LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[madhatter85]

How is it any more sexist for a lesbian woman to restrict herself to female partners than it is for you to restrict yourself to men?

Also, by similar logic, anyone who marries within their ethnic group is racist.

Agian youa re trying to compare Homosexuality to Race and Sex. RACE AND SEX ARE NOT BEHAVIORAL. hence there can be no logical comparison.

 

[Autodidact]

for families with no father figure (raised just by females)

Scores of research studies have documented the positive effects of involved fathers (www.fatherhood.org/fatherfacts.htm). Here's just a sampling of the benefits:

• The National Center for Educational Statistics reported that when fathers are involved in their children's education, the kids were more likely to get As, enjoy school, and participate in extracurricular activities.
• Kyle Pruett concluded that kids with engaged fathers demonstrate "a greater ability to take initiative and evidence self-control."
• When these boys grew up, they were more likely to be good dads themselves.

But when fathers are disenfranchised by misguided government programs, here's the result:

• Their children have a higher rate of asthma, headaches, anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems.
• Teenagers are at greater risk of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, and suicide
• Adolescent girls are 3 times more likely to engage in sexual relations by the time they turn 15, and 5 times more likely to become a teen mother.

from link, link

Kids raised only by dads:
Based on a sample of 1,503 children with nonresident mothers from the National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF) report similar problems in households without mothers (lower school scores, emotional problems, etc.) link

link
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.[/FONT]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Do you think homosexual couples are a bit ... sexist? You are supposed to love everyone, not just people who are like yourself...

So do you have any research showing that children of heterosexual families do better in any measurable way than children of homosexual families? Because you would never try to mislead us by comparing single-parent families to two-parent families and claiming that has any relevance to this discussion, would you?

 

[Orontes]

You seem to be opposed to our system of government; specifically, separation of powers.

Quite the contrary. It is because I believe in the separation of powers I must reject the Judicial overreach that overturned prop. 22.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Loving v. Virginia

Alas, the Loving ruling is an anti-miscegenation decision couched in terms of the 14th Amendment. It does not claim the state must offer marriage, but that the state cannot privilege marriage based on color.

Now, if you wish to argue there is a right to marry: where does it say the state must sanction marriages? Where does it exist in the law? When was it ratified?

Right back at you. You said it could be federal. It isn't. It's state law.

I think you are still confused. Jurisprudence questions can be either federal or state in nature. Further, state law is subject to Federal law i.e. the U.S. Constitution.

Your posts verge on the imcomprehensible. It was in response to your assertion that the matter could be one of federal law. It can't and wasn't.

You seem to be the only one having difficulty, but I don't want you to have difficulty. So again, if you have questions, ask.

Arguments may indeed be couched that way, that was my point. My post specifically distinguished general questions on jurisprudence and California law. I have dealt with both subject matter in this thread. I don't understand your issues with language. I haven't used any complex English, as a lawyer you should be even better placed to understand the rather basic terms I've used. To your question: The California Supreme Court's ruling was incorrect because:

It invents rights that do not exist
It creates protected class status that does not exist.

What rights?
What class?

[/quote]

The right to gay marriage
That gay status is a protected class

Marriage is a fundamental right.
The California constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution, mandates that
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens...

This provision was the basis of the court's ruling.

Marriage doesn't appear in what you quote from the California Constitution. There is no fundamental right to gay marriage. Rather, what one has is four judges who confuse their political penchants for law and adjust the law to mesh with those penchants. It is undemocratic and unjust.

As to what the California Constitution does say: "(O)n the same terms" is a "similarly situated" legal positioning. Heterosexual marriages and gay marriages are not similarly situated. Gay marriages cannot produce citizens or future tax payers. The state has no vested interest in gay marriage.

 

[Orontes]

What do you mean "legislating from the bench"?

Legislating from the bench refers to Judges assuming the power and responsibility of the legislature and thereby creating, practically or actually, positive law or the force of the same.

I still don't understand what you mean by inventing rights. You can call it what you want, but when one group of people is legally allowed to do something (call it a right, a privilege, or whatever), then every group needs to be able to do that same thing, unless there are rational grounds for disallowing it. There are no rational grounds in the case of same-sex marriage.

