LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Orontes]

No, it's not. If a government action has no effect, then it has no justification.

I don't know what the "No it's not" is referring to. As to efficacy questions: I don't know that state endorsement of marriage doesn't have an effect. I do know the state demonstrates an interest in and through the endorsement.

Please provide any legislative act that applies to the state of California that says that the state has a vested interest in creating as many little citizens as possible.

The above doesn't relate to my post. I take it you agree that there is no legislative act to support your claim.

As to what you ask: one has only to note California tax code that provides a tax deduction for every child produced.

In mathematics, a variable can be positive, negative or zero. Perhaps you encountered this concept in elementary school. I would have hoped that what I wrote immediately after I defined the variable 'X' would have refreshed your memory. I apologize for my assumption.

You defined your X as state sanction of marriage with zero population growth. You then said the X could be positive, negative or zero. The two views contradict, so I wasn't sure what you were about. I focused on the first claim and pointed out it was incorrect.

Yes, you have. You've stated repeatedly that the state has a vested interest in encournaging the creation of future citizens. You've used this as the justification for your discrimination against same-sex marriage. Now... if you've changed your mind, you're welcome to say so, though I don't know what you'd base your position on then.

I have said the state has a vested interest in encouraging new citizens, quite right, but I've made no categorical claim on the results of that vested interest.

And in the meantime, the purpose of marriage is at the core of the question of whether that purpose is fulfilled by same-sex marriage.

No. the core question is state interest.

No, they have increasing populations. According to the CIA World Factbook, China's population growth rate is 0.629% and India's is 1.578%. Both of these numbers are positive.

Note this post again: According to the UN's figures, China has gone from a population growth rate in 1950 or 1.87 to a current rate of 0.58 and a projection by 2045 of -0.32. Also by the UN: India has gone from a 1950 growth rate of 1.73 to a current rate of 1.46 to a projection by 2045 of 0.32. In both cases there has been a continual decrease for over fifty years that will continue at least into the mid-Twenty First Century. Is your understanding of a run away population this decrease? Is your understanding of a run away population any addition to population? According to the U.N. the U.S. has a current growth rate of 0.97. This is a difference with India of 0.49 and U.S. has a larger growth rate than China of 0.39. Do you think the U.S. has a run away population?

So... despite not knowing what the ideal population rate is, you're certain that it's closer to the rate with state sanctioned marriage than the rate without. How is this possible?

The above doesn't follow. I noted the U.S. population growth rate is decreasing. You ask what the ideal is. I reply that would require study to properly answer and then the above? The issue is the state sanctions/endorses a thing. Your disagreement with that endorsement is not relevant. The efficacy of that endorsement is not relevant. What is relevant is the endorsement exists as a reflection of the popular will. Such cannot be said for an imposition of a gay right to marriage as determined by four judges.

You implied that state sanction of opposite-sex marriage is justified by states' desire to "secure a future citizenry". Marriage does not do this.

Marriage is the vehicle the state deems that can both can produce children and foster them.

It's an over-generalization. Many opposite-sex marriages will not or cannot produce people, yet they're legal. Fertility and the desire to procreate are not tests for marriage, period.

No. it is a statement of fact. Most heterosexual couples do end up producing children. The state encourages this. Homosexual couples cannot produce.

Right... which is why it's illegal for post-menopausal women and couples who don't intend to have kids to marry, correct?

As has been explained previously, one does not legislate from the margins. In general, heterosexual couples have the potential to produce. There is no potential for gay marriages.

And the will of the people is that there be no test of fertility for marriage. Therefore, in regards to every term that the state has seen fit to impose but one, gender, same-sex marriage meets every requirement. And the determination of the State Supreme Court, based on the California Constitution, is that it is unconstitutional to make gender a requirement for marriage.

The will of the people was to confine state sanctioned marriage to a man and a woman. Gays marriages have no potential to produce. Straight marriages do. That is a base difference.

Yes, and popular will is that the state constitution should prevail over other laws of the state... and that's what happened. If the people choose to change this arrangement or change the terms of the state constitution (which may very well happen with Proposition 8), then this would change things, but in the meantime, the will of the people has been served.

The State Constitution should prevail other legislation. The State Constitution does not note a gay right to marry. To assert it does is to ignore the text and defer to ones' personal politics over the obvious.


