BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8

[Saguaro]

Yesterday on the Daily Universe web site (the BYU student newspaper) the below letter appeared. However, sometime during the day is was pulled from the website. (I've removed the submitter's name, however copies of the letter are out in cyberspace and a simple google search would easily find it, but I don't feel I should include the name here without the author's permission.)

I don't want to start yet another debate on prop 8 or homosexuality, but why do you think the university pulled this letter? Was it too inflamatory? He actually makes the argument the reason most LDS supported Prop 8 was because the Prophet told us to. For many Mormons that's good enough reason.

Viewpoint: Defending Proposition 8 — It’s time to admit the reasons

By xxxx xxxxx

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the recent United States District Court case that overturned Proposition 8, highlighted a disturbing inconsistency in the pro-Prop 8 camp.

The arguments put forth so aggressively by the Protect Marriage coalition and by LDS church leaders at all levels of church organization during the campaign were noticeably absent from the proceedings of the trial. This discrepancy between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court shows that at some point, proponents of Prop 8 stopped believing in their purported rational and non-religious arguments for the amendment.

Claims that defeat of Prop 8 would force religious organizations to recognize homosexual marriages and perform such marriages in their privately owned facilities, including LDS temples, were never mentioned in court. Similarly, the defense was unable to find a single expert witness willing to testify that state-recognized homosexual marriage would lead to forcing religious adoption agencies to allow homosexual parents to adopt children or that children would be required to learn about homosexual marriage in school.

Four of the proponents’ six expert witnesses who may have been planning on testifying to these points withdrew as witnesses on the first day of the trial. Why did they go and why did no one step up to replace them? Perhaps it is because they knew that their arguments would suffer much the same fate as those of David Blankenhorn and Kenneth Miller, the two expert witnesses who did agree to testify.

Judge Vaughn Walker, who heard the case, spent 11 pages of his 138-page decision meticulously tearing down every argument advanced by Blankenhorn before concluding that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.” Miller suffered similar censure after it was shown that he was unfamiliar with even basic sources on the subject in which he sought to testify as an expert.

The court was left with lopsided, persuasive testimony leading to the conclusion that Proposition 8 was not in the interest of the state and was discriminatory against gays and lesbians. Walker’s decision is a must-read for anyone who is yet to be convinced of this opinion. The question remains that if proponents of Prop 8 were both unwilling and unable to support even one rational argument in favor of the amendment in court, why did they seek to present their arguments as rational during the campaign?

It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment, or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must be honest about our motivation, and consider what it means to the delicate balance between our relationship with God and with His children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting arguments that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.

[Just_A_Guy]

I can't speak as to what was going on with the Universe staff (or the Prop 8 defenders). But if I were in court defending a policy that's always existed in the history of the Republic, I'd base my defense on the same rationales that have always been given for said policy rather than bringing in a relatively novel religious-freedom argument.

Quite bluntly, you won't get too far arguing about the danger posed by the gay lobby and activist judges, in the courtroom of an activist judge who is widely rumored to be gay.

EDIT: From what I can gather, this was more than a "Letter to the Editor". It was a "Viewpoint" column, which suggests some degree of official sanction.

2nd EDIT: The Universe's (somewhat cryptic) explanation is here.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

Yesterday on the Daily Universe web site (the BYU student newspaper) the below letter appeared. However, sometime during the day is was pulled from the website. (I've removed the submitter's name, however copies of the letter are out in cyberspace and a simple google search would easily find it, but I don't feel I should include the name here without the author's permission.)

I don't want to start yet another debate on prop 8 or homosexuality, but why do you think the university pulled this letter? Was it too inflamatory? He actually makes the argument the reason most LDS supported Prop 8 was because the Prophet told us to. For many Mormons that's good enough reason.

The letter should be pulled - No one has the right to speak as to what someone else believes or why they believe anything. They may give their opinion and state what they believe and why but when they speak for someone else they cross the line of free speach and the right of every individual to speak for themself.

There is no justice when one person assums the right to define another person's opinion.

