LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Orontes]

The above is a non sequitur: the last abode of those with no argument.

No, actually, it's a little something we in the internet community like to call a joke, a form of rhetorical exagerration meant to draw attention to the extreme nature of your position. You state an extremely radical view as though it were fact. In fact, to dispute the holding in Marbury v. Madison is a rather unorthodox view. That's not to say that it's wrong, or that I want to argue it--that would be a subject for a separate thread. I merely want to point out the obvious fact that it is in fact the law of the land and has been for 200 years, so you are rejecting the settled law of these United States.

I think you've forgotten the question you asked me. You asked if I disagreed with Marbury. My answer was of course I disagree with it. It cannot be justified under the Constitution. It is a usurpation of power and the original sin of the American Judiciary. Even so, per stare decisis it is established. Understanding something is established in law, does not thereby mean one must agree with the establishment or promote the error. Those who disagree with Marbury are legion. Regardless, none of this relates to the issue at hand. Judicial assumption of power whereby a Court may strike down a law is not the same as a judicial assertion that a right exists. The one is a negating power (Judicial Review). The other is the assumption of a legislating power (legislation from the bench).

For some reason this argument is only raised when "conservative" laws are overturned. I did not hear any conservative raise it, for example, when the court recently overturned the D.C. gun ban on the basis of the second amendment. Suddenly democracy was no longer the supreme value.

A poor example. The right to bear arms is specifically noted in the Constitution. Gay marriage is not. Therefore claiming one is a right and the other not, is clear from the text. A better example for your point would be if a social conservative in their zeal against abortion claimed abortion was unconstitutional per some right to life argument. This would be a mistake as the Constitution is silent on abortion just as it is on gay marriage.

Very well, then we can dispense with any more statements about inalienable rights.

Not so fast, cowboy. Gay marriage is not a fundamental right. Marriage is. Ergo, strict scrutiny--compelling state interest. There is none for discriminating against gay people in this regard, and so the court ruling in this case.

If you wish to argue marriage is an inalienable right, make the argument. Natural law won't offer you any help and that is the basis for inalienable rights claims.

Per strict scrutiny: gay marriage utterly fails. Gay marriage is not "similarly situated" with heterosexual marriage as it cannot produce future citizens. Gay marriage is not "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" as the nation has existed for over 200 years without it. It is not a concept "deeply embedded in our nation’s history and traditions" as the nation has a socio-political history of active opposition. Gay marriage lacks any foundation beyond the personal whimsy of judges who take that whimsy for justification.

I see. So this deference to the Court opinion would indicate you accept as correct all decisions by the Court simply because it is the Court? This would include the lovely list like Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Ozawa v. United States, Korematsu v. United States etc. If that is not your view, then your siding with the Court on this issue is simply personal advantage and thus ad hoc.

No, but I disagree on the substance of the case, not on the basis that it was made by the court. Using Korematsu as the quintessential wrong decision (as far as I'm concerned), it was still the province of the court to make that decision. The fact that I don't like the decision they made does not cause me to discard our entire system of judicial review. Because I don't hate America. (lol, I better give you a hint when I'm attempting to use humor.)

There is no substance to the ruling.

Your Korematsu statement is fascinating. So, if a strong President ruled gays, simply by being identified as gay, should be rounded up and sent to camps in the deserts and further, if a deluded court agreed with that policy, you would then agree the ruling was still the province of the court (because you don't hate America)?

Quite so! And insofar as the American System is a constitutional democracy you should abandon your autocratic leanings.

I would put emphasis on constitutional. Specifically, we are a democratic republic, which I like. Why do you hate America? (That's a joke. It means--you are fundamentally opposed to the American system of justice.) btw, I cannot think of any modern nation that is an absolute democracy, can you?

Putting the emphasis on "constitutional" is fine. It doesn't change the base majoritarian element. The Constitution is determined by the popular will. Amendments to it are determined by popular will. Repeal of amendments or any other element of the Constitution is determined by popular will. This is what popular sovereignty is all about and how the legitimacy of law is derived. To assert there is a right or law that is not the product of popular will is to reject the base principles of the nation. This is why the California Supreme Court erred and its assertions must be rejected.

Note:

The U.S. is technically a constitutional republic.
I can't think of any modern pure democracies. Iceland may have been the last.

This feigned umbrage is uninteresting. It is also vacuous. I gave a serious reply that was met with tripe. Unless a woman can produce semen or men eggs then gay marriages cannot produce children which indicates a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages and a clear reason the state has no vested interest in promoting gay marriage.

I had my kids the same way many heterosexuals do: insemination and adoption.

That is fine, but it doesn't address the base issue. Gay marriage cannot produce children. This is a clear difference with heterosexual marriage and indicates why the state has no vested interest in its promotion.