Inventing rights would be an example of legislating from the bench i.e. Judges declaring X to be a right when rights are determined through legislation and ratification, not judicial fiat.

Fine, you want to not call marriage a right. Call it a privilege, call it whatever you want. It is still something that some people can do and others can't and there's no good reason to discriminate. If it makes it easier, think of it as them being denied the right to the "pursuit of happiness", and their right to "liberty" even. You can redefine it as anything you want, but the point still stands that they are being denied something that others have for no legal reason.

A pursuit of happiness liberty is fine: gay couples may marry who, where and when they may, but that is distinct from claiming the state must sanction and endorse that pursuit. There is no compelling reason the state should endorse gay marriage.

Then, you are saying that same-sex marriage is ok? That's what my argument leads to. So, have you come over to my side, or are you just admitting your inconsistency?

Ahh, one of the difficulties of commenting on a post that is/was already well developed. No, I'm not saying same sex marriage is OK. I was discussing the parameters of equity claims. To whit, if one claims any distinction in law is an equity violation, they are confused. Laws by nature make distinctions. For example, an eighteen year old may vote, but not a seventeen year old. These distinctions in and of themselves do not constitute equity violations.

You mean for church officials to promote political opinions? As in go against the very idea of separation of church and state? I would say it would be a flawed claim to say that the church should do such things.

The idea of separation of church and state is not that religious individuals or groups cannot offer views on political issues. Such is an anachronistic understanding of the clause. This is how I explained the issue in another thread: The whole thrust of the separation clause in the Constitution is geared toward preventing a national religion i.e. the Church of England. It had nothing to do with faith entering the public square or influencing the same. I'll illustrate this with a Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling from Joseph Smith's own time frame. In Permoli v. New Orleans (1845) SCOTUS held: "The Constitution makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective states in their religious liberties; this is left to the state constitutions and laws" Thus, states were free to establish a church should they so desire. This is why states like Connecticut continued to have tax support for religion until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833. New Jersey restricted full civil rights to Protestants until 1844 and Maryland required belief in God as a requirement for public office until into the mid-Twentieth Century. Faith was not seen as something to exclude from civics, rather it was something that wasn't to be controlled by the Federal government. This is why in New York in 1811 a Chancellor Kent upheld a blasphemy conviction on the ground "We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity".

Right, which is why the beliefs need to have a rational basis, so that, even if you don't like them, you can at least see the need for them. Someone who wants to kill people may not like the imposition of the law against killing, but you can explain it's need rationally, and, if they are a rational person, they can accept that.

The creation of law does not require a loyalty to rationality. Regardless the benefits reason may bring to legislation, law works off of majoritarianism, not reason. Thus, if a majority want to tax cigarettes with some form of sin tax, the logic or lack of logic doesn't invalidate the law. I think you are confusing rhetoric with actual law. Reason may be used to indicate something is a good or bad idea and sway one's countrymen accordingly, but it cannot invalidate law.

The law against homosexual marriage has no rational basis.

There is no law against homosexual marriage. People may marry who they will. The issue is over what the state must recognize.

 

[fantome profane]

Alas, the Loving ruling is an anti-miscegenation decision couched in terms of the 14th Amendment. It does not claim the state must offer marriage, but that the state cannot privilege marriage based on color.

It would seem to follow from that reasoning that the state cannot privilege marriage based on gender.

 

[Magic Man]

Agian youa re trying to compare Homosexuality to Race and Sex. RACE AND SEX ARE NOT BEHAVIORAL. hence there can be no logical comparison.

What are you talking about? He was responding to the notion that being gay is sexist. His point was that a lesbian choosing to have relationships with only women is no more sexist than a man choosing to have relationships with only women. I'm really not sure where this response of yours came from, but it has nothing to do with the quote it was supposedly responding to.

 

[Magic Man]

A pursuit of happiness liberty is fine: gay couples may marry who, where and when they may, but that is distinct from claiming the state must sanction and endorse that pursuit. There is no compelling reason the state should endorse gay marriage.

