LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[madhatter85]

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

Gay people have the same freedoms everyone else doesn. they can marry any member of the opposite sex that they wish.

 

[Arnack]

Gay people have the same freedoms everyone else doesn. they can marry any member of the opposite sex that they wish.

My post was in response toSonic247 who stated that the US founders would just laugh if gay marriage was a topic back in their days.

 

[gnomon]

The Card article being fisked...

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

I wonder if he would have felt the same about the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws.

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

If marriage is a fundamental right the courts decision does not create new law. Removing laws is a not a creation of new law.

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.

Human cultures have changed in many ways. Are ancestors from just a couple centuries ago would probably think we are perverse in many areas now taken for granted. Such as age of consent being 18 in most areas. This is a moot point by Card.

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.

Non-sequitar. It is not an overreach by judges if marriage is indeed a fundamental right.

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.

Abortion was not illegal from time immemorial until Roe v. Wade so this is a disingenuous argument on Card’s part.

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.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage.

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

This has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[Orontes]

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.

I think base opposition to gay marriage does influence many politicians. I also think there are politicians who are personally opposed to gay marriage and some politicians who embrace gay marriage for personal reasons, or to gain political clout: San Francisco's major would be an example.

As far as equity claims and legal argument: the Supreme Court has held that equity claims are only applicable when the two things compared are "similarly situated". Things that cannot show this direct correspondence do not merit equal status. Heterosexual marriage and Homosexual marriage are fundamentally different in that the one has the potential to produce and the other does not. Therefore the two are not the same and the state may demonstrate an interest toward the one and not the other. Now, the other possible legal argument would be a due process claim. Here, under the strict scrutiny regimen guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, the two parameters are: whether a claim is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and "deeply embedded in the nation's history and tradition". Gay marriage is not part of ordered liberty as the nation has existed for over 200 years without it. Gay marriage is not "deeply embedded in the nation's history and tradition" as opposition to things homosexual has been the norm, both in law and the popular psyche. On either count, gay marriage fails. The only legitimate recourse is for gay advocates to convince their fellow citizens the merits of gay marriage and see to legislation to that effect. This is the democratic process.

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.

No, it is not a ploy. Let me explain a bit more: when something is banned in legal discourse, that means the thing is illegal. For example, in California prostitution is banned. Anyone participating in the activity is subject to arrest. Gay marriage is not banned. People may marry. There are several churches that are quite open about their willingness to marry gay people. There are other gay couples that have declared they consider themselves married in the sight of God. These ceremonies/acts are not subject to any state action. The thrust of the California Supreme Court's overturn of Prop. 22 does not concern an peoples private actions, but state sanction and endorsement.

There is then no right to any marriage in either Constitution.

That is right.

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.

This is not correct. Sexuality isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Strangulation is not prohibited by the Constitution: hanging was a common form of execution. Setting people on fire is not against the Constitution either: cremation is common in California.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, It does: times infinity.

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?

Adoption is a separate matter. Single individuals or couples may adopt whether gay or not. The issue is asserting gay marriage is a right.

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.

If you believe there are many reasons for the state to endorse gay marriage then you should get others to agree with you and pass legislation or amend the California Constitution.

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.

Because I'm evil. All people who oppose four judges' invention of a gay right to marriage are evil. This should have been made clear by now.

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.

Married couples get state benefits simply by being married, that is right. This demonstrates the state placing a value on marriage. Every child the couple has, equals another benefit from the state. This indicates the state values the production of children. Therefore we have the state valuing marriage and the production of children and married couples uniquely receiving both benefits simultaneously. Marriage has been defined in California since 1977 as a civil contract between a man and a woman.

 

[gnomon]

Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory -- and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?

Their children will be more tolerant than their parents. Travesty.

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.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage. This is a red herring.

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"?

Nothing more than whining in the above three paragraphs.

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.

Que?

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.

[FONT=&quot]RICO laws do pretty much suck. I’ll agree with this part[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

 

[gnomon]

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.