If you think my opinion odd or an unusual legal position, then you are unstudied in jurisprudence.

Are you familiar with the term ad hominem? If you want to argue that rejecting one of the oldest precedents in our history is mainstream, feel free. Calling me ignorant will not advance such an argument.

Alas, I have not called you ignorant. This was my statement: "Rights claims do not have force simply in the assertion, but must pass democratic muster i.e. popular will." You claimed this was an odd opinion and an unusual legal position. To then claim ad hominem when I point out such a view is jurisprudentially unstudied is odd. I am perfectly happy to argue the substance of the statement or my response to your post. If you think you are well studied in jurisprudence and do wish to argue my claim is in fact odd and unusual I can do put forward a number of scenarios to discuss the merits. For example, we can discuss my claim vis-a-vis Hohfeld's understanding of rights. That would provide a good hundred year window on American Jurisprudence and serve to mark the bona fides of my statement. Your choice.

 

[Starfish]

Mormons: I suppose you would be opposed to large families, not that they're horrible, but certainly not optimum, because the total parenting per child is reduced? What about polygamous families, where the time with the dad is greatly reduced? Didn't many of your ancestors grow up in such families? Was it less than optimum?

Point taken. No I don't think polygamous families are the optimum. I really don't understand them nor the reasons. So not all my thinking is sourced from my religion.

My own experience is limited to be sure, as everyone's is. But the claim that gender is not important in parenting would then be saying that there is no difference between a mom and dad. To that I have to disagree. Both are different, and both are needed.

 

[Autodidact]

P
My own experience is limited to be sure, as everyone's is. But the claim that gender is not important in parenting would then be saying that there is no difference between a mom and dad. To that I have to disagree. Both are different, and both are needed.

They are different. It just turns out that in reality that difference is not important to good child-rearing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A poor example. The right to bear arms is specifically noted in the Constitution. Gay marriage is not. Therefore claiming one is a right and the other not, is clear from the text.

Ah... so in the case of handgun control, the US Constitution should prevail over the democratic wishes of the people in Washington D.C., while in the case of same-sex marriage, the State Constitution's requirements are irrelevant. Gotcha.

That is fine, but it doesn't address the base issue. Gay marriage cannot produce children. This is a clear difference with heterosexual marriage and indicates why the state has no vested interest in its promotion.

Why do you think that the state would have a vested interest in promoting the production of children over and above that which would happen anyway?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My own experience is limited to be sure, as everyone's is. But the claim that gender is not important in parenting would then be saying that there is no difference between a mom and dad. To that I have to disagree. Both are different, and both are needed.

In contrast, I think the claim that gender is important in parenting says that there is no difference between my Dad, your Dad, or any random guy.

 

[Starfish]

There are a lot of families that are lousy BECAUSE they're heterosexual, and therefore have unwanted children. Gay families tend to do BETTER than straight families, because they want and plan for their children.

Although you might think that having one of each makes a huge difference, what we have found over the last 30 years is that it turns out that it doesn't. It turns out that, contrary to what you might think, it's not gender that's hugely important. What's important is quality parenting. And gay parents provide that as well as, or better than, straight parents.

Those are the facts.

I disagree that a lot of families are lousy because they are homosexual. I think they are lousy because the man and woman are irresponsible. It has nothing to do with their gender or orientation.

Gay parents can and many do provide quality parenting. But I maintain that quality parenting from a mom and dad is better. The children grow up with a balanced view of both genders, from close loving relationships with both.

 

[Starfish]

In contrast, I think the claim that gender is important in parenting says that there is no difference between my Dad, your Dad, or any random guy.

In some ways, yes there is no difference. As long as that random guy is "Daddy".

 

[MoonWater]

I disagree that a lot of families are lousy because they are homosexual. I think they are lousy because the man and woman are irresponsible. It has nothing to do with their gender or orientation.

Gay parents can and many do provide quality parenting. But I maintain that quality parenting from a mom and dad is better. The children grow up with a balanced view of both genders, from close loving relationships with both.

And why do you feel they can't get this from a homosexual family? What is that a woman can provide for a child that can't given them by a man? What is it that a man can give a child that a woman can't? You say that having both genders is the ideal but don't explain why this is they case, so please explain to the rest of us why that is the optimum.

 

[Autodidact]

I disagree that a lot of families are lousy because they are homosexual. I think they are lousy because the man and woman are irresponsible. It has nothing to do with their gender or orientation.

It's not because they are bad people or that heterosexuality is bad. It's because heterosexuality causes pregnancy, and unwanted, unplanned pregnancy often leads to bad parenting.