Note: you have a growing tendency for the sarcastic. As a poster with a history and as member of the site staff this is inappropriate. If you cannot discuss you ideas without giving way to your passions then you should divorce yourself from discussion.

 

[Orontes]

Well they would certainly get into trouble if they filed their tax returns that way.

That would be the difference between state recognition and recognition from other sources: a church, the couple themselves etc.

 

[Orontes]

What does that have to do with anything? Of course, no one is going to deny that homosexuals can get married, if it's not acknowledged by the state. Why are you twisting the argument? The point is that homosexuals should be able to get married and receive the legal benefits that all married couples do. That requires the state to recognize their marriages. So, any argument about this topic is obviously directed at the idea of the government recognizing those marriages.

Some have claimed gay marriage is/was banned. This is not correct. What is/was correct is that gay marriage didn't have state endorsement.

If you believe gay marriage should get all the legal benefits of heterosexual marriage, the thing to do is get a majority of others to agree and pass legislation to that effect.

 

[Orontes]

Majority rules is not a legitimate legal argument.

Actually majoritarianism is the basis of democracy and the basis of U.S. law.

yes, i disagree with majority rules.

Interesting. What is the basis for law in your view?

Marriage is a legal contract.
All the ceremony, ritual, fluff and glitter that surrounds marriage is nothing more that window dressing.

It is, but marriage isn't and hasn't been entirely defined as a legal contract. Two simple counter examples are common law marriages and religious ceremonies.

 

[Orontes]

And yet, I'd bet that if I strangle someone in California, I'd be arrested. Funny, isn't it?

There are laws against assault.

And? How is that a relevant distinction? I know, I know...I've heard your "The government supports marriage because it produces more citizens" argument. I'd like to hear something that makes sense, though.

To make an equity claim the things compared must be "similarly situated" this means there cannot be any base differences. Heterosexual marriages have the potential to produce. Homsexual marriages do not. This undercuts any equity claim.

 

[Storm]

To make an equity claim the things compared must be "similarly situated" this means there cannot be any base differences. Heterosexual marriages have the potential to produce. Homsexual marriages do not. This undercuts any equity claim.

Not all heterosexual marriages do. Should infertile hetero couples, and those who simply do not wish to have children also be denied equal treatment under the law?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is, and 39 is greater than 4.

None of the 39 are California.

Under the Common Law Tradition, Courts typically look to the rulings of other Courts on similar issues. This includes across state lines

You said it yourself: in common law. This is a matter of statute law, not common law.

The California State Constitution does not mention any right to Gay Marriage. The four judges ruled there is such a right. The Judiciary is not where rights are created. Rights are the product of popular will via a ratification process. If judges declare there is a right to some thing independent of popular will then they are doing so by simple assertion. This is what by fiat entails. Rights must reflect popular will or there is a usurpation of the democratic process.

The initial ratification of the California State Constitution reflects popular will. When it ceases to be so, there is a democratic mechanism to amend it. Not adhering to it would be the usurpation of the democratic process.

Strangulation isn't addressed in the California State Constitution. There is no right to or concerning strangulation.

No, strangulation is addressed by the California State Constitution. It's right in Article 1, Section 1:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

The phrase "enjoying and defending life" implicitly includes a legal protection of the right not to be strangled. See how it works? The high-level language of the Constitution provides broad statements of rights. That high-level language applies to all the specific, lower-level cases that fall within those broad statements.

Equity arguments require similar situations. Heterosexual and homosexual marriages are not similarly situated: one can produce people the other cannot.

You repeating it doesn't make it true. Some heterosexual marriages produce children, some do not. Some heterosexual couples have children outside marriage, some do not. Similarly, some same-sex marriages produce children, some do not. Some same-sex couples have children outside marriage, some do not.

Marriage does not imply children and marriage isn't necessary for children.

Laws are not typically legislated from the margins, though they may, provided there is a popular will to do so. Equity claims are based off of general positioning. Heterosexual marriage has the potential to produce. Homosexual marriages do not.

First: as I pointed out above, you're wrong.

Second: your logic is flawed. State sanction of marriage is not about children.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Parentage is parentage, independent of marriage.

State benefits do not operate off of target numbers. They are generally applied.

Most state benefits have defined objectives. For example, road safety improvement programs will have some stated objective like reducing injury collisions to some rate. State scholarship programs may have the objective of increasing college enrolment by low income student by some percentage.

