LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Magic Man]

Alas, they are not. The potential to produce and the inability to produce is a fundamental and existential difference.


The distinction is relevant insofar as precision in language is important.

As has been said, they are different, but not in a relevant way. Their inability to produce offspring is not a relevant detail. You can keep trying to explain it, but you're wrong. Bottom line: They are similarly situated. (Notice how it doesn't say situated exactly the same)

This is another issue of accuracy. If someone assaults another, the reason they may be arrested is because assault is illegal, per the Criminal Code. This means there is a law passed by the legislature on the books against such and what constitutes such. Minus such status in the Criminal Code, one could not be prosecuted for assault.

You seem to be missing the point again. You can keep trying to bog the discussion down with irrelevant distinctions which take the focus away from the main issue, but it's not going to help your case. The point is that "setting a live person on fire thereby hurting or killing them" is not specifically banned by the Constitution. Through other statements, though, it is made illegal. This goes to the point of the Constitution not mentioning gay marriage at all. As in, you're right, it doesn't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, though.

The point of marriage could be a whole host of things, depending on the person. As it relates to the state, the production of children is an interest. Marriage is the vehicle for both the production and foster of new citizens.

No, it's not. As we have already established, that's not a real concern of the state. It's a made-up concern by you to help your cause. Marriage is a vehicle for reproduction, not the vehicle. The state has two different things it's concerned with: Reproduction and marriage. They are not one larger concern, though. They are separate.

This is the divide between those who believe in a democratic process and those who do not.

I don't know what you believe, but I believe in the American process, which is not completely democratic. We are a constitutional republic. I prefer that way of doing things to a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, I'm sure I'd have a lot less rights than I do now, because I'm an atheist.

It's much easier to simply demonize those who disagree isn't it. There is also a certain satisfaction if giving in to one's passion and castigating the opposition it seems.

Actually, I clearly denied demonizing you. You tried to put words in my mouth, and I denied them explicitly. I do clearly see that you want this very badly to be true, so that you feel better about your bigotted view. I don't consider that demonizing, though. Thanks for taking this to a whole new level.

I have always argued the state values marriage. This is demonstrated in the benefits. I have also explained the reason is because marriage is the base vehicle through which new citizens are brought about and fostered. This is why benefits are given for producing children and why the state acts as a

guarantor of the contract. Though there are marriages that do not produce children the vast majority do and marriage creates a stable regime for children's development.

And we just clearly established that the state values marriage itself, regardless of reproduction. This is clear in the fact that just being married has benefits, and having kids has a separate set of benefits. People can get married and never have kids, for whatever reason, and still get marriage benefits. So, clearly, marriage being a vehicle for new citizens isn't much of a factor.

As to the definition of marriage from 1977: I think it was tied to the perceived shift in gay advocate rhetoric from simple tolerance to demands of endorsement. Prior to 77 marriage, by the word alone, indicated man and woman binding themselves together and this wasn't contested.

Ah, so now you're OK with assuming more from a word or phrase than is explicitly expressed in it. Up until this point you seemed to feel the need to clarify everything, even if it was already crystal clear to everyone. Now, all of a sudden, when it fits your agenda, you can claim that "marriage" obviously indicated "a man and a woman"? Everything else you want to nitpick and spell out in so many words, but, with this "of course it was just assumed this way, as it should have been". Do you realize how contradictory that is?

If it was supposed to be only between a man and a woman, it should have said that specifically. It was changed to say that to satisfy the religious community. That is also why it wasn't contested until then. The religious community that wanted to be only a man and a woman is so huge that it was able to quell any who contested it until then.

 

[Storm]

As has been said, they are different, but not in a relevant way. Their inability to produce offspring is not a relevant detail. You can keep trying to explain it, but you're wrong. Bottom line: They are similarly situated. (Notice how it doesn't say situated exactly the same)

Also, the distinction is unrealistic. The reality is that, regardless of their inability to reproduce via intercourse with each other, same sex couples do parent children. Therefore, such families should have all the rights and responsibilities of "similarly situated" heterosexual-headed families.

 

[Orontes]

Well, I don't support that, I don't know anyone who does, and I strongly doubt such suits would be successful, as they violate the separation of church and state.

The success of such suites is an open question. Things may turn on the outcome in November. It's an interesting question. At the least it may involve large scale legal battles. The base justification for action is as I explained. Further, there is already a long standing legal proscription dividing church belief (which is protected as a liberty) and church practice (which has limitations). It is because of this type of situation that all the Catholic child adoption services and charities have now closed down in Massachusetts.