Under the category of "heterosexual parents" you have to include:
-the 15-year old pregnant by her 16-year old boyfriend.
-the 19-year old with two kids by two different men she's not married to.
-the mother of 3 who is using birth-control because she cannot afford and does not want any more kids, but gets pregnant anyway.
-the victim of rape.
-the child of an alcoholic mother too drunk to be concerned with birth control.
-the prostitute whose IUD fails.
etc. etc. All of these people are heterosexual. None of them are homosexual. (Except maybe the rape victim, and obviously she didn't get pregnant due to homosexual behavior.)

These are not rare scenarios; they are common. They represent a huge percentage of the kids in our society; many more than children of gay parents. And they make a huge contribution to the problems that our society has to content with. If all children were wanted children, the world would be a better place--don't you agree?

Gay parents can and many do provide quality parenting. But I maintain that quality parenting from a mom and dad is better. The children grow up with a balanced view of both genders, from close loving relationships with both.

Starfish: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts. The fact is that you are mistaken. For that reason, it would be wrong, simply wrong, to use it as a basis for public policy. You can use it as a basis for action in your own life, but not as a basis for legislation or voting. That should be based on the facts, don't you agree?

 

[UnTheist]

There's nothing else you can do...

 

[Orontes]

Ah... so in the case of handgun control, the US Constitution should prevail over the democratic wishes of the people in Washington D.C., while in the case of same-sex marriage, the State Constitution's requirements are irrelevant. Gotcha.

Per the Supremacy Clause and 15th Amendment, Federal and Constitutional law trumps state or local law. The District of Columbia cannot overreach its mandate. It cannot declare war, issue its own currency, or overrule the Constitution.

State Constitutions are relevant to States. California's State Constitution says nothing about a gay marriage right. The U.S. Constitution speaks directly to the right to bear arms.

Why do you think that the state would have a vested interest in promoting the production of children over and above that which would happen anyway?

For the same reasons the state has mandatory education, and benefits for owning a house etc. Heterosexual marriage is the means by and through with new citizens may be produced and fostered. Feral children are not desirable.

 

[Starfish]

And why do you feel they can't get this from a homosexual family? What is that a woman can provide for a child that can't given them by a man? What is it that a man can give a child that a woman can't? You say that having both genders is the ideal but don't explain why this is they case, so please explain to the rest of us why that is the optimum.

I have explained this many times.

 

[Autodidact]

I have explained this many times.

I don't think so. The poster is looking for something specific. For example, only a woman can breastfeed. So a two-dad family can't provide that. Is there anything else specific that a child needs that only a dad or only a mom can do? I can't think of any. A mom can take a kid fishing, and a dad can comfort them when they have a fever. What can only a man or only a woman do?

I'm guessing it's just to be a man or a woman, and so provide a role-model for how to do that. I think what happens is that all the other people in our lives do that just fine, and it turns out we don't need to get that directly from our parents.

 

[madhatter85]

but no Mormon has told another Mormon that stereotyping and denigrating gay people is wrong.

We are not denigrating or stereotyping. We never said anythign about the person. Homosexuals are people just like everyone else in the world. they are subject to sin just as much as the next person, they are given weaknesses just like veryone else. thier's just happens to be Same-gender attraction. Same thing for the guy who has a hard time keeping it in his pants who wants to go around boning every woman he sees. they are all weaknesses, and not something to be given into. the world doesn't see it that way but we LDS do. Which, to us, just shows the degeneration of morals in our world.

 

[Starfish]

It's not because they are bad people or that heterosexuality is bad. It's because heterosexuality causes pregnancy, and unwanted, unplanned pregnancy often leads to bad parenting.

Under the category of "heterosexual parents" you have to include:
-the 15-year old pregnant by her 16-year old boyfriend.
-the 19-year old with two kids by two different men she's not married to.
-the mother of 3 who is using birth-control because she cannot afford and does not want any more kids, but gets pregnant anyway.
-the victim of rape.
-the child of an alcoholic mother too drunk to be concerned with birth control.
-the prostitute whose IUD fails.
etc. etc. All of these people are heterosexual. None of them are homosexual. (Except maybe the rape victim, and obviously she didn't get pregnant due to homosexual behavior.)

These are not rare scenarios; they are common. They represent a huge percentage of the kids in our society; many more than children of gay parents. And they make a huge contribution to the problems that our society has to content with. If all children were wanted children, the world would be a better place--don't you agree?

Starfish: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts. The fact is that you are mistaken. For that reason, it would be wrong, simply wrong, to use it as a basis for public policy. You can use it as a basis for action in your own life, but not as a basis for legislation or voting. That should be based on the facts, don't you agree?

Heterosexuality causes pregnancy, thank goodness. Without it our species would be long gone.

All those scenarios are examples of irresponsibility, not heterosexuality. Yes unwanted pregnancy happens. But sex is voluntary, except in rape. One can choose one's behavior. My opinion on sexuality also includes no unwed sex. Period. I believe that the power of procreation is God-given and with it comes tremendous responsibility that we will all be held acountable for.