Marriage does not have a universal definition. One would have to be an idiot to believe this. From polygamy to age of consent to arranged marriages to dowries there are various meanings to the term marriage across cultures. Maybe we should institute some old customs such as the groom’s best men having sex with the bride on the wedding night. What do you say ladies? It’s tradition.

If the government passed a law declaring that grey was now green, and asphalt was specifically designated as a botanical organism, would that make all our streets into "greenery" and all our parking lots into "parks"?

If a court declared that from now on, "blind" and "sighted" would be synonyms, would that mean that it would be safe for blind people to drive cars?

More whining.

No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

This is a permanent fact of nature.

This is an admission of stupidity on the part of the author.

(In another column I will talk seriously and candidly about the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality, and the reasons why homosexuality persists even though it does not provide a reproductive advantage.)

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.

[FONT=&quot]I seriously doubt Card has reviewed the data in regards to intersex, the causes of intersex, the social lives of such individuals, the manner by which sex and marriage laws have affected these individuals, the prevalence of intersex and the fact of nature that they are human beings that for the most part are neither male or female.[/FONT]

 

[gnomon]

Married people are doing something that is very, very hard -- to combine the lives of a male and female, with all their physical and personality differences, into a stable relationship that persists across time.

When they are able to create children together, married people then provide the role models for those children to learn how to become a man or a woman, and what to expect of their spouse when they themselves marry.

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.

Then why do so many men and women yet desire not to have children? Why do they bother to marry if they cannot have children?

Some marriages are better than others; some fail utterly because of the malfeasance of one or both of the partners.

That only makes it all the more vital that the whole society combine to help husbands and wives succeed at marriage.

We need the same public protection of marriage that we have of property. If we did not all agree that people continue to own things that are not in their immediate possession, then you could not reasonably expect to come home and find your house unoccupied.

We agree, by law, to make it a crime to take what belongs to others -- even when you need it more than they do. Every aspect of our lives is affected by this, and not for a moment could a society exist that did not protect the right of property.

If property rights were utterly abolished, and you could own nothing, you would leave that society as quickly as possible -- or create a new society that agreed to respect each other's property rights and protected them from outsiders who would attempt to take away your property.

Marriage is, if anything, more vital, more central, than property.

Property rights have been destroyed. RICO laws and eminent domain pretty much ensure that the state has the right to take your property even if you have committed no crimes or to give that property to another private party. Card should actually know what’s going on in this country before asserting such a nonsense diatribe. In what way would homosexual marriage detract from heterosexual marriages? He does not directly answer this question probably because he doesn’t have an answer.

Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.

Nothing to do with gay marriage.

Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.

Nothing to do with gay marriage.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[gnomon]

What used to be informally protected by the customs of villages and tribes is now supposedly protected by governments and laws.

Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization -- including the custom of marriage.

Seen in this context, we are fools if we think "gay marriage" is the first or even the worst threat to marriage.

We heterosexuals have put marriage in such a state that it's a wonder homosexuals would even aspire to call their unions by that name.

Divorce is "no-fault," easily obtained on any pretext.

A vast number of unmarried men and women have such contempt for marriage that they share bed and home without asking for any formal recognition by society.

In an era when birth control and abortion make childbearing completely optional, the number of out-of-wedlock births shows the contempt that many women have for marriage.

Yet most of these single mothers still demand that the man they chose not to marry before having sex with him provide financial support for them and their children -- while denying the man any of the rights and protections of marriage.

Men routinely discard wives and children to follow the nearly universal male biological desire for diversity in mating. Adultery is now openly expected of men, even if faithful wives deplore it.

Evidence?

With "gay marriage," the last shreds of meaning will be stripped away from marriage, with homosexuals finishing what faithless, selfish heterosexuals have begun.

Here he equates homosexuals to faithless and selfish heterosexuals. Pure bigotry here.

Marriage, to be worth preserving, needs to mean not just something, but everything.

Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.

If government is going to meddle in this, it had better be to support marriage in general while providing protection for those caught in truly destructive marriages.