My information may be outdated, but I think that's false. We're not allowed to marry gays, so we perform "commitment ceremonies" instead.

That is odd. I know several churches that have been marrying gays for some time. There was no license attached to the ceremony, but ceremonies took place. A private organization can title their activities as they will: a church could declare someone emperor of the U.S., but it would have no force. It is the same for marriage. The legal force for the marriage rests with the state.

You call the Civil War "democratic"?

I note you left out the divine right of kings.

Radical reform is by and large not a pretty process, but it is necessary for progress.

I'm referring to the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage). If someone wants to make a rights claim, that is fine. It should be put forward in the public square where the people can consider the merits and choose. Rights to have force need to be the product of the democratic process. This would be passing of law or the ratification process, both of which are majoritarian.

The Divine Right of Kings has never been a part of U.S. Jurisprudence. The framing and passage of the U.S. Constitution that excludes monarchs was also passed via ratification.

Determining what is necessary for a free people, should be decided by the people. When it is imposed from above "by those who know best" it is the road to tyranny.

 

[Orontes]

As has been said, they are different, but not in a relevant way. Their inability to produce offspring is not a relevant detail.

The potential to produce and the inability to produce is a difference on a base level. It undercuts any equity claim. Your uncomfortably with this does not change the reality.

You seem to be missing the point again. You can keep trying to bog the discussion down with irrelevant distinctions which take the focus away from the main issue, but it's not going to help your case. The point is that "setting a live person on fire thereby hurting or killing them" is not specifically banned by the Constitution. Through other statements, though, it is made illegal. This goes to the point of the Constitution not mentioning gay marriage at all. As in, you're right, it doesn't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, though.

As to gay marriage not mentioned in the Constitution: I'm glad we agree. The Constitution is silent on the issue. I think we also agree that doesn't mean it shouldn't/couldn't be allowed. If it were to be allowed or declared a right, a proper law or amendment speaking to the issue would be required.

No, it's not. As we have already established, that's not a real concern of the state. It's a made-up concern by you to help your cause. Marriage is a vehicle for reproduction, not the vehicle. The state has two different things it's concerned with: Reproduction and marriage. They are not one larger concern, though. They are separate.

And we just clearly established that the state values marriage itself, regardless of reproduction. This is clear in the fact that just being married has benefits, and having kids has a separate set of benefits. People can get married and never have kids, for whatever reason, and still get marriage benefits. So, clearly, marriage being a vehicle for new citizens isn't much of a factor.

I think you mixed up the issue. The rub is the state sanctions an X. Anything that seeks to claim that same sanction through an equity claim must be able to demonstrate "similar situatedness". This is a strict protocol and not a causal relation. Heterosexual and homosexual marriages are distinct on a base level because one has the potential to produce people and the other has no potential to produce people. This means there is a base difference between the two. Thus, the equity claim lacks merit. That the state recognizes and give sanctions to marriage prior to the production of Kinders, doesn't change the base potentiality that applies to the vast bulk of marriages or the fact the large majority of marriage end up having babies.

I don't know what you believe, but I believe in the American process, which is not completely democratic. We are a constitutional republic.

A constitutional republic is a subset of democratic government. Both the constitution and the republican model operate from a majoritarian schema. If that is the model you agree with you must oppose any tyranny of the minority, which would include the invention of rights by four men over the expressed will of literally millions. Loyalty to process should trump one's individual penchants.

Actually, I clearly denied demonizing you. You tried to put words in my mouth, and I denied them explicitly. I do clearly see that you want this very badly to be true, so that you feel better about your bigotted view. I don't consider that demonizing, though. Thanks for taking this to a whole new level.

My comment was a general statement. It was not personally directed. Simply reading over many of the posts in the thread illustrates the point. However, to use the term bigot, or a variation, toward another (as noted above) is to go in the very direction you seem to be decrying.

Ah, so now you're OK with assuming more from a word or phrase than is explicitly expressed in it. Up until this point you seemed to feel the need to clarify everything, even if it was already crystal clear to everyone. Now, all of a sudden, when it fits your agenda, you can claim that "marriage" obviously indicated "a man and a woman"? Everything else you want to nitpick and spell out in so many words, but, with this "of course it was just assumed this way, as it should have been". Do you realize how contradictory that is?

If it was supposed to be only between a man and a woman, it should have said that specifically. It was changed to say that to satisfy the religious community. That is also why it wasn't contested until then. The religious community that wanted to be only a man and a woman is so huge that it was able to quell any who contested it until then.