State sanction of marriage is not area specific, but state wide.

I realize that. You do realize that this is irrelevant to the point of the examples I gave, right?

Your sense of waste is not the issue. If you feel the state should not endorse marriage then you should work to see it overturned through the democratic process.

It's not about my sense of waste, it's about the general principle that ineffective law is bad law. Every law represents a small constraint against liberty. To justify this constraint, the law must provide some corresponding benefit to society in some way. A law that does nothing is an arbitrary and unneeded constraint on liberty, and is therefore wrong.

I can find some textbook citations to this effect if you're not studied in jurisprudence.

I haven't made any personal observations on the issue.

Yes, you did. And you just did it again:

I have stated that from a state's perspective having citizens is a good thing, the reason being if there are no people the state would cease to exist.

And in drawing a line of argument from this argument to same-sex marriage, you've given your opinion that these two concepts are related somehow.

Demands on services and costs are relative and do not speak to the point that a state cannot exist without people and that people are the base by and through which revenue derives.

You're right, they don't speak to that point, because your point is irrelevant. Regardless of the sanction of marriage, people will continue to breed.

And yes, costs and revenues are variable. Some are subject to economies of scale (i.e. things get more efficient as they get larger) and some are subject to diseconomies of scale (i.e. things get less efficient as they get larger). That's why it astounds me that you can make blanket statements like this:

In general, more citizens is a good thing for government coffers because government coffers depend on citizens and citizens eventually die.

In the same way that governments depend on citizens to exist, human beings depend on water to live. To a flood victim, is more water a good thing?

If the state has a demonstrable interest in ensuring the State Capital Building doesn't fall down, then it should pass laws making sure that any building must meet the proper building codes. This would be prudent independent of a given builder's competence.

But that's not analogous to what you're suggesting when it comes to marriage, is it?

For a free people: the government is construed by and through the society: one is a reflection of the other. The government/society has an interest in continuing. State endorsements of things reflect that interest.

For a free people, constraints on liberty must be justified. Merely voicing approval of some activity that would happen anyhow is not justification.

No, that isn't what I said. What I said was if someone marries they can be held responsible for the children of the household.

Except that the natural parents are already held responsible for their own children, so the only change would be to people who live in a household with children who are not their own direct offspring, such as many members of same-sex couples.

As far as stability: parents: single, gay, straight etc are preferable to children without someone to care from them. If you don't believe children should have parents that is fine, but the point was society in general has held that children with parents is better than not. Historically this has not always been the case.

When exactly did I say that children should not have parents?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know what the "No it's not" is referring to.

It's referring to the sentence that immediately preceded it:

The reason for the sanction to increase a thing or maintain a thing is separate from the fact a sanction exists.

As to efficacy questions: I don't know that state endorsement of marriage doesn't have an effect. I do know the state demonstrates an interest in and through the endorsement.

But why should it? As I've stated before, I see a law that does nothing but demonstrate a state interest in something without any net effect is a bad law.

The above doesn't relate to my post. I take it you agree that there is no legislative act to support your claim.

As to what you ask: one has only to note California tax code that provides a tax deduction for every child produced.

No, I don't agree. And the previous same-sex union legislation certainly seems to me to indicate just as strongly as child tax deductions would that the state has a vested interest in same-sex couplehood at the very least.

You defined your X as state sanction of marriage with zero population growth. You then said the X could be positive, negative or zero. The two views contradict, so I wasn't sure what you were about. I focused on the first claim and pointed out it was incorrect.

I'm not sure what you were focusing on, then, since I didn't make that first claim you mention.

I have said the state has a vested interest in encouraging new citizens, quite right, but I've made no categorical claim on the results of that vested interest.

But the results are the whole point of the law. The state is not some entity that exists only to ineffectually approve or disapprove of things. It exists as an instrument to create benefit for its citizens through its laws. Since every law represents a limitation (however small) on liberty, any law without corresponding benefit represents an arbitrary denial of freedom, and is therefore unjust.

No. the core question is state interest.

So you take it as given that the purpose of marriage is to fulfil some state interest?

Note this post again: According to the UN's figures, China has gone from a population growth rate in 1950 or 1.87 to a current rate of 0.58 and a projection by 2045 of -0.32. Also by the UN: India has gone from a 1950 growth rate of 1.73 to a current rate of 1.46 to a projection by 2045 of 0.32. In both cases there has been a continual decrease for over fifty years that will continue at least into the mid-Twenty First Century.

