While one may claim that marriage is a fundamentally religious symbol, in practice this simply isn’t the case. Marriage is, from the perspective of the state, a primarily social and legal symbol. To the extent that one wishes to intrepret this symbol religiously is of course their own business, but that the state engages in recognizing this symbol in a legal and social way does not mean that the state is engaged in religious activity.

As for the supposed conflict between “freedom” and “permission from the government,” I am not sure that I agree that one cannot say that they are the same. That the state recognizes religious organizations in a particular legal category of non-profits, would, by your analogy, suggest that I do not have the freedom of religion because the government legally recognizes only those religions which have filed the proper paperwork.

In terms of the final remark about political liberty, I am also not sure that I follow. Of course, one is free to vote in whatever manner they wish, and one is free to say that those who voted another way are wrong. In partisan politics, as we’ve seen, these issues frequently become contentious, rancorous, and tea-party-ish all the time. I don’t see the idea of protests of one’s opposition per se as a threat to liberty, but rather the contrary claim that one should not protest as a greater threat. In terms of donating money, this information is already published. Unless you are arguing for a return to secret contributions (which I see as fundamentally anti-democratic), you describe the status quo of public records information.

Now, you’re not going to get an argument from me that the post-Prop 8 protests were a political and ethical mistake, and I’ve argued as much here and elsewhere, but I am not sure that they present a threat to political or religious liberty in any demonstrable way.

chanson,
agreed that the interplay between freedom and establishment dominants the way debates about religion in the public square are framed, and the overlooking of dealing with this balance opens him up to the critique that he doesn’t see a balance, whether or not that is actually the case.

Blake,
As for whether or not Oaks should have addressed the establishment clause on this occasion, this is not my place to say. I have suggested that part of the negative reaction to his speech is that he didn’t address it. Given that establishment and freedom of religion are generally seen as oppositional notions in contemporary discussions, and that the opposition that Oaks speaks of does not see itself as opposing LDS freedom of religion, but rather the establishment thereof, Oaks’ choice to not speak of this issue raises questions about whether or not he understands the nature of the opponents’ position and concerns about LDS involvement on this issue.

Perhaps the problem of the conflict between establishment and freedom of religion in the contemporary scene has to do with the way that we have framed the issues.

Just to clarify, I was responding to m&m, and not Oaks.

If anything the “rights” and “freeedom” rhetoric is a bit overboard on all sides.

My wife very much agrees with Blake on this point.

I agree that Oaks did not seem to address the idea that sexual freedom would threaten religious freedom, but he certainly declared that gay rights, even religious rights for gays, threaten the religious rights of Latter-day Saints. And he admonished his listeners to resist such rights in cases where governments would impinge upon LDS religious freedom.

Oaks: “Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights.”

In the text that follows, Oaks specifically references Principle 21 of the Yogyakarta Principles (further discussion at my blog). Principle 21 is “The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion” (for LGBT persons). But he is most likely speaking here of the “newly asserted” religious freedom of same-sex marriage which, he fears, could be mandated by the State, over the objection of some religions.

Further, the notion that Elder Oaks has to address the Establishment Clause limitations on the state involvement in religion when discussing the threat to religious freedoms from punitive actions taken against Mormons in connection with support of Prop. 8 seems really strange to me. Just how is the establishment clause relevant to addressing issues of religious freedom under attack by firing, boycotting or publicly ridiculing those who supported Prop. 8?