I don't understand your comment. You ask me why the qualification in 1977. I gave you my opinion on the matter. The change to more explicit verbiage was a legal move which I think was a reaction to a shift in gay advocacy rhetoric. This does not mean the base meaning of the word marriage was different*, but from a legal perspective more clarity is better than less. It is this same perspective that explains the language of Proposition 22 passed in 2000. Proposition 22 states that marriage is a civil contract "only" between a man and a woman. The adverb was again meant to anticipate legal challenges I think.

* I think there is a clear sense for the meaning of marriage in the English language that can be traced back through dictionary citation that notes marriage means the commitment/bond of male and female to each other. It is because of this obvious sense that in discussion one must add the adjective "gay" or "homosexual" in front of marriage to indicate something other than the standard meaning.

 

[Magic Man]

The potential to produce and the inability to produce is a difference on a base level. It undercuts any equity claim. Your uncomfortably with this does not change the reality.

I'm not uncomfortable with it. That is a difference between the two, no doubt about it. It, however, has no relevance whatsoever on the issue of same-sex marriage. I would say it's more your uncomfortability with homosexuality that leads you to think that this is relevant at all.

As to gay marriage not mentioned in the Constitution: I'm glad we agree. The Constitution is silent on the issue. I think we also agree that doesn't mean it shouldn't/couldn't be allowed. If it were to be allowed or declared a right, a proper law or amendment speaking to the issue would be required.

Good then. We'll just go by whatever it is in the Constitution that allows marriage, just like for setting someone on fire, we go with whatever disallows assault. See, marriage is already allowed, so there's no need for a new proper law or amendment. People like you just need to realize that the right is already in there, and stop preventing people from exercising their Constitutional right.

I think you mixed up the issue. The rub is the state sanctions an X. Anything that seeks to claim that same sanction through an equity claim must be able to demonstrate "similar situatedness". This is a strict protocol and not a causal relation. Heterosexual and homosexual marriages are distinct on a base level because one has the potential to produce people and the other has no potential to produce people. This means there is a base difference between the two. Thus, the equity claim lacks merit. That the state recognizes and give sanctions to marriage prior to the production of Kinders, doesn't change the base potentiality that applies to the vast bulk of marriages or the fact the large majority of marriage end up having babies.

I haven't mixed up anything. I've tried to keep you from mixing things up. You keep bringing up this whole argument like it means something. It doesn't. It doesn't fool me either. I'm not sure who you've fooled with this before, but it's not working now. You don't have to show that the two are "situated the same", only that they are "situated similarly". You distinction shows that they are not situated exactly the same. However, it does nothing to show that they aren't situated similarly. They are. As far as the right to marry is concerned, they are indeed similarly situated. Marriage does not imply reproducing. Marriage implies pledging yourself to another person for the rest of your life. That's all.

A constitutional republic is a subset of democratic government. Both the constitution and the republican model operate from a majoritarian schema. If that is the model you agree with you must oppose any tyranny of the minority, which would include the invention of rights by four men over the expressed will of literally millions. Loyalty to process should trump one's individual penchants.

I think you forgot that one of the main concepts on which this country was built was freedom and equality for all people. It has nothing to do with a tyranny of the minority. This is where your bias really shows through. The right to marriage was invented, according to you. All others want is for that right to be given to all people, not just some. The reason we are not just a democracy is precisely to disallow rights violations exactly like this. Many people came over here in the beginning to escape religious persecution. They were not the majority in their former countries, and they saw what could happen when you let the majority run everything unopposed. They built our laws around the idea of letting the people make the decisions, but while protecting the rights of everyone, including the minority.

My comment was a general statement. It was not personally directed. Simply reading over many of the posts in the thread illustrates the point. However, to use the term bigot, or a variation, toward another (as noted above) is to go in the very direction you seem to be decrying.

I'm sorry, when your statements are the very definition of a word, I have no problem in caling them what they are. You have a problem with a group of people based solely on their sexuality, and you are claiming legal justification for your discrimination against them. If that is not bigotry, then nothing is. If we substituted black people for homosexuals, you couldn't deny that it would be racism, a form of bigotry.

I don't understand your comment. You ask me why the qualification in 1977. I gave you my opinion on the matter. The change to more explicit verbiage was a legal move which I think was a reaction to a shift in gay advocacy rhetoric. This does not mean the base meaning of the word marriage was different*, but from a legal perspective more clarity is better than less. It is this same perspective that explains the language of Proposition 22 passed in 2000. Proposition 22 states that marriage is a civil contract "only" between a man and a woman. The adverb was again meant to anticipate legal challenges I think.