Please note that it is 2008, not 2045. The current population growth rate in both countries is positive.

Is your understanding of a run away population this decrease? Is your understanding of a run away population any addition to population?

No, my understanding of runaway population is a population increase that either causes the population to exceed the carrying capacity of the place in which they live, or that has severe negative consequences associated with it.

The above doesn't follow. I noted the U.S. population growth rate is decreasing. You ask what the ideal is. I reply that would require study to properly answer and then the above? The issue is the state sanctions/endorses a thing. Your disagreement with that endorsement is not relevant. The efficacy of that endorsement is not relevant. What is relevant is the endorsement exists as a reflection of the popular will. Such cannot be said for an imposition of a gay right to marriage as determined by four judges.

The efficacy of any law is entirely relevant to the just nature of that law. It's a common principle in many societies and an explicitly stated declaration in the highest laws of California and the United States that liberty is to not be arbitrarily denied.

Any time a law is enacted, it represents a responsibility on the part of someone: it takes society from a situation where, in regard to the subject matter of the law, people were free to do as they pleased and changes this to a situation where the people's actions are constrained in some way. This represents a constraint on liberty, which, at least in the American legal tradition, cannot and should not be put in place arbitrarily or unnecessarily.

If the sole purpose of state sanction of marriage is just to serve as a declaration that the government approves of the practice, then state sanction of marriage is an product of unjust laws that should be struck down.

Now, I personally believe that there are plenty of valid purposes for state sanction of marriage. I also believe that these purposes apply just as equally to same-sex marriage as to opposite-sex marriage.

Note: you have a growing tendency for the sarcastic. As a poster with a history and as member of the site staff this is inappropriate. If you cannot discuss you ideas without giving way to your passions then you should divorce yourself from discussion.

Hmm. I suggest you remove the beam from your own eye before you criticize the mote in mine. I have put up with quite a bit of condescencion in your posts.

On top of this, I have real trouble giving you the benefit of the doubt when, as someone who purports to be an attorney, you give a line of reasoning that, IMO, amounts to an endorsement of arbitrary constraint on liberty (in ignorance of basic principles of the jurisprudence you're apparently happy to tell others they're "not schooled in") to create a make-believe justification for state sanction of marriage so that you don't have to acknowledge the real reasons for marriage that would apply strongly to same-sex couples in some sort of bizarre effort to excuse denial of human rights.

Do I feel passionate about this subject? Damn straight, and I make no apologies for that. This is an issue that has very real implications for actual human beings. You trying to justify legal measures to inflict misery on people will not tend to make me be particularily happy.

But maybe this is a good point to duck out of the thread for the time being. I'll leave you with the words of someone wiser than me: you can't polish a turd. No matter how much you try to dress up evil, it will still remain evil. Keep that in mind as you try to dream up faux-legal justifications for denying normal protections to families you don't approve of.

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

[Magic Man]

Some have claimed gay marriage is/was banned. This is not correct. What is/was correct is that gay marriage didn't have state endorsement.

Again, why would you even make that distinction? We are obviously talking about gay marriage being endorsed by the state. That's the whole point of the discussion. It is supposed to be understood when someone says "Gay marriage is banned" that they mean "Gay marriage endorsed by the state is banned". I'm sorry you need that qualified, but the rest of us are able to understand that without pointing it out.

If you believe gay marriage should get all the legal benefits of heterosexual marriage, the thing to do is get a majority of others to agree and pass legislation to that effect.

No, the thing to do is to get the rest of the states to understand that they are discriminating against homosexuals. The thing to do is to follow the Constitution, and have more supreme courts recognize that they are not following it now. The thing to do is to end this bigotry and imposition of religious views on others.

 

[Magic Man]

There are laws against assault.

Exactly. That's the point. "Strangulation" itself isn't banned in the Constitution, but by way of other things like assault, it is. The same way that gay marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but, by way of other rules laid out, it is allowed by law.

To make an equity claim the things compared must be "similarly situated" this means there cannot be any base differences. Heterosexual marriages have the potential to produce. Homsexual marriages do not. This undercuts any equity claim.