The Traveler

[Wingnut]

I did do a search for the author's name, and I came across another transcript of it on the blog of a USU organization. The original author had sent it to the blog author after it was pulled from BYU's website. There are an additional few sentences in the last paragraph that were not published in the original article. I think they should have been. You can read it here.

2nd EDIT: The Universe's (somewhat cryptic) explanation is here.

So, they pulled it because people can't think outside their own little box?

The letter should be pulled - No one has the right to speak as to what someone else believes or why they believe anything. They may give their opinion and state what they believe and why but when they speak for someone else they cross the line of free speach and the right of every individual to speak for themself.

There is no justice when one person assums the right to define another person's opinion.

The Traveler

Where did the author define anyone else's opinion? He simply asked readers to question themselves.

[Traveler]

I did do a search for the author's name, and I came across another transcript of it on the blog of a USU organization. The original author had sent it to the blog author after it was pulled from BYU's website. There are an additional few sentences in the last paragraph that were not published in the original article. I think they should have been. You can read it here.

So, they pulled it because people can't think outside their own little box?

Where did the author define anyone else's opinion? He simply asked readers to question themselves.

Ary you kidding?

The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment.

The Traveler

[Wingnut]

I don't think that's presumptuous at all, when it's in the context of a BYU newspaper.

[Jenamarie]

I've heard many LDS people state "following the Prophet" as their exact reason for supporting Prop 8, even if they weren't necessarily sure they agreed with it.

[Just_A_Guy]

Where did the author define anyone else's opinion? He simply asked readers to question themselves.

The author strikes me as making a broad generalization regarding the motives of the Prop 8 supporters based on the conduct of a few (quite possibly incompetent) lawyers in one particular case.

Moreover, if you read the parts that were redacted from his column, it becomes clear that his intent is more than merely asking readers to "question themselves".

[Traveler]

I don't think that's presumptuous at all, when it's in the context of a BYU newspaper.

Again; please try to pay attention. He may speak for you in that context but he does not speak for me. I find it interesting that he complains that none of the arguments concerning the LDS church in relation to Prop 8 would be allowed in court and then he violates the whole purpose of his argument by making a statement that is in violation to his very basis premises for argument - in a manner that would never be allowed in court.

Thus he is the very example himself of what he says is wrong with the LDS stand. Do you really think his argument contained any meaning beyond criticism of opinions that he misrepresents and obviously does not understand?

His argument is so week he cannot even rely on hearsay. No his argument is incorrect and unsupported.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I've heard many LDS people state "following the Prophet" as their exact reason for supporting Prop 8, even if they weren't necessarily sure they agreed with it.

Again - I do not think anyone has the right to speak to what another person believes. You may think this is what you heard but without a person being allowed to speak for themself this is nothing more than gossip and hearsay.

I do not believe anyone has the right to speak this way for anyone and define what they believe. I do not think you would like it at all if I were to characterize you with my interpretation of what I think you are saying.

The other thing that amazes me is that wignut appears to think this is all for the better when it violates the simplest form of social wellbeing - the golden rule. Which is – do not speak for others unless you are willing to have them speak for you. Since he is present on the forum – he can speak to my concern – but because others that may be referenced are not here to speak – we do not have that right.

The Traveler

[Faded]

What strikes me is that the local, state and federal governments need to make up their minds about something: Is it their function to act as moral a conscience to society? If yes then by all means do so. If no, then repeal all drug laws, stop prosecuting statutory rape cases, eliminate the legal age to drink and smoke and make it available to all ages.

These are all lifestyle choices. If a 13 year old girl wants to have sex with a 30 years old man, then that is her lifestyle choice. If a pedophile can find a consenting partner then that is a lifestyle choice for both of them. If a 10 year old boy enjoys getting high as a kite on heroine, then that his lifestyle choice. Does the government have a right to interfere with these personal choices?