* I think there is a clear sense for the meaning of marriage in the English language that can be traced back through dictionary citation that notes marriage means the commitment/bond of male and female to each other. It is because of this obvious sense that in discussion one must add the adjective "gay" or "homosexual" in front of marriage to indicate something other than the standard meaning.

Yes, you think there is a clear meaning. I like how you throw "rhetoric" in there when talking about gay advocacy. Another time when your bias really shows through. The only rhetoric here is your own. Yuo make all kinds of distinctions here, which are all irrelevant and don't even help your cause, and yet, you claim that marriage doesn't need to be specified as being between a man and a woman. It's clear that that's what it means. You know, kind of like when I told you that you didn't need to specify that homosexuals could get married in a non-state-endorsed ceremony because that's what we were talking about anyway, and you still felt the need to assert the difference? And now, you decide that such a distinction wasn't necessary before which is why it was never made? You still don't see the contradiction?

Bottom line is this: You don't like homosexuality, because either you think it's disgusting or simply because it's not something you would do. You then try to justify your poor treatment of homosexuals with illogical and unreasonable arguments. The law is the way it is not because it makes sense or has any reasonalble basis. It's only the way it is because of bigotry like what you show. I do thank you for being a perfect example of what's wrong with our legal system, though. Everyone has their opinions, and many have biases, but I would like to think the people who make the decisions that affect everyone can at least admit their biases and not let their personal opinions get in the way of good judgement. You have been a great example of how lawmakers do justify letting their bias make their decisions for them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is odd. I know several churches that have been marrying gays for some time. There was no license attached to the ceremony, but ceremonies took place. A private organization can title their activities as they will: a church could declare someone emperor of the U.S., but it would have no force. It is the same for marriage. The legal force for the marriage rests with the state.

When San Francisco began declaring same-sex couples married, the State didn't merely declare that those licences wouldn't have any effect outside the City and County of San Francisco; it legally prohibited the City and County from issuing them.

The potential to produce and the inability to produce is a difference on a base level. It undercuts any equity claim. Your uncomfortably with this does not change the reality.

Just because a difference exists does not make that difference relevant to the law. For example, when comparing a couple in the Napa Valley to one in Los Angeles, geography would be a difference on a base level.

If two different people are going to be treated differently by the State, it is up to the state to demonstrate that those differences are substantive and relevant.

A constitutional republic is a subset of democratic government. Both the constitution and the republican model operate from a majoritarian schema. If that is the model you agree with you must oppose any tyranny of the minority, which would include the invention of rights by four men over the expressed will of literally millions. Loyalty to process should trump one's individual penchants.

That process includes the judiciary's oversight of the legal system and its powers to interpret and enforce law. Why are you not loyal to that part of the process?

I don't understand your comment. You ask me why the qualification in 1977. I gave you my opinion on the matter. The change to more explicit verbiage was a legal move which I think was a reaction to a shift in gay advocacy rhetoric. This does not mean the base meaning of the word marriage was different*, but from a legal perspective more clarity is better than less. It is this same perspective that explains the language of Proposition 22 passed in 2000. Proposition 22 states that marriage is a civil contract "only" between a man and a woman. The adverb was again meant to anticipate legal challenges I think.

If we're picking the most relevant date in this matter, I'd pick 1948. It was the year of the California Supreme Court's decision in the case of Perez v. Sharp, which found that marriage was a fundamental right under the California State Constititution. It was cited in the Supreme Court's 2008 decision on same-sex marriage.

* I think there is a clear sense for the meaning of marriage in the English language that can be traced back through dictionary citation that notes marriage means the commitment/bond of male and female to each other. It is because of this obvious sense that in discussion one must add the adjective "gay" or "homosexual" in front of marriage to indicate something other than the standard meaning.

That's fallacious reasoning. The adjective on the front of same-sex (or "gay" or "homosexual", if you prefer, even if they aren't completely accurate descriptors) is used to specify the thing being discussed. Nobody is suggesting that state sanction of all marriage be eliminated, therefore we need to differentiate between what is being suggested for elimination and what isn't.

And if you notice, there have been many references in this thread alone to opposite-sex (or "heterosexual", though that term isn't completely accurate either) marriage as well. Does that make it not part of the "standard meaning"?

Just to underscore the silliness of this argument: are drag racing, stock car racing, and circuit racing all not within the standard meaning of "racing"? Is ice hockey not within the standard meaning of "hockey"?

 

[Orontes]

[/font]

I'm not uncomfortable with it. That is a difference between the two, no doubt about it. It, however, has no relevance whatsoever on the issue of same-sex marriage. I would say it's more your uncomfortability with homosexuality that leads you to think that this is relevant at all.

