LDS and Prop 8

[Smoke]

Given you cite constitutional rights, I assume you are talking about the U.S. Constitution? If so, the Constitution already makes provision the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. This means the legislature (state or federal) could not act against the Mormon Church as you describe until the Constitution were changed.

If the legislature enacted an unconstitutional law and there were no appeal to the courts, they certainly could. My admittedly extreme example was an attempt to illustrate how nonsensical your contempt for the courts is.

 

[Orontes]

If the legislature enacted an unconstitutional law and there were no appeal to the courts, they certainly could. My admittedly extreme example was an attempt to illustrate how nonsensical your contempt for the courts is.

I made no reference to the courts. What I stated was: "Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will." This is a rather mundane claim. If you believe rights should be created by another branch of government, you can make the case if you wish. If you wish to square it with a democratic form of government, it should make interesting reading. Within the U.S. model: rights, The Constitution, Amendments to the same are products of the Legislative Branch. Your post stating the legislature should be able to... does not make sense under the U.S. constitutional system. If you were attempting a counter based on an imagined system that seems to also contain a constitution and that also has Mormons running about, it would appear to beg the question.

Unconstitutional laws are not related to my post. An unconstitutional law by definition lacks justification.

 

[Smoke]

I made no reference to the courts.

My mistake. What judges were you referring to, Gideon and Samson?

I made no reference to the courts. What I stated was: "Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will." This is a rather mundane claim. If you believe rights should be created by another branch of government, you can make the case if you wish. If you wish to square it with a democratic form of government, it should make interesting reading. Within the U.S. model: rights, The Constitution, Amendments to the same are products of the Legislative Branch. Your post stating the legislature should be able to... does not make sense under the U.S. constitutional system. If you were attempting a counter based on an imagined system that seems to also contain a constitution and that also has Mormons running about, it would appear to beg the question.

Unconstitutional laws are not related to my post. An unconstitutional law by definition lacks justification.

It is the courts that determine what is and what is not unconstitutional. Just as your Church finds no original intent to convey equal rights to gay people, another might find that no original intent to convey freedom of religion to Mormons exists. In fact, one position makes as much sense as the other, and we might as well be bound by original intent in one case as in the other, too.

As long as rights claims are interpreted by popular vote and not by even-handed application of the constitution, there's no reason to assume that Mormon rights can or should be taken for granted any more than gay rights.

 

[Witch of Hope]

I believe it was wrong for the LDS Church to campaign as they did, if I lived in California I would be very angry at them.

However, the Mormon population of California is only 2%, which means it wasn't Mormons who caused this step backwards, it was everybody else who voted, non-LDS bigoted Americans. If you need to point the finger at someone it should really be your society as a whole, as homophobia clearly is not confined to the LDS Church.

Right! Since most money and most support came from Utah as Salt Lake tribunes reported. And there were also not alone the Mormons. These were before all Catholic and fundamentalist Christians who had served with their lies in their commercials to heat up the mood. Do you still remember the commercial where children told about supposedly homosexual parents weeping that they suffered from the homosexuality of their parents? Later came out that ALL these children HAD HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS, and were engaged in this advertisement by an advertizing agency. Or to the rumors which were spread by these people after whom children would be educated to homosexual if Prop 8 wouldn't be accepted? EVERYBODY of these churchs are guilty of the deliberate misinformation, the bigotry and the homophobia, as well as the refusal of the full civil rights for American citizens!

 

[Witch of Hope]

If you wish to argue David and Jonathan were gay lovers (and I assume this was considered proper), make the argument.

It was just a joke, but with a serious background. Take a look at wikipedia

 

[Katzpur]

I went through this very argument with LDS right here at RF and won.

Since I've had you on ignore for several months now, I don't see your posts. Orantes quoted you in one of his posts, though, so I saw this silly, presumptuous statement. How can anyone on RF declare himself the winner of a debate? You declared yourself the winner before you even opened your mouth. So what? Since when does saying, "I won! I won! I won! :149: " make it so? Don't worry about replying. Unless someone else quote your lame-*** answer, I won't see it anyway.

 

[Witch of Hope]

Two Mormon men are married as man and wife in the Temple of SLC: www.WhyMormons.net: 2 Men Sealed as Husband & Wife

O Joke? An Error? A Mistake? Or maybe a sign of God?

 

[Katzpur]

Two Mormon men are married as man and wife in the Temple of SLC: www.WhyMormons.net: 2 Men Sealed as Husband & Wife

O Joke? An Error? A Mistake? Or maybe a sign of God?