The true question is this: Is the government in the business of making laws and rules that define the difference between right and wrong? I say that they most certainly are! At one point in our history as a nation, fidelity in marriage was actually enforced by the law of the land. Anyone wonder why this stopped being enforced? The gay rights movement is just one step further towards stripping out nation of it's moral compass. What will we be talked into "accommodating and accepting" next?

[ozzy]

This case strikes me as being quite similar to the reason the juice brand 'Naked' was banned from BYUI bookstore. It would seem that some insecure little bubble believer couldn't get over the fact that this guy expressed an opinion and forgot to read Bednar's 'And none shall be offended' (or whatever it was called) before causing a scene. The result was that BYU decided to avoid a confrontation rather than grow a pair. I don't think it was too inflamatory, and presumption is a fact of life that the grand majority of us is guilty of, so I don't think thats really a good reason to pull an article like this.

That being said, I do disagree with the author. I have spoken to many about their views on prop 8 and most of the reasons centered more on the sanctity of marriage, not on the exhortations of the prophet. But hey, thats not really the OP question.

[ozzy]

What strikes me is that the local, state and federal governments need to make up their minds about something: Is it their function to act as moral a conscience to society? If yes then by all means do so. If no, then repeal all drug laws, stop prosecuting statutory rape cases, eliminate the legal age to drink and smoke and make it available to all ages.

These are all lifestyle choices. If a 13 year old girl wants to have sex with a 30 years old man, then that is her lifestyle choice. If a pedophile can find a consenting partner then that is a lifestyle choice for both of them. If a 10 year old boy enjoys getting high as a kite on heroine, then that his lifestyle choice. Does the government have a right to interfere with these personal choices?

The true question is this: Is the government in the business of making laws and rules that define the difference between right and wrong? I say that they most certainly are! At one point in our history as a nation, fidelity in marriage was actually enforced by the law of the land. Anyone wonder why this stopped being enforced? The gay rights movement is just one step further towards stripping out nation of it's moral compass. What will we be talked into "accommodating and accepting" next?

Agreed

[Traveler]

What strikes me is that the local, state and federal governments need to make up their minds about something: Is it their function to act as moral a conscience to society? If yes then by all means do so. If no, then repeal all drug laws, stop prosecuting statutory rape cases, eliminate the legal age to drink and smoke and make it available to all ages.

These are all lifestyle choices. If a 13 year old girl wants to have sex with a 30 years old man, then that is her lifestyle choice. If a pedophile can find a consenting partner then that is a lifestyle choice for both of them. If a 10 year old boy enjoys getting high as a kite on heroine, then that his lifestyle choice. Does the government have a right to interfere with these personal choices?

The true question is this: Is the government in the business of making laws and rules that define the difference between right and wrong? I say that they most certainly are! At one point in our history as a nation, fidelity in marriage was actually enforced by the law of the land. Anyone wonder why this stopped being enforced? The gay rights movement is just one step further towards stripping out nation of it's moral compass. What will we be talked into "accommodating and accepting" next?

I agree with much of what you say. Some people do not believe morals should be legislated into law. My question is – if we cannot legislate morals what can we legislate? The value of pi or the universal gravitational constant?

In truth not only can we and should we legislate morals – but that is the only thing we can legislate. Therefore the only question remaining is whose morals should be legislated. The answer should be – the majority.

Legislating the morals of a minority is by definition autocracy, brutality, oppressive and government by tyranny.

The Traveler

[Wingnut]

Again; please try to pay attention. He may speak for you in that context but he does not speak for me.

(1) I don't live in California and therefore didn't vote on the matter.

(2) From a religious standpoint, I am against same-sex marriage because I believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

(3) From a non-religious, legislative standpoint, I have no problem with same-sex marriage. The only arguments I can come up with against it are religiously/morally based, and I'm not willing to impose my beliefs on anyone by law.

(4) If I had lived in CA, or if the same issue came to a vote in my state, I'd likely abstain from voting, based on my own personal conflicts.

So no, he doesn't speak for me. I also never said he spoke for you. I said that it's not an unreasonable statement to make that most LDS who voted in favor of Prop 8 did so because the prophet encouraged them to do so. I stand by that.

