LDS and Prop 8

[Storm]

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.

Maybe....

 

[Smoke]

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.

The LDS Church is well-known for its anti-gay campaigns. They've been at this for a long time. Of course, I realize the general public doesn't keep up with these things; I get the idea that most heterosexuals weren't aware of Fred Phelps till he started protesting soldiers' funerals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The LDS Church is well-known for its anti-gay campaigns. They've been at this for a long time. Of course, I realize the general public doesn't keep up with these things; I get the idea that most heterosexuals weren't aware of Fred Phelps till he started protesting soldiers' funerals.

I don't recall seeing any out-and-out (no pun intended) public statements on the issue until recently. Until Prop 8, my impression of LDS feelings about homosexuality were almost exclusively based on talking to individual Mormons.

Before that, the public face of the LDS Church that I'd mainly see was their "hooray for family and togetherness"-type TV ads, which always showed opposite-sex-parented families, but didn't explicitly comment on homosexuality or same-sex marriage. I know that there were prior memos and church documents that made their way to the press, but I don't think they were really the public face that the LDS Church presented.

 

[Autodidact]

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'm guessing that there's just more prejudice against Mormons. It's a kind of scapegoating IMO.

 

[Orontes]

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

My post you responded to makes no reference to Judges. This comment: "Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will." is an assertion about basic republicanism.

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.

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.

Courts declaring a law unconstitutional does not relate to my post.

Your would be example of moving against Mormonism does not work within the confines of the U.S. Constititution where religions are given protected status.

 

[Orontes]

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

The fact you are a practicing attorney makes your lack of understanding of jurisprudence all the more stunning. Did you sleep through Constitutional Law or never study the theoretical underpinnings of law proper? I recall the last time you and I were in a discussion your posts were also examples of non secuiturs, name calling and attempts to marginalize a view rather than actually engage it. When I finally pointed out the position I was arguing was the exact same stance of four of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court including the Chief Justice you were left with nothing but a stammering retreat.

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, history 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?

If you believe the Twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution did not go through a majoritarian process then you are simply ignorant of the U.S. System. If you believe right claims can be imposed void of a majoritarian appeal then you are simply an enemy of democracy and republicanism. Those who would impose on a political body what they cannot get a majority of its citizenry to agree to are truly dangerous.

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.

You are either ignorant of the Reconstruction Era Amendments to the Constitution or this is yet another non sequitur.

Done it once.

What you claim to have done is not relevant. If you wish to engage me on a sub-point of this thread, you are free to do so. You engaged me, not I you.

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

Alas, the fellow called me a bigot and then asked if I consider gays to be human. My reply was: "As to my personal views on gays: of course gays are human. Being human does not mean anything a human does is thereby justified. I hold homosexuality to be a sexual fetish. I do not think the state need or should endorse sexual fetishes."

To this you replied: " On the other hand, why should the state adopt your bizarre idiosyncratic diagnosis of other people's marriages?"

My response to this was I gave no diagnosis of marriage. The central question and my reply concerned my views. If you are uncomfortable with such, then do not read my posts.

 

[Orontes]

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? [/size]

There is no provision under U.S. law for judges to create law or rights. Where judges have attempted to do this they have acted incorrectly and unjustifiably. The Founders of the American System did not fight and die to establish an judicial tyranny.

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

I don't believe you know the U.S. System.

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.

Yes they do.

 

[Orontes]

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

You should convince a majority of your fellows citizens to agree with you and gays will have the same marriage status.

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.

The Establishment Clause does not bar religious people or organizations from the political process.

Prohibitions against murder is a religious doctrine.

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.

Out of state groups/organizations, PACs etc. participating in elections is standard practice across the U.S.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Courts declaring a law unconstitutional does not relate to my post.

Your would be example of moving against Mormonism does not work within the confines of the U.S. Constititution where religions are given protected status.

This is why Illinois Governor Boggs' 1838 order to have all Mormons "exterminated or driven from the State" was struck down as unconstitutional as soon as it was enacted and didn't stay on the books until, say, the 1970s, right?

 

[AxisMundi]

You should convince a majority of your fellows citizens to agree with you and gays will have the same marriage status.