The difference speaks to a base function: the potential to do a thing and the lack of any potential to do a thing. Therefore the two are not similarly situated.

Good then. We'll just go by whatever it is in the Constitution that allows marriage, just like for setting someone on fire, we go with whatever disallows assault. See, marriage is already allowed, so there's no need for a new proper law or amendment. People like you just need to realize that the right is already in there, and stop preventing people from exercising their Constitutional right.

There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. It is a construct of four men and thus illegitimate. Rights must be determined by the people.
There are statutes for marriage and against assault. If that is the direction you wish to go with gay marriage, I think that is a legitimate route to follow.

I haven't mixed up anything. I've tried to keep you from mixing things up. You keep bringing up this whole argument like it means something. It doesn't.

It means something if one wants to make an equity argument.

I think you forgot that one of the main concepts on which this country was built was freedom and equality for all people. It has nothing to do with a tyranny of the minority. This is where your bias really shows through. The right to marriage was invented, according to you. All others want is for that right to be given to all people, not just some. The reason we are not just a democracy is precisely to disallow rights violations exactly like this. Many people came over here in the beginning to escape religious persecution. They were not the majority in their former countries, and they saw what could happen when you let the majority run everything unopposed. They built our laws around the idea of letting the people make the decisions, but while protecting the rights of everyone, including the minority.

Your comment doesn't address my post. The majoritarian model is the model that informs political discourse in the U.S. This is how political leaders are chosen. This is how laws are passed, it is how the Constitution was ratified and how it is changed. It is the basis through which legitimacy is determined. To whit, what is legitimate is what indicates the will of the people. Conversely, any asserted law. right etc. that lacks the will of the people is thereby illegitimate and must be opposed. If you feel there is some merit in state sanction of gay marriage, you should take it to the public square and get others to agree you and have a law passed. To have four people dictate what is a law or a right to 38 million is untoward and illegitimate. It is an example of tyranny of the minority.

I'm sorry, when your statements are the very definition of a word, I have no problem in caling them what they are. You have a problem with a group of people based solely on their sexuality, and you are claiming legal justification for your discrimination against them. If that is not bigotry, then nothing is. If we substituted black people for homosexuals, you couldn't deny that it would be racism, a form of bigotry.

So, what you earlier denied and decried you now embrace. Demonizing your opposition is not the best course to take.

Yes, you think there is a clear meaning. I like how you throw "rhetoric" in there when talking about gay advocacy. Another time when your bias really shows through. The only rhetoric here is your own.

Rhetoric refers to any argued position: gay advocacy rhetoric, my rhetoric, your rhetoric etc. It is not a pejorative, but refers to the form a position is presented under.

Yuo make all kinds of distinctions here, which are all irrelevant and don't even help your cause, and yet, you claim that marriage doesn't need to be specified as being between a man and a woman.

You asked why the language of the 1977 statue specified marriage as "a man and a woman" I told you I thought it was in reaction to a perceived shift in gay advocate rhetoric. Previously, the standard meaning of marriage has been the coming together of male and female.

Bottom line is this: You don't like homosexuality, because either you think it's disgusting or simply because it's not something you would do. You then try to justify your poor treatment of homosexuals with illogical and unreasonable arguments.

Per "bottom lines": I have said nothing derogatory about homosexuality in this entire thread. Neither is such part of my argument. My argument is concerned with the legal parameters of Proposition 8.

 

[Orontes]

When San Francisco...

I thought our exchanges were at an end with your defense of invective and the triumphant "Thus endeth the lesson".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I thought our exchanges were at an end with your defense of invective and the triumphant "Thus endeth the lesson".

Is that your way of saying that you don't have a response to the points I raised?

 

[Magic Man]

[/font]

The difference speaks to a base function: the potential to do a thing and the lack of any potential to do a thing. Therefore the two are not similarly situated.

Ah, that's too bad. I thought we were done. I thought you had finally wised up. Again, that is a difference. I don't deny that. I don't know how else to say this, though, so I'll just say it again. It is an irrelevant difference. They are similarly situated, but they are not situated exactly the same.

There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. It is a construct of four men and thus illegitimate. Rights must be determined by the people.

There are statutes for marriage and against assault. If that is the direction you wish to go with gay marriage, I think that is a legitimate route to follow.

There is a constitutional right to gay marriage, as long as there's a constitutional right to marriage.

It means something if one wants to make an equity argument.

No, it doesn't. It has nothing to do with equity. Equity does not mean "exactly the same". It means "of equal value, but not exactly the same". Nothing you've put forth shows that one is of lesser value than the other.