To me, it sounds like a man who was so stupid that he wasn't able to tell that his wife was really a man. People can be pretty stupid sometimes. I guess if a man really wants another man to be a woman, he can actually believe that's the case. Or if he really wants to believe he's a woman himself, he can convince himself of that, too. I actually remember when this happened. It was pretty funny.

 

[Autodidact]

Given previous exchanges we've had we both know you understand little of our system of government and less about jurisprudence.

Actually I believe our previous exchanges established that you lack such understanding. I am a practicing attorney.

It also seems you have a penchant to destroy democratic principle in order to get whatever it is you want. This is both dangerous and disturbing. The reality is rights claims to be justified have to pass through a majoritarian process. This was the case from the First Amendment to the Twenty-seventh. When judges or others invent rights or try and dictate the same, it threatens the very basis of democracy and republicanism. I understand the totalitarian impulse that drives you, histroy is replete with the blood split by the like minded.

Yes, we know that you believe that. However, that is not the American system, which you despise. Why?

Those who support gay rights claim (whether it be marriage titlement or something else) should make their case in the public square. If enough of their fellow citizens agree, then law can and will be passed to reflect that view.

I think we'll figure out our own strategy without any help from you, thank you.

Under your system, we'd still have Jim Crow.

If you wish to make a case, do so, it is not a concern of mine: the doctrines of Mormondom are in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Bible and Pearl of Great Price. If your Google magic is going to present reference of various Mormons on the Curse of Ham/Cain, Pre-existence moral status etc. all certainly existed. These opinions all reflect an attempt to justify the ban, but were not doctrinal.

Done it once.

If someone calls me a bigot and asks me if I consider gays to be human, then I feel at liberty to state my personal view on homosexuality. I made no comment on marriage. You don't read very carefully.

Read it again, Orontes. You stated that you oppose same-sex marriage because

I hold homosexuality to be a sexual fetish. I do not think the state need or should endorse sexual fetishes.

Yes, I understand that you hold that. I hold that your bigotry is a sexual fetish. Neither of us is bound by the other's view in that respect, and neither should the state.

If you don't want to be called a bigot, stop making bigoted posts.

 

[Autodidact]

I made no reference to the courts. What I stated was: "Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will." This is a rather mundane claim.

No, it's not. It's a claim that we should discard the system of government our ancestors fought and died for, and under which we have lived for over two centuries. So my question for you is, why do you hate America?

If you believe rights should be created by another branch of government, you can make the case if you wish.

I don't need to--that's the system we have, and it works pretty well.

Unconstitutional laws are not related to my post. An unconstitutional law by definition lacks justification.

Well then we're in agreement. Courts should and do have the right to strike down laws that violate the rights set forth in the Constitution.

 

[Autodidact]

Since I've had you on ignore for several months now, I don't see your posts. Orantes quoted you in one of his posts, though, so I saw this silly, presumptuous statement. How can anyone on RF declare himself the winner of a debate? You declared yourself the winner before you even opened your mouth. So what? Since when does saying, "I won! I won! I won! :149: " make it so? Don't worry about replying. Unless someone else quote your lame-*** answer, I won't see it anyway.

No, someone (can't remember name--has golden retriever as avatar) denied that this was a doctrinal claim, and offered to change his sig if I could show that it was. I did, and he did, and I fruballed him for his integrity. I could go back and find it, but it was some time ago.

Wow, what could be ruder than calling me a liar and then declaring in advance her refusal to read my defense? That's really---well, I'd rather not say, but definitely not sign of a good character.

 

[AxisMundi]

Hello,

I'm not sure what you hope the LDS Church would change their minds about. I live in Southern California and was active in the Prop. 8 Campaign.

Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic. Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will. The overturn of the earlier Proposition 22 (that led to the Proposition 8 campaign) was an affront to the democratic process.

As to homosexuality proper: the LDS Church considers homosexuality a sin. Therefore, any relation involving homosexuality i.e. homosexual marriage, would also be seen as sinful.

The LDS Church would agree with the larger notion the state can regulate sexual relations. This would also include what can or should be considered a marriage. Marriage is a state endorsement of a relationship where the state acts as the guarantor of the contract.

None of these positions are likely to change.


In regards to the article and what you quote in your second post: I think it is an error to assume the LDS Church's stance is based on or related to not knowing gay people. Individual Mormons may be anti-gay, pro-gay or even self identify as gay: none of those positions necessarily speak to the larger stance of the Church.

There is no valid, secular reason to deny Equality of Marriage to gays.

In Prop 8 there is also the matter of the Establishment Clause as well, not only of the US Constitution but that found in the Cali Constitution as well, which forbids not only religious institutions from participating in politics, but religious doctrine from being made into US laws as well.