The other thing that amazes me is that wignut appears to think this is all for the better when it violates the simplest form of social wellbeing - the golden rule. Which is – do not speak for others unless you are willing to have them speak for you. Since he is present on the forum – he can speak to my concern – but because others that may be referenced are not here to speak – we do not have that right.

I'm sorry -- when did I say this is great? When did I say it's all for the better? Speaking of the Golden Rule -- you don't want others putting words in your mouth, don't put them in mine.

[MarginOfError]

The letter should be pulled - No one has the right to speak as to what someone else believes or why they believe anything. They may give their opinion and state what they believe and why but when they speak for someone else they cross the line of free speach and the right of every individual to speak for themself.

There is no justice when one person assums the right to define another person's opinion.

The Traveler

I think you're wrong, Traveler. I think this is exactly how free speech is supposed to work. Remember, this is an opinion piece. A letter to the editor. The author of the letter was expressing his opinion that, based on the proceedings of the trial, the proponents of Prop 8 are masking their religious opposition as social opposition. He has in no way infringed on your right to free speech.

Instead of complaining that someone's opinion and interpretations are trampling your right to free speech, you should be drafting a letter in response.

However, free speech means you also have the right to moan and complain that someone is misrepresenting your views without taking the time to clarify your views for yourself. You may certainly do so, but don't expect anyone to be persuaded if that's the course of action you take.

[Traveler]

I think you're wrong, Traveler. I think this is exactly how free speech is supposed to work. Remember, this is an opinion piece. A letter to the editor. The author of the letter was expressing his opinion that, based on the proceedings of the trial, the proponents of Prop 8 are masking their religious opposition as social opposition. He has in no way infringed on your right to free speech.

Instead of complaining that someone's opinion and interpretations are trampling your right to free speech, you should be drafting a letter in response.

However, free speech means you also have the right to moan and complain that someone is misrepresenting your views without taking the time to clarify your views for yourself. You may certainly do so, but don't expect anyone to be persuaded if that's the course of action you take.

I could not disagree more - free speach is when an individual is allowed to and speaks for themself - not when a person speaks for another that has not authorized them to do so.

Any one can give their opinion and ask for another's opinion but they are unjust when they give another's opinion without the assignment of agency.

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

I could not disagree more - free speach is when an individual is allowed to and speaks for themself - not when a person speaks for another that has not authorized them to do so.

Any one can give their opinion and ask for another's opinion but they are unjust when they give another's opinion without the assignment of agency.

The Traveler

It's okay, Traveler. I respect your right to be wrong.

[GaySaint]

Faded: I must admit I don’t understand your arguments. Perhaps part of it is that I have a hard time relating my loving same-sex partner and family to criminals and child molesters who seek out victims and harm children.

Second of all, I have no desire to strip out the “moral compass” of society. I just want to protect my family. Can you please explain to me how keeping me from marrying makes me a more moral person, because this is an argument I simply cannot swallow. It seems quite contrary to the teachings of the church to force someone OUT of marriage, and then claim that is the moral thing to do.

Of course, I suppose a gay man marrying a straight woman is also touted as the moral high ground… Too bad no one takes into consideration the morality of subjecting a daughter of God to such a situation…

From my point of view, it would make me a more MORAL person to marry my same-sex partner, rather than just live with him – just like it would make someone a more MORAL person to marry their opposite-sex partner, rather than just live with them. This is why the morality argument doesn’t really hold up outside of the church, and specifically in a court of law.

[Traveler]

(1) I don't live in California and therefore didn't vote on the matter.

(2) From a religious standpoint, I am against same-sex marriage because I believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

(3) From a non-religious, legislative standpoint, I have no problem with same-sex marriage. The only arguments I can come up with against it are religiously/morally based, and I'm not willing to impose my beliefs on anyone by law.

(4) If I had lived in CA, or if the same issue came to a vote in my state, I'd likely abstain from voting, based on my own personal conflicts.