I take it you mean aside from the fact that they endorse hetersexual marriage, and are then discriminating illegally against homosexuals by not endorsing their marriages?

Ahh, one of the difficulties of commenting on a post that is/was already well developed. No, I'm not saying same sex marriage is OK. I was discussing the parameters of equity claims. To whit, if one claims any distinction in law is an equity violation, they are confused. Laws by nature make distinctions. For example, an eighteen year old may vote, but not a seventeen year old. These distinctions in and of themselves do not constitute equity violations.

You seem to be forgetting the overall idea that every human being is created equal. That's where the equity comes in. Distinctions are always made, and they almost always have good reasons behind them. There is no good reason for the distinction between gender here. In other cases where that distinction is used under the law, there is a good reason. The law stops a 9-year-old from driving a car, but it doesn't stop them from eating a piece of candy. In one case, the distinction between a child and an adult is essential to make, while in the other, it is irrelevant completely. This is the logic used in determining whether or not to use the distinction in certain cases with gender.




[qutoe]The creation of law does not require a loyalty to rationality. Regardless the benefits reason may bring to legislation, law works off of majoritarianism, not reason. Thus, if a majority want to tax cigarettes with some form of sin tax, the logic or lack of logic doesn't invalidate the law. I think you are confusing rhetoric with actual law. Reason may be used to indicate something is a good or bad idea and sway one's countrymen accordingly, but it cannot invalidate law.[/quote]

You're not serious, are you? Are you actually saying that laws don't have to be rational or logical? I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as how that's coming from someone desperately trying anything to uphold the government's banning of gay marriage.

There is no law against homosexual marriage. People may marry who they will. The issue is over what the state must recognize.

Again, really? You're really going to try that misdirection? This is a completely useless statement. For one thing, not many places will marry a gay couple. They can do it on their own, but what's the point? The main thing is the fact that this whole discussion is about state-sanctioned and recognized marriages. We are not concerned with whether or not they can get married with no kind of official recognition. This is an example of a useless distinction to make, and an irrelevant one. Again, I shouldn't be surprised from someone who doesn't understand that a distinction between genders is useful in some cases of the law, but not in others, and just because it's used sometimes, doesn't give the government the right to use it in all possible cases.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agian youa re trying to compare Homosexuality to Race and Sex. RACE AND SEX ARE NOT BEHAVIORAL. hence there can be no logical comparison.

Actually, I was comparing homosexuality to heterosexuality and gender discrimination to racial discrimination. Both comparisons are direct parallels.

 

[Autodidact]

Agian youa re trying to compare Homosexuality to Race and Sex. RACE AND SEX ARE NOT BEHAVIORAL. hence there can be no logical comparison.

I understand. And that's why you would have no problem with a law that discriminated against Mormons--since religion is behavioral. Now please explain why that distinction should make any difference to the outcome.

 

[Autodidact]

Do you think homosexual couples are a bit ... sexist? You are supposed to love everyone, not just people who are like yourself...

So I take it you're bisexual?

 

[Orontes]

Alas, the Loving ruling is an anti-miscegenation decision couched in terms of the 14th Amendment. It does not claim the state must offer marriage, but that the state cannot privilege marriage based on color.

It would seem to follow from that reasoning that the state cannot privilege marriage based on gender.

Race as an illegitimate category for preference was set by the various Reconstruction Era Amendments, notability the 14th and 15th Amendments. Gender has no such legal standing.

 

[Autodidact]

Quite the contrary. It is because I believe in the separation of powers I must reject the Judicial overreach that overturned prop. 22.

You disagree with the holding in Marbury v. Madison?

[/u]Alas, the Loving ruling is an anti-miscegenation decision couched in terms of the 14th Amendment. It does not claim the state must offer marriage, but that the state cannot privilege marriage based on color.

Now, if you wish to argue there is a right to marry: where does it say the state must sanction marriages? Where does it exist in the law? When was it ratified?

As I said, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. If you don't mind, I think I will give greater weight to their view than yours. This can be traced back to the fundamental concept on which our nation was founded, that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our creator, that the state derives its power from the governed, that rights not specifically enumerated are reserved to the people, and that families are the foundation of any society.