The Establishment Clause does not bar religious people or organizations from the political process.

Prohibitions against murder is a religious doctrine.

Out of state groups/organizations, PACs etc. participating in elections is standard practice across the U.S.

1. "Your fellow citizens"? What's that supposed to mean. BTW, have anything other than implied ad hominems, or do you actually have a secular reasoning to deny gays the Civil Right of marriage?

2. Yes, it certainly does. The Establishment Clause strives to keep the institutions of relgiion and governemnt seperated. See Bouvier's Law Dictionary entries for "establish" and "religion". Also, I will point out those churches and religious organizations that have had their tax expempt status yanked for stepping over that Wall.

3. No, the prohibition against murder spans cultures and is not limited to any, or any one, relgiious moral set. It is a social moral, not a relgiious one.

4. And as I stated before, I do not agree with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is why Illinois Governor Boggs' 1838 order to have all Mormons "exterminated or driven from the State" was struck down as unconstitutional as soon as it was enacted and didn't stay on the books until, say, the 1970s, right?

Whoops - that should've been Missouri, not Illinois.

 

[Orontes]

Courts declaring a law unconstitutional does not relate to my post.

Your would be example of moving against Mormonism does not work within the confines of the U.S. Constititution where religions are given protected status.

This is why Illinois Governor Boggs' 1838 order to have all Mormons "exterminated or driven from the State" was struck down as unconstitutional as soon as it was enacted and didn't stay on the books until, say, the 1970s, right?

In 1838 the U.S. Constitution did not apply to the states. Such would not occur until after the Civil War.

 

[Orontes]

You should convince a majority of your fellows citizens to agree with you and gays will have the same marriage status.

The Establishment Clause does not bar religious people or organizations from the political process.
Prohibitions against murder is a religious doctrine.

Out of state groups/organizations, PACs etc. participating in elections is standard practice across the U.S.

1. "Your fellow citizens"? What's that supposed to mean. BTW, have anything other than implied ad hominems, or do you actually have a secular reasoning to deny gays the Civil Right of marriage?

2. Yes, it certainly does. The Establishment Clause strives to keep the institutions of relgiion and governemnt seperated. See Bouvier's Law Dictionary entries for "establish" and "religion". Also, I will point out those churches and religious organizations that have had their tax expempt status yanked for stepping over that Wall.

3. No, the prohibition against murder spans cultures and is not limited to any, or any one, relgiious moral set. It is a social moral, not a relgiious one.

4. And as I stated before, I do not agree with it.

1)"Your fellow citizens" assumes you are a U.S. Citizen. It was not meant to offend, but simply point out that if you want a thing made into law i.e. gay marriage, then getting a majority of voters to agree with you is the way to do it.


2) No, it does not. Your view is anachronistic. The context the Framers worked under was the Treaty of Westphalia (which was little more than a 100 years prior) and state imposed faiths in general. State religion was the issue, not barring religion from the public square. Since you are interested in Constitutional history go do a study into the state religions (by which I mean the states of the U.S.) of the time period. I think it will help.

3) Your statement was that religious doctrine is forbidden from being made into U.S. law. It reads as a categorical. Prohibition on murder is a religious doctrine. Did you mean to say U.S. Law forbids religious doctrine being made into U.S. law unless the docrine is also found in a non religious context aswell?

4) That is fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In 1838 the U.S. Constitution did not apply to the states. Such would not occur until after the Civil War.

Ah... so the order was struck down in 1868? Surely an unconstitutional order wouldn't have remained in effect until the turn of the century, right?

 

[Orontes]

Ah... so the order was struck down in 1868? Surely an unconstitutional order wouldn't have remained in effect until the turn of the century, right?

Laws aren't struck down unless a suit is brought before the Court. Unless an legal challenge is made no action is taken.

 

[McBell]

1)"Your fellow citizens" assumes you are a U.S. Citizen. It was not meant to offend, but simply point out that if you want a thing made into law i.e. gays marriage, then getting a majority of voters to agree with you is the way to do it.

If this had any truth to it then not only would abortion be illegal, but we would be allowed to own slaves, women would not be allowed to vote or even own land, interracial marriage would be illegal, and creation would be taught in science class...