Your comment doesn't address my post. The majoritarian model is the model that informs political discourse in the U.S. This is how political leaders are chosen. This is how laws are passed, it is how the Constitution was ratified and how it is changed. It is the basis through which legitimacy is determined. To whit, what is legitimate is what indicates the will of the people. Conversely, any asserted law. right etc. that lacks the will of the people is thereby illegitimate and must be opposed. If you feel there is some merit in state sanction of gay marriage, you should take it to the public square and get others to agree you and have a law passed. To have four people dictate what is a law or a right to 38 million is untoward and illegitimate. It is an example of tyranny of the minority.

How did you pass the bar exam exactly?

So, what you earlier denied and decried you now embrace. Demonizing your opposition is not the best course to take.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the whole demonizing thing. If you feel that your statements being called bigotted is demonizing, then that's a separate debate altogether. I'm sorry that you feel that calling the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, and trying to support your discrimination against homosexuals, bigotted is demonizing. I feel that it's calling an apple an apple. It is the very definition of bigotry.

Rhetoric refers to any argued position: gay advocacy rhetoric, my rhetoric, your rhetoric etc. It is not a pejorative, but refers to the form a position is presented under.

That's not the usual definition I've heard used. "Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous" from Dictionary.com is the definition I usually see associated with the word. I'm pretty sure you know the connotations of it, though, even if you pretend not to.

You asked why the language of the 1977 statue specified marriage as "a man and a woman" I told you I thought it was in reaction to a perceived shift in gay advocate rhetoric. Previously, the standard meaning of marriage has been the coming together of male and female.

There's that rhetoric word again. The standard meaning maybe, if you mean what happens the majority of the time. I'd be willing to bet that most people 50+ years ago would have defined it as "when two people fall in love and pledge their lives to each other". It only changes when they realize they need it to so that they can ban certain people from doing it.

Per "bottom lines": I have said nothing derogatory about homosexuality in this entire thread. Neither is such part of my argument. My argument is concerned with the legal parameters of Proposition 8.

And your personal opinion about homosexuality influences your view of the matter greatly. Are you saying that you have no problem with homosexuality or with homosexuals getting married? Do you find it odd that only people who already think homosexuality is wrong in some way are the ones who make any kind of legal case against same-sex marriage?

Is that your way of saying that you don't have a response to the points I raised?

It depends. Do you mean a response? Or a logical, rational, reasonable response? I'm sure he has the former, the latter, however, I'm still waiting for myself.

 

[Orontes]

Is that your way of saying that you don't have a response to the points I raised?

No. that is my way of saying that I thought our exchanges were at an end with your defense of invective and the triumphant "Thus endeth the lesson". Discussion with someone who doesn't see their interlocutor as a person of good will have little value as the hostility smothers any meaningful dialogue. (This pattern is being repeated with others in the thread unfortunately) I'll give you replies to your post as you seem interested, but since we clearly operate from a very different understanding of what discourse should be, we cannot really continue.

When San Francisco began declaring same-sex couples married, the State didn't merely declare that those licences wouldn't have any effect outside the City and County of San Francisco; it legally prohibited the City and County from issuing them.

San Francisco is a municipality. It is not a private organization. It is part of the government of California. It did give out bogus marriage licenses for a time, but they were not recognized by the state. Further, it is the responsibility of the state (or any government) to control agencies or branches the move beyond their purview. Thus, if San Francisco began issuing its own currency action would and should be taken. This penchant to ignore process and jurisdiction is illustrative of a larger pattern. Even so, churches or other private organizations or individuals may declare or title themselves as they may, but such titles do not constitute state certification.

Just because a difference exists does not make that difference relevant to the law. For example, when comparing a couple in the Napa Valley to one in Los Angeles, geography would be a difference on a base level.

If two different people are going to be treated differently by the State, it is up to the state to demonstrate that those differences are substantive and relevant.

A couple living in Napa and a couple living in L.A. would be a base geographic difference and that would impact issues relevant to their respective domiciles i.e. taxes and obligations owed to their cities. If someone were to argue that is inequitious, they would be confused. When considering equity claims, the government may discriminate among people and relations insofar as those relations are not similarly situated. Function is a base aspect of this concept. The ability to produce and the lack of that ability is a base difference. The state has a vested interest in new citizens and their foster. Homosexual couples cannot produce new citizens and so they are not an interest of the state and their relations mandate no special endorsement.

That process includes the judiciary's oversight of the legal system and its powers to interpret and enforce law. Why are you not loyal to that part of the process?

The Judiciary does not enforce the law. That falls under the Executive Branch. Invention of rights is not part of the Judicial purview. Rights are created via a legislative and majoritarian process. In a democratic system the people determine the parameters of the law, not elites.