I think you are still confused. Jurisprudence questions can be either federal or state in nature. Further, state law is subject to Federal law i.e. the U.S. Constitution.

That's fascinating. As someone who has argued both kinds of law in both kinds of courts, it goes without saying. However, why on earth mention it as regards a holding by a state court concerning a state statute governed by a state Constitution?

You seem to be the only one having difficulty, but I don't want you to have difficulty. So again, if you have questions, ask.

I don't think the problem's at my end.

[/quote]

The right to gay marriage

The court did not find such a right.

That gay status is a protected class

The court did not so hold.

The discrimination in question was subject to strict scrutiny not because sexual preference is a protected class, but because gay people were denied a fundamental right. Are you familiar with the concepts I'm addressing?

Marriage doesn't appear in what you quote from the California Constitution.

No, it doesn't. Your point?

There is no fundamental right to gay marriage.

There is a fundamental right to marriage, which cannot be denied to gay people without a strong state purpose.

Rather, what one has is four judges who confuse their political penchants for law and adjust the law to mesh with those penchants. It is undemocratic and unjust.

Of course it's undemocratic; that's what the courts are for. You seem very confused about how our political system works.

As to what the California Constitution does say:

"(O)n the same terms" is a "similarly situated" legal positioning. Heterosexual marriages and gay marriages are not similarly situated.

Why not?

Gay marriages cannot produce citizens or future tax payers. The state has no vested interest in gay marriage.

Of course they can. Mine has. Further, many heterosexual marriages do not.

 

[Autodidact]

Now idea's post is what I mean by an immoral action, not that I would assume that all Mormons are dishonest as that, but that the Mormon Church (and some Christian churches) engage in this kind of dishonesty. What idea is doing is distorting the facts so much that s/he is lying. S/he is using data about single heterosexuals to smear the excellent parenting of gay parents. Not only is s/he irresponsibly spreading this slander, but against a group of people who have done nothing to him or her, who are just living their lives, raising their kids, working, and allowing him or her to practice his or her bizarre religious rituals in peace. It's disgusting, and I'm sick of it.

To be moral, upright, righteous, means to learn, live and tell the truth.

 

[Orontes]

Legislating from the bench refers to Judges assuming the power and responsibility of the legislature and thereby creating, practically or actually, positive law or the force of the same.

Inventing rights would be an example of legislating from the bench i.e. Judges declaring X to be a right when rights are determined through legislation and ratification, not judicial fiat.



A pursuit of happiness liberty is fine: gay couples may marry who, where and when they may, but that is distinct from claiming the state must sanction and endorse that pursuit. There is no compelling reason the state should endorse gay marriage.

[/size][/font]

I take it you mean aside from the fact that they endorse hetersexual marriage, and are then discriminating illegally against homosexuals by not endorsing their marriages?

No, my comment turns on your liberty notion. A liberty is something that bars state interference. If you wish to claim gay marriage as a liberty that is fine. It removes any duties from the state. A right places demands on the state. It is the assumption of a right claim that I reject. Rights are products of the democratic process: not something imposed from above.

Ahh, one of the difficulties of commenting on a post that is/was already well developed. No, I'm not saying same sex marriage is OK. I was discussing the parameters of equity claims. To whit, if one claims any distinction in law is an equity violation, they are confused. Laws by nature make distinctions. For example, an eighteen year old may vote, but not a seventeen year old. These distinctions in and of themselves do not constitute equity violations.

You seem to be forgetting the overall idea that every human being is created equal. That's where the equity comes in. Distinctions are always made, and they almost always have good reasons behind them. There is no good reason for the distinction between gender here. In other cases where that distinction is used under the law, there is a good reason. The law stops a 9-year-old from driving a car, but it doesn't stop them from eating a piece of candy. In one case, the distinction between a child and an adult is essential to make, while in the other, it is irrelevant completely. This is the logic used in determining whether or not to use the distinction in certain cases with gender.

If there are distinctions in the law then equity claims cannot be a universal/categorical. The distinction places limits. Where those limits lie and the wherefore behind those limits is separate from the base point.

