Utah’s finest, J. David Baxter, seems to have launched personal war on sex outside of marriage, and I’d like to respond to his platform letter from the 2011 Salt Lake County GOP convention.
TRADITIONAL MORAL VALUES AMENDMENT FOR FAMILY VALUES SECTION OF PLATFORM
The family values section should stand up for the traditional moral values that have been legally recognized for thousands of years, by all of the world’s great religious traditions. Not the current trend of a liberal activist court system.
Please define those traditional moral values that have been recognized (legally?) by all the world’s great religious traditions. Are you talking Islam? 1 in 5 people in the world identify as Muslim. Polygamy is accepted in the Islam faith. Hindus? 1 in 7 people in the world identify as Hindu and Hinduism as a religion does not prohibit polygamy. Buddhism? Marriage is not a sacrament in Buddhist traditions, therefore plural marriage is not addressed and polyandry (one woman/several husbands) is practiced in several countries where Buddhism is the prominent faith. Even in Christianity the “one man/one woman” configuration of marriage is a recent event with polygamy being the norm in Catholicism up until 1022 CE and in your own faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (you know, the Mormons), up until just four generations ago. Furthermore, “traditional” Judeo-Christian marriages were about property (the wife) and all the benefits that went with it: land, money, power through joining two families together, etc. “Traditional marriage” and families have nothing to do with love and “one man/one woman.
So exactly which of the world’s great religions and their family traditions are you referring to?
Increasing acceptance of immorality threatens the traditional family, as well as the free exercise of religion in the legal code.
Again, what is the “traditional family”? Until recently it was three or more adults in a conjugal relationship raising whatever offspring were the result of that relationship.
Your reference to “the free exercise of religion in the legal code” is scary because it shows that you either have a very rudimentary knowledge of our Bill of Rights or you feel that your religious beliefs (or just your beliefs in particular) should be legally legislated upon everyone in Utah, and maybe the U.S.
The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights both protects your religion from the law and my legal freedom from your religion.
In the Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 29 it states: Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
J. David Baxter would like to add the following after “between a man and a woman”:
We further recognize that the God given sexual power is to be used only between a husband and wife.
Mr. Baxter wants to make sex outside of marriage illegal in the State of Utah.
Whereas, Increasing acceptance of immorality threatens the traditional family, as well as the free exercise of religion in the legal code. President Obama’s human rights czar wants to lay legal charges against religious leaders, who speak out against Sodomy.
What you are referring to J. David Baxter is H.R. 1913 [111th]: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 which states:
Some Conservatives tried to promote the idea that this law could be used to prosecute religious leaders who spoke-out against homosexuality. As you can see in the wording nowhere does it infringe on their right to speak their mind, but many people (like you Mr. Baxter) believed that and never read the bill for themselves.
By the way, the bill never passed.
In Massachusetts, Catholic Services are not allowed to place adoptions, due to their opposition to Sodomy.
The choice of Catholic Charities (not Catholic Services) to not place children into the homes of gay couples is their’s and their’s alone. There is no law prohibiting this religion-affiliated program from placing orphans into the homes of same-sex couples and no one is going to force them to do so. I personally think it’s a stupid and short-sighted belief and robs many children of a loving, stable home. But that’s just me being one of those level-headed, thinking Liberals you hate so much.
P.S. “Sodomy” is defined as any sexual act that is not penis in vagina. It is not just a “gay” thing. I’m sure many of those opposing sodomy enjoy a good blowjob now and then.
100% Discreet Shopping