I am not supporting legislation to outlaw homosexuality. I am not calling for laws against irresponsible behavior, though sometimes I wish for it. I believe in free choice in most cases. I do support the traditional defination of marriage between a man and woman as a protection for the optimum family situation for the benefit of children. This is how it's always been in every major society throughout history. Our current society is not wiser than all of history. This change in marriage is entirely new ground for mankind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In some ways, yes there is no difference. As long as that random guy is "Daddy".

If you think that, then I think it's safe to say that you never knew my Dad.

Per the Supremacy Clause and 15th Amendment, Federal and Constitutional law trumps state or local law. The District of Columbia cannot overreach its mandate. It cannot declare war, issue its own currency, or overrule the Constitution.

State Constitutions are relevant to States. California's State Constitution says nothing about a gay marriage right. The U.S. Constitution speaks directly to the right to bear arms.

We've been over this before. The California State Constitution speaks directly to the right of all citizens to receive government benefits on equal terms.

For the same reasons the state has mandatory education, and benefits for owning a house etc.

No, they're not the same reasons. Without mandatory education, the general level of education of society is heavily diminished. Benefits for home ownership are a bit different (after all, plenty of people will own their own home just out of sheer economics even without the government intervening) - they have deemed, rightly or wrongly, that the increase in home ownership associated with state programs represents a societal good.

In the case of marriage and families, people have done this for thousands of years. For most of that time, there was no state sanction of marriage, yet most people would have children and raise families anyhow.

Heterosexual marriage is the means by and through with new citizens may be produced and fostered. Feral children are not desirable.

Feral children? :sarcastic

How many people do you know who, if not for state-sanctioned, opposite-sex marriage, would have dumped their kids in the forest to fend for themselves? Do you really think these are the sort of people that the state should be enticing into marriage and parenthood?

Regardless of the legalities of opposite-sex marriage, the vast majority of people on the planet will continue to get married and raise their kids within the confines of a marriage. What reason do you have to say that an increase in marriages and children over and above what would happen anyhow is beneficial, or is anything that the state should be concerned with?

 

[Autodidact]

We are not denigrating or stereotyping. We never said anythign about the person. Homosexuals are people just like everyone else in the world. they are subject to sin just as much as the next person, they are given weaknesses just like veryone else. thier's just happens to be Same-gender attraction. Same thing for the guy who has a hard time keeping it in his pants who wants to go around boning every woman he sees. they are all weaknesses, and not something to be given into. the world doesn't see it that way but we LDS do. Which, to us, just shows the degeneration of morals in our world.

Have you heard a word I said?

Great, hatter, so DON'T DO IT. Now please leave us the heck alone, as we are tolerant enough to do of you. Thank you.

 

[Father Heathen]

they are all weaknesses, and not something to be given into.

I feel the same way about religious beliefs, but I'm also a freedom loving guy who respects others rights to "give in".

the world doesn't see it that way but we LDS do.

Then let the world live by its standards and you live by yours rather than attempt to impose your beliefs on the rest of the world.

 

[Starfish]

If you think that, then I think it's safe to say that you never knew my Dad.

I said in SOME ways all dads are, or should be, alike.

 

[Autodidact]

Heterosexuality causes pregnancy, thank goodness. Without it our species would be long gone.

All those scenarios are examples of irresponsibility, not heterosexuality. Yes unwanted pregnancy happens. But sex is voluntary, except in rape. One can choose one's behavior. My opinion on sexuality also includes no unwed sex. Period. I believe that the power of procreation is God-given and with it comes tremendous responsibility that we will all be held acountable for.

They're examples of hetersexual irresponsiblity. Homosexuals are no more responsible; they just don't happen to have unwanted pregnancy. All that I'm saying is that in reality, this happens. It is a negative consequence of heterosexuality. Wanted pregnancy is a positive consequence. When you talk about heterosexuality, you have to include the whole picture, or it's inaccurate. You're basing your opinion on a falsely positive picture of heterosexuality.

I also submit that if you haven't read the research, and don't know any gay families, you're also basing it on a falsely negative picture of gay families. And false pictures are not good bases for public policy.

I do support the traditional defination of marriage between a man and woman as a protection for the optimum family situation for the benefit of children. This is how it's always been in every major society throughout history.

No, it hasn't. Your experience is too narrow. There are many family models around the world. One of the most common is polygamous.

Our current society is not wiser than all of history. This change in marriage is entirely new ground for mankind.

Yes, it's new. The most you can logically conclude from that is that we don't know, NOT that it's bad. What we do know so far is that it's fine.

Societies do change, and those changes are often for the better. There are many obvious examples: outlawing slavery, female sufferage, racial equality. My opinion is that gay rights is in that category of social progress that we will one day look back at and applaud.