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

Is government not already the enemy of marriage by allowing no-fault divorce?

Society gains no benefit whatsoever (except for a momentary warm feeling about how "fair" and "compassionate" we are) from renaming homosexual liaisons and friendships as marriage.

Married people attempting to raise children with the hope that they, in turn, will be reproductively successful, have every reason to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.

It's about grandchildren. That's what all life is about. It's not enough just to spawn -- your offspring must grow up in circumstances that will maximize their reproductive opportunities.

No, it’s about great-great-great grandchildren.

Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

Single parent households already exist. It’s a fact of life. Should the state force children out of such situations. The state already allows for parents to force their children to attend places where they are taught such concepts as religious bigotry. Is Card being hypocritical?

What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

If straight people feel that way then they can continue to screw straight people.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

Sex, not marriage, is a biological imperative. Marriage is a social construct. Many societies have differing constructs. All we need in this nation is a construct that allows any two loving people to be married and if they have the emotional capacity to raise children all the power to them. There is no evidence showing that either heterosexuality or homosexuality is relevant to that case. Only the mental and social anxiety created by bigotry and ignorance is relevant here. What Card asks for is to maintain that bigotry and ignorance.



There. Multiple posts. I'm sure that violates some etiquette rule but quite frankly I don't care. Now, to give credit.....

All, the drivel I quoted above brought to you from this wasteful exercise which can be found here,

Mormon Times - State job is not to redefine marriage
All authored by Orson Scott Card. Apparently awesome because he wrote a few books.

 

[gnomon]

Gay people have the same freedoms everyone else doesn. they can marry any member of the opposite sex that they wish.

But they can't marry another consenting adult whom they love.

So you need a new bad joke.

 

[Magic Man]

As far as equity claims and legal argument: the Supreme Court has held that equity claims are only applicable when the two things compared are "similarly situated".

Stop right there. You've tried this several times already, and I've struck it down every time. They are similarly situated. Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are two people in love living together. That's it. There is no need to make any other distinction. I know you want to because it makes you feel better, but, legally, logically and rationally, it is not a relevant distinction that you make. Just stop. They are similarly situated, no matter how much you want them not to be.

No, it is not a ploy. Let me explain a bit more: when something is banned in legal discourse, that means the thing is illegal.

You don't need to explain anything. I get it. You're making a useless and irrelevant distinction again. We are not talking about whether or not two guys can have a private ceremony pledging their love for each other. We are talking about them having an official, state-endorsed ceremony like everyone else. That's it. You're welcome to make the distinction all you want, but it's pointless, and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. When this topic is discussed, it's a given that people are talking about state-endorsed same-sex marriages, and not just private personal ceremonies. You don't need to tell us, and it doesn't help your argument. In fact, it really only hurts it.

This is not correct. Sexuality isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Strangulation is not prohibited by the Constitution: hanging was a common form of execution. Setting people on fire is not against the Constitution either: cremation is common in California.

OK, so I can just go set someone on fire whenever I want, then? Oh, that's right, I can't. Why? Because it's not allowed by the Constitution. I can see the lawyer in you, but you're still making useless distinctions. In this case, I take it for granted that you understand that what I mean is that the Constitution prohibits me from going up to a living person at random, pouring gasoline on them, and setting them on fire. I understand you feel the need to nitpick everything, but it's really annoying. You know what I mean, and, for the sake of brevity, I try not to spell things like that out. The same applies here with strangulation. I can't put my hands around a living person's neck and squeeze until they are dead, according to the Constitution. So, basically, it is correct.

Adoption is a separate matter. Single individuals or couples may adopt whether gay or not. The issue is asserting gay marriage is a right.

But I thought the whole point of marriage was to have children. That seems to be the best environment for kids, right? So, why stop that from happening?

If you believe there are many reasons for the state to endorse gay marriage then you should get others to agree with you and pass legislation or amend the California Constitution.

