LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Magic Man]

My post isn't meant to be insulting. It is meant to address the legal question and why the state would have an interest in one relation and not another.

The problem is that it's not that the state has an interest in one relation and not another because of something fundamental about that relationship. It's because of the people's views of those relationships. The difference between the two relationships doesn't matter a bit to the government. If that was the only problem, we'd already be allowing gay marriages. The problem is that so many people are against homosexuality in general and same-sex marriages that politicians don't want to support it and run the risk of alienating a large portion of the population. That's it.

 

[Magic Man]

Words have meaning and how one uses words frames a discussion. When one uses words like ban it suggest things about the issue that aren't accurate. The issue is concerned with endorsement.

No, nothing in "We want the government to stop banning same-sex marriages" is inaccurate. I can't go with another guy right now and get a marriage license, can I? That means there is a ban on same-sex marriages. No one would even consider that someone might be claiming that gay couples can't have some kind of personal non-official marriage ceremony. You are the only one bringing up that idea, and it's clearly just a ploy to twist arguments to make yours look better.

The bottom line is that any discussion of same-sex marriage only involves state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. That's the whole point of the discussion. There is no point in bringing up the fact that same-sex couples can have non-official marriages.

If you reject the democratic process by and through which law is determined then we are far apart indeed.

Note: There is no right to gay marriage in the California Constitution. There is no right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

There is then no right to any marriage in either Constitution. We allow some people to get married. The Constitution might not specifically say that people have a right to gay marriages. It does, however, say that we can't discriminate based on things like sexuality. Just like strangulation is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution, but, by more general claims, it is thereby prohibited.

It's like saying "Well, the Constitution doesn't specifically say I can't set someone on fire". It may not say that specifically, but it does have words in it prohibiting that act. The Constitution doesn't specifically say that people can get married to people of the same gender, but the same words that allow heterosexual marriages in there also allow gay marriages.

Assault isn't banned in the Constitution. Laws against assault are passed by the legislature. Similarly, if gay marriage seeks legal standing it too should have the appropriate legislation passed.

And those laws are based on language in the Constitution.

Yes, it does. The ability to create life and the inability to create life speaks directly to a state interest. The state endorses a relation that has the potential to do this and has no interest in a relation that cannot.

No, it doesn't. So, the state doesn't want more people to get married and adopt the thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of children who don't have families? You don't think the more people providing a good , loving home for those kids is a good thing for the government?

That is not a relevant distinction, no matter how much you want it to be. The state endorses many things for many different reasons. There are plenty of reasons for them to endorse same-sex marriages, including benefits for the state itself. Besides, whether or not a relationship produces children is not even a concern in the state's decision to endorse marriage. Otherwise they wouldn't allow infertile people, or people who just don't want kids, to get married.

You seem to be intelligent and smart. I don't know why you insist on using your knowledge about the legal system to make up irrelevant things to support your bias against homosexuals. Your arguments just don't hold up to logic and reason, no matter how desperately you want them to to make yourself feel better about discriminating against homosexuals.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it is not. One has potential to produce the other has no such potential. This is a base difference and one the state may take interest in.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still not going to be true. If that's really the case, then a marriage should have no legal benefits until they have kids. That is not the case. Married couples get state-sanctioned benefits regardless of whether or not they have kids. Many of those benefits don't even involve kids.

It's an irrelevant distinction. I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before it gets through, but I'll just keep lugging away in hopes that it does, at some point.

 

[madhatter85]

Perfectly put by O.S.C. Mormon Times - State job is not to redefine marriage

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

The pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.

It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.

We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.

Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.

Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.

 

[madhatter85]

In regards to being called a "homophobe"

And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming.

How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.

This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals -- the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.

A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?

Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.

It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken.

And you can guess how long it will now take before any group that speaks against "gay marriage" being identical to marriage will be attacked using the same tools that have been used against anti-abortion groups -- RICO laws, for instance.

 

[madhatter85]

And in regards to marriage being created by government -

Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

The laws concerning marriage did not create marriage, they merely attempted to solve problems in such areas as inheritance, property, paternity, divorce, adoption and so on.

Same sex marriage has never been a "right". Marriage was not created by government.

 

[madhatter85]

In regards to reproduction-

There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically. This is not subject to legislation, let alone fashionable opinion.

Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality. No parthenogenic test tube procedure can alter what we, by nature, are. No surgery, no hormone injections, can change X to Y or make the distinction nonexistent.

That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females.