If we're picking the most relevant date in this matter, I'd pick 1948. It was the year of the California Supreme Court's decision in the case of Perez v. Sharp, which found that marriage was a fundamental right under the California State Constititution. It was cited in the Supreme Court's 2008 decision on same-sex marriage.

There was a question on why a 1977 statue included specific language noting marriage is between a man and a woman. Perez and 1948 do not apply to the question.

That's fallacious reasoning. The adjective on the front of same-sex (or "gay" or "homosexual", if you prefer, even if they aren't completely accurate descriptors) is used to specify the thing being discussed. Nobody is suggesting that state sanction of all marriage be eliminated, therefore we need to differentiate between what is being suggested for elimination and what isn't.

And if you notice, there have been many references in this thread alone to opposite-sex (or "heterosexual", though that term isn't completely accurate either) marriage as well. Does that make it not part of the "standard meaning"?

Marriage has been traditionally understood as between men and women. Any use of the term other than that understanding would typically need a qualifier. Gay marriage or homosexual marriage would be examples of qualifiers. In this thread making distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual marriage (which I have done regularly) is to recognize there is a challenge to the standard meaning. Making this distinction (at least on my part) is/was to facilitate discussion.

 

[Orontes]

Ah, that's too bad. I thought we were done. I thought you had finally wised up. Again, that is a difference. I don't deny that. I don't know how else to say this, though, so I'll just say it again. It is an irrelevant difference. They are similarly situated, but they are not situated exactly the same.

I was out of town.

As to your reply, unfortunately, it is not an irrelevant difference. It is a fundamental distinction.

There is a constitutional right to gay marriage, as long as there's a constitutional right to marriage.

There is no constitutional right to marriage. There is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

No, it doesn't. It has nothing to do with equity. Equity does not mean "exactly the same". It means "of equal value, but not exactly the same". Nothing you've put forth shows that one is of lesser value than the other.

Equity refers to being equal. The meaning of equal per the law and state interest is similarly situated. If one relation can do a thing and another relation cannot then the two are not similarly situated, but something else and thus do not warrant equal standing.

Your comment doesn't address my post. The majoritarian model is the model that informs political discourse in the U.S. This is how political leaders are chosen. This is how laws are passed, it is how the Constitution was ratified and how it is changed. It is the basis through which legitimacy is determined. To whit, what is legitimate is what indicates the will of the people. Conversely, any asserted law. right etc. that lacks the will of the people is thereby illegitimate and must be opposed. If you feel there is some merit in state sanction of gay marriage, you should take it to the public square and get others to agree you and have a law passed. To have four people dictate what is a law or a right to 38 million is untoward and illegitimate. It is an example of tyranny of the minority.

How did you pass the bar exam exactly?

The above is a non sequitur. It is not an argument, but simple invective. If you disagree that the majoritarian model is the model that informs political discourse in the U.S. present your argument.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the whole demonizing thing. If you feel that your statements being called bigotted is demonizing, then that's a separate debate altogether. I'm sorry that you feel that calling the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, and trying to support your discrimination against homosexuals, bigotted is demonizing. I feel that it's calling an apple an apple. It is the very definition of bigotry.

Your comments are becoming juvenile. They are also inaccurate as my focus is and has been the legal question of Prop. 8. I have said nothing about the moral state of homosexuality or expressed any hatred toward gays. The fact you opt for the bigot label indicates a basic sloppiness. If you disagree that is fine. If you cannot express you disagreement without reverting to base attack then your stance is its own refutation. It also undercuts any ability to dialogue.

That's not the usual definition I've heard used.

"Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous" from Dictionary.com is the definition I usually see associated with the word. I'm pretty sure you know the connotations of it, though, even if you pretend not to.

Rhetoric refers to persuasion. It is one of the liberal arts. Any position argued (where one puts forward a position contra another view) is a form of rhetoric insofar as one is attempting to show one position is superior to another. When one refers to the rhetoric of a person or group in reasoned discourse, they are pointing out or focusing on the model of discourse of that person or group. This is much like when one refers to a group or person's argument. The word does not refer to anything negative (as in heated dispute) but the position championed.

There's that rhetoric word again. The standard meaning maybe, if you mean what happens the majority of the time. I'd be willing to bet that most people 50+ years ago would have defined it as "when two people fall in love and pledge their lives to each other". It only changes when they realize they need it to so that they can ban certain people from doing it.

Perhaps, but I was referring to both the common understanding as well as what one might find in a dictionary until challenges to the idea started to sprout.