 

[Autodidact]

The fact you are a practicing attorney makes your lack of understanding of jurisprudence all the more stunning. Did you sleep through Constitutional Law or never study the theoretical underpinnings of law proper? I recall the last time you and I were in a discussion your posts were also examples of non secuiturs, name calling and attempts to marginalize a view rather than actually engage it. When I finally pointed out the position I was arguing was the exact same stance of four of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court including the Chief Justice you were left with nothing but a stammering retreat.

Somehow I doubt your account of our conversation. No, it is not. There is not a Justice on the SCOTUS today who believes that a law may not be declared unconstitutional because it violated a constitutionally protected right.

If you believe the Twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution did not go through a majoritarian process then you are simply ignorant of the U.S. System.

Of course they did. And, if a law violates any of them, it is the job of the courts, specifically, SCOTUS, to strike that law down. This is elementary constitutional law.

If you believe right claims can be imposed void of a majoritarian appeal then you are simply an enemy of democracy and republicanism

Well, your terminology is too broad and vague. The constitution itself could be said to be a result of a "majoritarian" process. Nevertheless, whenever the majority of the voters enact a law that violates it, it is the job of the courts to strike it down. Do you disgree?

. Those who would impose on a political body what they cannot get a majority of its citizenry to agree to are truly dangerous.

The court does not, and cannot, impose. It can only strike down. And that is there job, here in the U.S. of A.

You are either ignorant of the Reconstruction Era Amendments to the Constitution or this is yet another non sequitur.

It was based on those amendments (in part) that "majoritarian" but discriminatory laws were struck down. Do you agree that is the proper role of the court? If so, why bring any of this up here, when that is what the plaintiffs here are asking for? If not, then yes, you fundamentally oppose the American system of government.

What you claim to have done is not relevant. If you wish to engage me on a sub-point of this thread, you are free to do so. You engaged me, not I you.

I leave it up to you.

Alas, the fellow called me a bigot and then asked if I consider gays to be human. My reply was: "As to my personal views on gays: of course gays are human. Being human does not mean anything a human does is thereby justified. I hold homosexuality to be a sexual fetish. I do not think the state need or should endorse sexual fetishes."

To this you replied: " On the other hand, why should the state adopt your bizarre idiosyncratic diagnosis of other people's marriages?"

My response to this was I gave no diagnosis of marriage. The central question and my reply concerned my views. If you are uncomfortable with such, then do not read my posts.

Well if you were not talking about gay marriage, why bring it up here? Maybe you should start a thread to discuss sexual fetishes. Apparently you don't think they have anything to do with marriage, so clearly the conversation doesn't belong here.

 

[Autodidact]

There is no provision under U.S. law for judges to create law or rights. Where judges have attempted to do this they have acted incorrectly and unjustifiably. The Founders of the American System did not fight and die to establish an judicial tyranny.

Of course not. Judges do neither. They recognize the rights already in the constitution. That's what the plaintiffs are asking them to do here.

I don't believe you know the U.S. System.

Et tu.

 

[Autodidact]

Thinking more about it, Orontes, I think a lot of the negative response you get is due to your opaque, pontificating, idiosyncratic style of posting. If you expressed yourself in simple English--well, I'm not sure whether people would agree with you, but at least the thread would be a lot shorter.

 

[Orontes]

If this had any truth to it then not only would abortion be illegal, but we would be allowed to own slaves, women would not be allowed to vote or even own land, interracial marriage would be illegal, and creation would be taught in science class...

Abortion differed on the locale until the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade, which is the Dred Scott decision of the Twentieth Century. It is a case study in judicial overreach.

Slavery was removed with the 13th Amendment

Women were allowed to vote with the 19th Amendment

Anti-miscegenation laws may very well have continued, but were declared unconstitutional in the Loving case in 1967 as a violation of the 14th Amendment: based on "unsupportable basis as the racial classifications ". Race as a viable category for legal distinction came under challenge in the Reconstruction Era Amendments (Amendments 13,14,15).

Creation is taught is some schools: Kansas I believe.