For one, I don't need to. It's already being taken care of. For another, I shouldn't need to. The government should do its job correctly, as it is in California, and has already in Massachusetts.

Because I'm evil. All people who oppose four judges' invention of a gay right to marriage are evil. This should have been made clear by now.

Well, I just assumed it was because you wanted so badly for your feelings against homosexuals to be justified, but whatever you say.

Married couples get state benefits simply by being married, that is right. This demonstrates the state placing a value on marriage. Every child the couple has, equals another benefit from the state. This indicates the state values the production of children. Therefore we have the state valuing marriage and the production of children and married couples uniquely receiving both benefits simultaneously. Marriage has been defined in California since 1977 as a civil contract between a man and a woman.

So, you admit it finally. The state values marriage as an institution regardless of children. That means that your "the state values marriage because of its potential to produce children" argument is shot down. That leaves no reason for it not to value all marriages, including same-sex ones. I like how you even state that it's been defined that way since 1977. What about the other 100+ years? Why wasn't it defined that way then? Why was it changed in 1977? Oh, that's right, to make people like you feel better about your discrimination.

 

[Magic Man]

Gay people have the same freedoms everyone else doesn. they can marry any member of the opposite sex that they wish.

Ah, this is a classic. What is it with all of these irreelvant distinctions? What if you were told you couldn't marry a white woman, but it was OK, because you were allowed to marry a non-white woman just like any other white man? Would that make sense to you? I sure hope not, but I fear it might.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When this country was founded the courts would have laughed at the idea of giving a marriage license to two guys.

Much as they would have at the idea of letting blacks or women vote.

What the Mormons are saying is that they support the law the way it is.

No - the law of the land in California is that same-sex marriage is legal. What the LDS Church is saying is that the law should be changed. You can tell by the fact they're advocating an amendment to the state Constitution and not advocating leaving the law alone.

Gay people have the same freedoms everyone else doesn. they can marry any member of the opposite sex that they wish.

Would it be freedom of religion to bar Mormons from their temples and meeting halls, but allow them to attend any Hindu mandir they want?

 

[Starfish]

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.

As far as I've heard, this is only the case in relatively rare, isolated and small societies (might I add--non-enduring to the list of adjectives?). None of the major societies throughout history have done it.

 

[Magic Man]

As far as I've heard, this is only the case in relatively rare, isolated and small societies (might I add--non-enduring to the list of adjectives?). None of the major societies throughout history have done it.

Let's say that's true. I am no expert, so, for all I know, it could be.

All of the major societies also owned slaves. It's ok to change things sometimes.

 

[Starfish]

Let's say that's true. I am no expert, so, for all I know, it could be.

All of the major societies also owned slaves. It's ok to change things sometimes.

This is a very tired overused argument. But we're ALL repeating ourselves, including me.

If a society condoned slavery, do we assume EVERYTHING they did was wrong? Slavery came and went, but the definition of marriage has always been between a man and woman. What do we, of the past 15 years, know better than all of history?

 

[Storm]

No, it hasn't.

 

[Starfish]

Major societies, not isolated pockets.

 

[Magic Man]

This is a very tired overused argument. But we're ALL repeating ourselves, including me.

If a society condoned slavery, do we assume EVERYTHING they did was wrong? Slavery came and went, but the definition of marriage has always been between a man and woman.

Slavery just recently went, in the grand scheme of things. Again, just because something has always been a certain way (assuming in this case that it has always been) doesn't mean it shouldn't change at some point. I didn't say everything a society did was wrong because they condoned slavery. I said that something that has been a part of every major society in history was recently stopped and deemed as wrong. It just shows that the whole "It's always been that way" argument doesn't work.

 

[Storm]

Do you deny that polygamy was more prevalent?

 

[Magic Man]

What do we, of the past 15 years, know better than all of history?

A lot. This is one of the worst fallacies to use. It's a way of getting out of actually thinking about things. It doesn't matter how others have done it. What matters is whether it stands up to logic and reason. It's the same reason parents tell their children "If all of your friends jumped off a bridge...".