No, it doesn't. It is a completely irrelevant detail. You can keep claiming it, but it's not going to make it all of a sudden become correct. That is indeed a difference between the two, but it is not useful or relevant. They are "similarly situated" in that they are two good-standing citizens who want to get married. By your reasoning, a heterosexual couple with a woman who is infertile shouldn't be able to get married, or couples who don't intend to have kids. In this case, the sexuality or ability to reproduce is not a base difference that should be used in determining equity. Do you really not see that?

 

[Autodidact]

My conversation with Starfish and others raises two tangential issues which may require a separate thread of anyone want to discuss them. This post is on the first one.

One is the basic difference between a scientific and unscientific, or anti-scientific, world view. Religion is not the only perspective that takes this view, in fact, it's quite common. I think most people do not use science as their primary way of understanding the world and what goes on in it. I don't think a lot of people don't understand what science is, how to tell real from fake science, or why it matters. I encounter this attitude here frequently when discussing:
evolution vs. Young Earth Creationism
Efficacy of prayer
national health insurance

and some other subjects, like alternative medicine or astrology. What I find bothersome is people's willingness to believe things without or even in defiance of the evidence.

Another thing that bothers me is that people don't understand that science is NOT the same as history or theology or other subjects, that it's a method, a method for determining the truth, the best one we have. (Except for math.)

The difference here is between:
I know the answer. It's common sense [my experience/a revelation/religious doctrine/intuition] so I'm going to disregard all the studies from scientists who use good methodology and believe any old website or organization on the net, no matter how unscientific, as long as it supports my position.
vs
I believe whatever the evidence tells us.

It's the difference between a closed mind and a skeptical one.

Then when someone does endorse the scientific view, it appears that there are two "sides" roughly equivalent. But of course they're not at all equivalent.

It confuses an assumption with a conclusion (like Starfish's Dr. Heather Whoever did.)

Another aspect of this is that to me if you throw out the window the best method we have for learning the truth about this reality, then you're getting so casual, so fast and loose with the truth, that you've lost touch with a fundamental tenet of morality: honesty.

Thoughts?

 

[Storm]

Honestly, I think you should start a new thread.

 

[Autodidact]

The other issue for me has to do with love and its importance. On the "pro-gay" side we're saying that love is always good, always moral, good for children, good for society, etc. Some religionists purport to espouse the value of love, but when it comes in a form they are predisposed against, they in fact oppose it. They seek to regulate it, prohibit it, devalue it. I assert that it's a fundamental value difference, between the people (Christian and other) who say that love is the most important thing, Love Makes a Family, Jesus' principal message was to love one another, and the religionists who say no, it's a sin, love and sex need to be strictly regulated for society to function well.


Thoughts?

 

[Autodidact]

Honestly, I think you should start a new thread.

Yeah, if anyone seems interested in discussing it I will.

 

[Storm]

The other issue for me has to do with love and its importance. On the "pro-gay" side we're saying that love is always good, always moral, good for children, good for society, etc. Some religionists purport to espouse the value of love, but when it comes in a form they are predisposed against, they in fact oppose it. They seek to regulate it, prohibit it, devalue it. I assert that it's a fundamental value difference, between the people (Christian and other) who say that love is the most important thing, Love Makes a Family, Jesus' principal message was to love one another, and the religionists who say no, it's a sin, love and sex need to be strictly regulated for society to function well.


Thoughts?

I agree.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, if anyone seems interested in discussing it I will.

Count me in.

 

[Riverwolf]

With you all the way, Auto.

 

[Apex]

The other issue for me has to do with love and its importance. On the "pro-gay" side we're saying that love is always good, always moral, good for children, good for society, etc. Some religionists purport to espouse the value of love, but when it comes in a form they are predisposed against, they in fact oppose it. They seek to regulate it, prohibit it, devalue it. I assert that it's a fundamental value difference, between the people (Christian and other) who say that love is the most important thing, Love Makes a Family, Jesus' principal message was to love one another, and the religionists who say no, it's a sin, love and sex need to be strictly regulated for society to function well.


Thoughts?

Hey, you finally posted something I agree with.

 

[Autodidact]

Hey, you finally posted something I agree with.

I forget, Apex, exactly what is your position on gay marriage and gay parenting:

What is your position on the love vs. sin dichotomy?

 

[Apex]

I forget, Apex, exactly what is your position on gay marriage and gay parenting:

I do not oppose either.

What is your position on the love vs. sin dichotomy?

Huh?