So no, he doesn't speak for me. I also never said he spoke for you. I said that it's not an unreasonable statement to make that most LDS who voted in favor of Prop 8 did so because the prophet encouraged them to do so. I stand by that.

I'm sorry -- when did I say this is great? When did I say it's all for the better? Speaking of the Golden Rule -- you don't want others putting words in your mouth, don't put them in mine.

I can and have given many reasons that are not religious for opposing gay marriage. However, my arguments concerning social support for families providing the next generation is not the discussion here. The discussion is – when can someone represent someone else’s opinion? My belief is never.

It appears to me that you support posts that try to define opinions of others. I will support any post that says I supported or did not support something for this reason. But I will not support in any way any one that says – I talked to so and so and they said such and such. Your thanking of post #7 appears very much to be in support of that kind of hearsay to which I disagree.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

I think you're wrong, Traveler. I think this is exactly how free speech is supposed to work. Remember, this is an opinion piece. A letter to the editor. The author of the letter was expressing his opinion that, based on the proceedings of the trial, the proponents of Prop 8 are masking their religious opposition as social opposition. He has in no way infringed on your right to free speech.

Instead of complaining that someone's opinion and interpretations are trampling your right to free speech, you should be drafting a letter in response.

However, free speech means you also have the right to moan and complain that someone is misrepresenting your views without taking the time to clarify your views for yourself. You may certainly do so, but don't expect anyone to be persuaded if that's the course of action you take.

Just another thought: Free speech also means that if someone says something that you consider to be complete bunkum, you are under no legal obligation to use your finances and resources to distribute that "bunkum" to a broader audience.

[GaySaint]

Traveler: I've always meant to ask but never got the chance: Does your support for families providing for the next generation extend to gay couples with children, rather legally adopted or biological?

Strangely enough, it would sit comfortably with me if marriage were only allowed for gay couples if they had children... weird.

[Traveler]

Faded: I must admit I don’t understand your arguments. Perhaps part of it is that I have a hard time relating my loving same-sex partner and family to criminals and child molesters who seek out victims and harm children.

Second of all, I have no desire to strip out the “moral compass” of society. I just want to protect my family. Can you please explain to me how keeping me from marrying makes me a more moral person, because this is an argument I simply cannot swallow. It seems quite contrary to the teachings of the church to force someone OUT of marriage, and then claim that is the moral thing to do.

Of course, I suppose a gay man marrying a straight woman is also touted as the moral high ground… Too bad no one takes into consideration the morality of subjecting a daughter of God to such a situation…

From my point of view, it would make me a more MORAL person to marry my same-sex partner, rather than just live with him – just like it would make someone a more MORAL person to marry their opposite-sex partner, rather than just live with them. This is why the morality argument doesn’t really hold up outside of the church, and specifically in a court of law.

Society has a moral obligation to support by law institutions intended in purpose to provide a "next" generation in order for human society to survive. If someone has a better means for children of the next generation than the marriage of a man and a woman - I would be interested in their arguments.

I do not believe society has a moral obligation to support laws that would result in people feeling better for not providing something necessary for society to survive. But should a society decide to do so by a majority - that society has that right. This is my opinion.

The Traveler

[GaySaint]

Traveler: What obligation does society have to protect the families of gay couples that DO have children?

[Traveler]

Traveler: I've always meant to ask but never got the chance: Does your support for families providing for the next generation extend to gay couples with children, rather legally adopted or biological?

Strangely enough, it would sit comfortably with me if marriage were only allowed for gay couples if they had children... weird.

You are a very interesting character - and I enjoy conversations we have had.

I believe the best for children are to be raised by their biological parents in harmony and love. I realize that this is a hard goal to obtain. But it is the first principle to which I support.

The second principle - and this applies to all parents, gay or straight. If a parent is not willing to sacrifice personal desires, preferences, wants, passions, needs and orientations for the best that can be offered for the next generation as the example of what they should become - they are not the best parents for children. I personally question the parent that lives an example contrary to what is best for society and children (see above statement two statements of principle of best).

The Traveler