That many individuals suffer from sex-role dysfunctions does not change the fact that only heterosexual mating can result in families where a father and a mother collaborate in rearing children that share a genetic contribution from both parents.

 

[madhatter85]

In response to Adoption -

When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage.

When a heterosexual couple adopts children who are not their genetic offspring, they affirm the pattern of marriage and generously confer its blessings on children who might otherwise have been deprived of its benefits.

 

[madhatter85]

There's so much in this article that is so awesome if i listed it all here i would have to start a new thread.

 

[Magic Man]

There's so much in this article that is so awesome if i listed it all here i would have to start a new thread.

Just because he's a famous author doesn't mean the fallacies have any more validity. He might say it better than you, and have more influence, but he's still completely wrong. I'd respond to all of the quotes from his article, but I've already responded to all of those fallacies more than once in this thread. Here's a quick way to say it all:

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. If you think there's good reason to ban same-sex marriages, or you've come up with "logical" reasons for why homosexuality is wrong, you're only rationalizing to make yourself feel better and to feel justified in your bigotry. This is even more apparent when your arguments are debunked clearly and you still refuse to see what's wrong with them.

 

[McBell]

Perfectly put by O.S.C. Mormon Times - State job is not to redefine marriage

Great.
Another agenda filled article by one who does ratification instead of research.

 

[Sunstone]

Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

It's true that marriage is older than any government. It's not true that it's always been between a man and a woman. There are instances in the literature of marriages between two men or between two women.

 

[Magic Man]

It's true that marriage is older than any government. It's not true that it's always been between a man and a woman. There are instances in the literature of marriages between two men or between two women.

Not to mention one man and several women.

 

[McBell]

It's true that marriage is older than any government. It's not true that it's always been between a man and a woman. There are instances in the literature of marriages between two men or between two women.

Hells bells man, even the bible has instances of one man many women.

 

[Storm]

Just because he's a famous author doesn't mean the fallacies have any more validity. He might say it better than you, and have more influence, but he's still completely wrong. I'd respond to all of the quotes from his article, but I've already responded to all of those fallacies more than once in this thread. Here's a quick way to say it all:

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. If you think there's good reason to ban same-sex marriages, or you've come up with "logical" reasons for why homosexuality is wrong, you're only rationalizing to make yourself feel better and to feel justified in your bigotry. This is even more apparent when your arguments are debunked clearly and you still refuse to see what's wrong with them.

What he said.

 

[Sonic247]

When this country was founded the courts would have laughed at the idea of giving a marriage license to two guys. What the Mormons are saying is that they support the law the way it is. Like most arguments here it all boils down to a definition that will be argued about endlessly without any benefit to anybody; in this case marriage.

 

[Storm]

No, Sonic, it boils down to equal treatment under the law.

 

[McBell]

When this country was founded the courts would have laughed at the idea of giving a marriage license to two guys. What the Mormons are saying is that they support the law the way it is. Like most arguments here it all boils down to a definition that will be argued about endlessly without any benefit to anybody; in this case marriage.

Funny how Christians have no problems with redefining marriage to mean one man to one woman.....

 

[Orontes]

I'm not familiar with California law, so maybe. However, I'm speaking nationally. After all, what if the family has to move. Civil unions also lack the protection of portability.

My comments have basically focused on California's legal situation. If your concern is national, then you need to look to DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) signed during the Clinton Administration in 96 which declares that neither the Federal Government or any State need recognize any same sex relation as a marriage even if there is gay marriage legislation passed by some state. For gay advocates like yourself, one solace in this you may find is DOMA seems to directly go against the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" in Article Four of the U.S. Constitution, so I think there are good grounds it could be overturned if it were litigated after say California's Proposition 8 fails in November.

The reality is that, one way or another, same sex pairings do find themselves responsible for children. Therefore, your rational of denying them equal protection under the law is flawed.

I think we're speaking past each other. My focus has been gay marriage equity claims and judicial overreach. Obligations and/or legal protections of children are something else. As far as California is concerned, (I haven't read through the Civil Unions Law in detail), I believe gay couples/people, acting as guardians or who are parents, responsibilities are parallel to married couples.

 

[Arnack]

When this country was founded the courts would have laughed at the idea of giving a marriage license to two guys. What the Mormons are saying is that they support the law the way it is. Like most arguments here it all boils down to a definition that will be argued about endlessly without any benefit to anybody; in this case marriage.

Your failing to realize that America was created for freedom and equality for everyone.