There is also the matter of churches, such as the LDS, and religious organizations, such as Focus on the Family, pouring millions into California from Out Of State into the "Gathering Storm" propeganda campaign.

Don't know about you, but I was under the assumption that a state referendum was for the citizens OF THAT state.

Prop 8 was faltering until those millions were poured into California from outsider churches and organizations.

 

[silvermoon383]

I should point out that the Establishment Clause only forbids the making of a state religion, nor religion's banishment from making political stands.

Also, more money was raised for the No On 8 campaign, both in and out of California.

 

[AxisMundi]

I should point out that the Establishment Clause only forbids the making of a state religion, nor religion's banishment from making political stands.

Also, more money was raised for the No On 8 campaign, both in and out of California.

I've been an informal student of the Constitution since well before Al Gore invented the Internets. It's amazing what you'll find in the library, though I am glad people have taken the time to put some of these sources on the web. It makes debating the issue much easier to have a valid source to link to instead of attempting to attain enough credibility on a new forum for people to believe one's words at face value.

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the first comprehensive American legal definitional work which was begun in 1826. Definition number 4 for Establish reads thusly...

4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

I cannot post links as of yet, but Google for "bouvier's law dictionary"should bring up the site.

While the Establishment Clause does indeed strive to keep the US from laboring under an Established State religion, it also erects the Wall that Mr. Jefferson, a lawyer, coined in his letter to the legal laymen of the Danbury Baptist Assoc.

The same source lists for Religion...

Real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men.... 4. But religion can be useful to man only when it is pure. The constitution of the United States has, therefore, wisely provided that it should never be united with the state.

Perhaps that has cleared the issue up for you? Whether rabid Evangelicals or rational Enlightenment thinkers, our Founders knew perfectly well what occurs when the institutions of religion and government are permitted to intertwine. They shed blood and spent lives to separate from just such a Despot of Theonomy.

Also, please list the out-of-state resources for the No to Prop 8 campaign, if you would be so kind. It is my firmest belief that any such funding from out-of-state on a State Referendum should be strictly prohibited.

 

[silvermoon383]

Total contribution numbers

This isn't a straight list, but it names names: California Prop 8 attracts out-of-state donors | ScrippsNews

 

[Autodidact]

It's pretty common for national and other groups from various states to contribute and advocate for and against state referenda. Do you really want to restrict that? It's kind of free speech, don't you think?

The problem to me isn't so much that they contributed, but that they're wrong. It is rather odd that they're obsessed with gay people in California, rather than Mormons in Utah, I admit.

 

[AxisMundi]

Thanks for the link silvermoon.

It's pretty common for national and other groups from various states to contribute and advocate for and against state referenda. Do you really want to restrict that? It's kind of free speech, don't you think?

The problem to me isn't so much that they contributed, but that they're wrong. It is rather odd that they're obsessed with gay people in California, rather than Mormons in Utah, I admit.

I still don't agree with out-of-state concerns contributing to a state referendum concern. Prop 8 would not have effected anyone in Utah, for example. But hey, that's only a personal opinion.

Hmm, the Knights of Columbus. Hadn't realized they were contributers as well.

Not surprising perhaps, since they are the group responsible for the "under God" inclusion to our Pledge in 1954, and set up the downfall of our original Motto as well in 1956.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm, the Knights of Columbus. Hadn't realized they were contributers as well.

Not surprising perhaps, since they are the group responsible for the "under God" inclusion to our Pledge in 1954, and set up the downfall of our original Motto as well in 1956.

Also, the American Council of Catholic Bishops and many individual Catholic dioceses and parishes contributed heavily to Prop 8.

I personally dislike the fact that the LDS Church did take such a strong stand against Prop 8 and I think they do deserve criticism, but it puzzles me why they've received so much more of the after-vote anger than the Catholic Church has.

 

[Storm]

Also, the American Council of Catholic Bishops and many individual Catholic dioceses and parishes contributed heavily to Prop 8.

I personally dislike the fact that the LDS Church did take such a strong stand against Prop 8 and I think they do deserve criticism, but it puzzles me why they've received so much more of the after-vote anger than the Catholic Church has.

More publicity, maybe? I heard a LOT more about Mormon activism on this than Catholic.

OF course, then the question just becomes why the focus was on the LDS.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

More publicity, maybe? I heard a LOT more about Mormon activism on this than Catholic.

OF course, then the question just becomes why the focus was on the LDS.....

I think part of it might've been the surprise factor. The LDS Church wasn't really known for its political advocacy in the past, but the fact that the Catholic Church would engage in this sort of thing was more expected.

Like they say, "dog bites man" isn't news, but "man bites dog" is.