted to follow a commandment given by God at a particular time for a particular reason, and were released from that obligation – also by God – when He saw fit to do so, following a decision by the Supreme Court upholding a law prohibiting bigamous cohabitation for religious reasons, and actions by the State and Federal governments to confiscate Church temples and other property and jail its leaders and members.

The Manifesto of 1890 was a proclamation by President Wilford Woodruff that the Church had discontinued plural marriage. It ended a decade of persecution and hardship in which Latter-day Saints tenaciously resisted what they saw as unconstitutional federal attempts to curb polygamy. While the Manifesto is often referred to as a revelation, the declaration was actually a press release that followed President Woodruff’s revelatory experiences. In this respect, the Manifesto is similar to Doctrine and Covenants official declaration-2.

Following the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, the Church found it difficult to operate as a viable institution (see Antipolygamy Legislation). Among other things, this legislation disincorporated the Church, confiscated its properties, and even threatened seizure of its temples. After visiting with priesthood leaders in many settlements, President Woodruff left for San Francisco on September 3, 1890, to meet with prominent businessmen and politicians. He returned to Salt Lake City on September 21, determined to obtain divine confirmation to pursue a course that seemed to be agonizingly more and more clear. As he explained to Church members a year later, the choice was between, on the one hand, continuing to practice plural marriage and thereby losing the temples, “stopping all the ordinances therein,” and, on the other, ceasing plural marriage in order to continue performing the essential ordinances for the living and the dead. President Woodruff hastened to add that he had acted only as the Lord directed: “I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me” (see Appendix; “Excerpts” accompanying Official Declaration-1).

The current crop of sister-wife reality shows do not feature members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons); although there are polygamous groups claiming to be “successors” of the Joseph-Smith-Brigham-Young-led denomination, they are not the legitimate authoritative line.

The recent decision by the US District Court in Utah overturning a modern statute that also prohibited polygamous cohabitation made it clear that

In not ruling to overturn Utah’s anti-polygamy law in whole, the judge argued that the plaintiffs hadn’t proven the 1973 statute was a successor law to the patently anti-Mormon laws that preceded it.

.

However, Judge Waddoups did say that

the phrase “or cohabits with another person” is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments. Waddoups later writes that while there is no “fundamental right” to practice polygamy, the issue really comes down to “religious cohabitation.” In the 1800s — when the mainstream LDS Church still practiced polygamy — “religious cohabitation” in Utah could have actually resulted in “multiple purportedly legal marriages.” Today, however, simply living together doesn’t amount to being “married,” Waddoups writes.

Most Mormon men don’t want more than one wife; most Mormon women don’t either. Just ask ‘em. Polygamy is too prone to becoming abusive, as its current practitioners have amply demonstrated, and was never “popular” even in the Pioneer days.

AesopFan on February 26, 2014 at 3:05 PM

there’s no stronger Republican champion of business, both in Arizona and elsewhere, than John McCain.

Correction…no stronger champion of illegals in Arizona and elsewhere.

That’s better. I already boycott Arizona cause it’s an occupied state and totally dangerous to roam there. We’ve given up defending our borders states so there’s no reason to visit what were once…US territory.

Twana on February 26, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Arizona should “see them and raise”, and spin it on the NFL and declare that the State of Arizona doesn’t want to do business with a “greedy tax-exempt corporation/organization” that employs convicted (or accused) dog abusers, child abusers, women-beaters, rapists, murderers, drunk drivers, drug users and thugs, and unless they clean up THEIR organization first, no NFL games will be played in Arizona at all, Cardinals included.

Goes for NFL merchandise, too.

THAT will cause Goodell and the NFL lefties to go “oh”.

Saltyron on February 26, 2014 at 10:01 PM

This! ^^^

The players can keep the trash-talk in the locker-room, too. And ditch the long hair, tattoos, spiking the ball, and doing a dance in the end zone.

And since when did ESPN become a political network? Cable creeps.

Feedie on February 28, 2014 at 3:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3