The creation of law does not require a loyalty to rationality. Regardless the benefits reason may bring to legislation, law works off of majoritarianism, not reason. Thus, if a majority want to tax cigarettes with some form of sin tax, the logic or lack of logic doesn't invalidate the law. I think you are confusing rhetoric with actual law. Reason may be used to indicate something is a good or bad idea and sway one's countrymen accordingly, but it cannot invalidate law.

You're not serious, are you? Are you actually saying that laws don't have to be rational or logical? I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as how that's coming from someone desperately trying anything to uphold the government's banning of gay marriage.

What do you reference that says law, to be law, must be logical?

Note: gay marriage isn't banned. The issue is whether it must be sanctioned by the state.

There is no law against homosexual marriage. People may marry who they will. The issue is over what the state must recognize.

Again, really? You're really going to try that misdirection? This is a completely useless statement. For one thing, not many places will marry a gay couple. They can do it on their own, but what's the point? The main thing is the fact that this whole discussion is about state-sanctioned and recognized marriages. We are not concerned with whether or not they can get married with no kind of official recognition. This is an example of a useless distinction to make, and an irrelevant one. Again, I shouldn't be surprised from someone who doesn't understand that a distinction between genders is useful in some cases of the law, but not in others, and just because it's used sometimes, doesn't give the government the right to use it in all possible cases.

Actually, it's not a useless distinction, but one that illustrates a key distinction and clears up sloppy verbiage. If a priest wants to marry two gays or if they wish to proclaim their devotion under a tree to the heavens they may. No one will arrest them. If something is banned or illegal then the activity is verboten and arrest may follow i.e. smoking a doobie with a priest or under a tree is subject to arrest. If love is the key, as one gay advocate here has already claimed with some passion, then the state is not relevant. If, on the other hand, one wishes to claim a right, and thus place duties on the state, then they must justify that claim through the democratic process, meaning a majority of their fellow citizens must agree with them. Such has not happened. Rather a legal coup has been attempted where a new right is established from above.

As to gender distinctions: if one recognizes such exist in law (as in men can be drafted, but women are not), then one cannot make an equity claims simply based on gender

 

[Autodidact]

There is no law against homosexual marriage. People may marry who they will. The issue is over what the state must recognize.

No, the issue is over what marriages the state may not fail to recognize, absent a compelling state interest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Race as an illegitimate category for preference was set by the various Reconstruction Era Amendments, notability the 14th and 15th Amendments. Gender has no such legal standing.

Heh... tell you what: put an ad in the careers section that says "Wanted: Accountant. Women need not apply" and see what happens. I think there would be a very good chance you'd get to talk about your opinions on the legal standing of gender with a judge who should be quite knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[idea]

Those studies seem to deal mainly with single parents, not two-same-sex-parent families. You're comparing lone apples to pairs of oranges.

actually, no. There are gender specific things children get from both father and mother. It is well known that girls without a strong father figure in their life - without appropriate attention from a male - seek attention from other males, ending up with much higher underage preg etc... Males without a strong female figure in their life do not learn how to respect women. Those are just a couple of examples.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

[/font]No, my comment turns on your liberty notion. A liberty is something that bars state interference. If you wish to claim gay marriage as a liberty that is fine. It removes any duties from the state. A right places demands on the state. It is the assumption of a right claim that I reject. Rights are products of the democratic process: not something imposed from above.

Have you actually read the Bill of Rights? The part I've bolded makes it seem like you haven't.

Edit: I suppose there's the possibility that you've read it but disagree with it. Is that what it is?

 

[Autodidact]

idea: Maybe you forgot to read your post. Here's the money line:

Comparisons across these family types show that adolescents raised by gay and lesbian parents typically behave more like youth in two parent biological families, providing little support for gendered-deficit theories.

That is, the kids from gay families did just as well as the kids from straight families. The idea that kids get something special from parents of either gender was not shown to be true. Now, next time you want to tell the truth about this subject, will you cite this study, or that crap you gave us earlier?

 

[Autodidact]

If anyone wants any more research along the line's of idea's post, I can give you a ton. All the studies using good methodology found the same result:
Kids from same-sex parent homes do just as well as kids from different-sex parent homes.

Now please stop telling lies about us.