Being a faithful, devout religious believer is not as simplistic as you make it out to be.  For instance, there’s nothing in a Mormon’s belief system that says they need to take every aspect of their personal religious beliefs and enshrine them in the law.

Being a faithful religious believer in politics is not about codifying every particle of your religious beliefs in statute.  It’s about trying to reconcile the conflicts that usually come up at some point between your religious faith and your political beliefs, and recognizing which are more important.

Being a faithful, devout religious believer is not as simplistic as you make it out to be.  For instance, there’s nothing in a Mormon’s belief system that says they need to take every aspect of their personal religious beliefs and enshrine them in the law.

Being a faithful religious believer in politics is not about codifying every particle of your religious beliefs in statute.  It’s about trying to reconcile the conflicts that usually come up at some point between your religious faith and your political beliefs, and recognizing which are more important.

One thing in your post I agree with is the first part of the second sentence.  I agree that, in isolation, Senator Reid taking the position he did as a public official does not necessarily mean he is putting politics over faith…it is his justification for taking that position that shows that is what is going on.

Senator Reid says “it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married.”  But as a Mormon, the “Proclamation on the Family” makes it clear that it IS his business whether two men or two women get married, and it goes further by explaining why.  It would have been one thing if he simply said that he thinks his primary job is to represent his constituents, who he believes are supportive of “gay marriage”…though that would be debatable given Nevada’s policies on the issue, it at least has a clear reconciliation with the tenets and positions of his church.  But his justification wasn’t about representing his constituents, it was that there is nothing wrong with “gay marriage” as a social policy – putting him in direct opposition to the position of his church.  Why?  Because as a liberal democrat is was the “right” thing to do, especially right after your political leader takes the same position.

One thing in your post I agree with is the first part of the second sentence.  I agree that, in isolation, Senator Reid taking the position he did as a public official does not necessarily mean he is putting politics over faith…it is his justification for taking that position that shows that is what is going on.

Senator Reid says “it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married.”  But as a Mormon, the “Proclamation on the Family” makes it clear that it IS his business whether two men or two women get married, and it goes further by explaining why.  It would have been one thing if he simply said that he thinks his primary job is to represent his constituents, who he believes are supportive of “gay marriage”…though that would be debatable given Nevada’s policies on the issue, it at least has a clear reconciliation with the tenets and positions of his church.  But his justification wasn’t about representing his constituents, it was that there is nothing wrong with “gay marriage” as a social policy – putting him in direct opposition to the position of his church.  Why?  Because as a liberal democrat is was the “right” thing to do, especially right after your political leader takes the same position.

The problem with the idea that “we should not be legislating morality” is that we ALL want to legislate morality…though we don’t always recognize and/or acknowledge it.  For instance, you suggest a governing principle of “as long as it does not adversely affect other people and cause harm…people should do as they chose.”  Well, that statement is itself, first and foremost, a moral statement.  It says that adversely affecting other people or causing them harm is wrong (i.e. immoral) and shouldn’t be allowed in society – a moral judgment that you would seem to reject as the basis for legislating. 

Any legislation based on this premise – such as legalizing “gay marriage” – would therefore be “legislating morality.”  Another example of how we all want to legislate morality is the laws in our criminal code.  Most of these laws are grounded and motivated by morality – that it’s wrong to kill someone without just cause or to steal property that belongs to someone else.  If “we should not be legislating morality,” does that mean it is illegitimate to push criminal laws against murder or theft because we think they are wrong?  Why else would we push laws against murder or theft?

In fact, the founding of our country (not to mention our state) was in itself largely an exercise in legislating morality.  The Revolution and drafting of the Constitution was motivated by, among other things, the beliefs that it was wrong (i.e. immoral) for England to tax its colonial citizens without giving them political representation, that it was wrong (i.e. immoral) for England to disregard its colonial citizens’ natural rights, and that it was wrong (i.e. immoral) for England to declare war on and kill its colonial citizens for taking action because they objected to these things.  The Declaration of Independence itself was a moral argument against how England had governed its colonies.

In my experience and observation, the idea that “we should not be legislating morality” is an argument designed to de-legitimize certain morals in public debate and hide the morals of those making the argument – in some cases even from themselves.  It is, by its nature, a dishonest argument often made by honest and sincere people.  We all want to legislate morality, and in the pluralist society we live in we WILL legislate the morality of one group or another.  Therefore, the only honest thing to do is to make the case for why your preferred moral system is best for society.

The problem with the idea that “we should not be legislating morality” is that we ALL want to legislate morality…though we don’t always recognize and/or acknowledge it.  For instance, you suggest a governing principle of “as long as it does not adversely affect other people and cause harm…people should do as they chose.”  Well, that statement is itself, first and foremost, a moral statement.  It says that adversely affecting other people or causing them harm is wrong (i.e. immoral) and shouldn’t be allowed in society – a moral judgment that you would seem to reject as the basis for legislating. 

Any legislation based on this premise – such as legalizing “gay marriage” – would therefore be “legislating morality.”  Another example of how we all want to legislate morality is the laws in our criminal code.  Most of these laws are grounded and motivated by morality – that it’s wrong to kill someone without just cause or to steal property that belongs to someone else.  If “we should not be legislating morality,” does that mean it is illegitimate to push criminal laws against murder or theft because we think they are wrong?  Why else would we push laws against murder or theft?

In fact, the founding of our country (not to mention our state) was in itself largely an exercise in legislating morality.  The Revolution and drafting of the Constitution was motivated by, among other things, the beliefs that it was wrong (i.e. immoral) for England to tax its colonial citizens without giving them political representation, that it was wrong (i.e. immoral) for England to disregard its colonial citizens’ natural rights, and that it was wrong (i.e. immoral) for England to declare war on and kill its colonial citizens for taking action because they objected to these things.  The Declaration of Independence itself was a moral argument against how England had governed its colonies.

In my experience and observation, the idea that “we should not be legislating morality” is an argument designed to de-legitimize certain morals in public debate and hide the morals of those making the argument – in some cases even from themselves.  It is, by its nature, a dishonest argument often made by honest and sincere people.  We all want to legislate morality, and in the pluralist society we live in we WILL legislate the morality of one group or another.  Therefore, the only honest thing to do is to make the case for why your preferred moral system is best for society.

Second, I disagree with the original post’s comments on political thinking versus religious thinking. In addition to being opposed to gay marriage, devout Mormons are opposed to smoking, consuming alcohol, premarital sex, pornography, watching football on Sunday and many other activities. Based on the author’s comments, a devout Mormon would have to support banning these activities in order to reconcile their political thinking and their religious thinking.

Second, I disagree with the original post’s comments on political thinking versus religious thinking. In addition to being opposed to gay marriage, devout Mormons are opposed to smoking, consuming alcohol, premarital sex, pornography, watching football on Sunday and many other activities. Based on the author’s comments, a devout Mormon would have to support banning these activities in order to reconcile their political thinking and their religious thinking.