And your personal opinion about homosexuality influences your view of the matter greatly. Are you saying that you have no problem with homosexuality or with homosexuals getting married? Do you find it odd that only people who already think homosexuality is wrong in some way are the ones who make any kind of legal case against same-sex marriage?

Judicial overreach and/or the invention of rights is not content specific, but a procedural failing and abuse of power. It is the misuse of position in pursuit of an agenda

It depends. Do you mean a response? Or a logical, rational, reasonable response? I'm sure he has the former, the latter, however, I'm still waiting for myself.

More invective.

 

[antonio]

Fundamentalists are so repressed they cant tolerate the thought of other people having freedom to be sexually liberated.
I think they are insecure in their faith. Otherwise, if they were comfortable and fulfilled, nothing going on in society would be of much concern.
I am on several forums and some are really fundie and they are scary. The people have no sense of humor and more rigid than a pharisee. I don't think Jesus would spend a minute with them over a glass of wine.
antonio

 

[Autodidact]

Fundamentalists are so repressed they cant tolerate the thought of other people having freedom to be sexually liberated.
I think they are insecure in their faith. Otherwise, if they were comfortable and fulfilled, nothing going on in society would be of much concern.
I am on several forums and some are really fundie and they are scary. The people have no sense of humor and more rigid than a pharisee. I don't think Jesus would spend a minute with them over a glass of wine.
antonio

Well that's a refreshing perspective, I must say.

 

[Sententia]

Well that's a refreshing perspective, I must say.

Agreed. Frubals!

Orontes... There is no difference between a gay couple raising three kids and a heterocouple raising the same. There is a difference with a single parent trying to do the same.

You argue the most innane things to make those that choose a lifestyle you would not as being less equal then other. Gay people get married all the time. Its not a sexual fetish dude... They really love each other. (Of course sometimes it is a sexual fetish... but if you argue that what of hetero couples who just hook up or meet because of various fetishes....)

Marriage is sacred... So is Sealing... so dont seal gays but support them if they get married. What difference does it make to you if its bob and jane or jane and jane? (Or Bob and Cliff)... who cares? Thats their choice and their preference. Its not harmful to you or to society.

Argubly your stance against gays and lesbians and others who share your belief that they can do what they want but the state should never make them as equal as heteroes even if they truly love each other *IS* the ignorant and hateful stance.

You come across as trying to justify as to why we should also have these negative feelings and views without realizing that they are actually repressed and negative views.

Observation is all.

If you dont want gays and lesbians getting married by LAW then they should be able to get the same rights as hetero couples with at a minimum an equivalent legal union. Excommunicate or condemn them or whatever your religious beliefs dictate you need to do but in the eyes of the law why should they be less equal?

 

[illyena]

Thankyou
BalanceFX, you make some wonderful points. I am LDS and Gay, odd combo. And The biggest gripe I have is the LDS churches condemnation of its "Same Sex Attracted" community. I was the good mormon girl and got sealed and have 4 kids, but it didnt keep me from falling in love with a woman I met. Im still gay. I just have to hide that side of myself. I love my husband and kinds and wouldnt change my choices but feeling like a leper in a comminuty of such loving people, it horrid. More to your point, There is nothing in the LDS doctrine that says anyone should be punished for a feeling, being gay is not wrong, its fine, having sexual relations with anyone outside of "marriage" is not acceptable. gay or straight.
I support Gay marriage because people should have equal rights in the eyes of the law, if men and women are equal, if varying religions are equal, race, etc.. sexuality should not be a point of discrimination and the marriage contract has nothing to do with god, its a piece of paper, let two people sign it,or three if thats what they want, but that may be going to far

 

[Orontes]

Orontes... There is no difference between a gay couple raising three kids and a heterocouple raising the same. There is a difference with a single parent trying to do the same.

Hello,

I haven't commented on the raising of kids either by gay, straight or single parents. My focus has been on rights claims and judicial overreach. In a free society laws and rights should be the product of popular will. This is the basis of U.S. Jurisprudence. Any rights claim may make its case in the public square. If a majority agree, the claim will be inculcated in law. The same applies to rights. Should popular will move in a contrary direction then said law/right may be repealed. Prohibition rising to be an Amendment to the Constitution and its repeal is a simple illustration. Popular consent is the basis for legitimacy. This applies to laws, rights and political leadership. Any usurping of this process is a repudiation of popular consent and the democratic model. The product of such a usurpation is illegitimate. Judges do not have the power to create rights. Loyalty to any particular rights claim does not justify ignoring the democratic process by imposing it from above. This is the position I have been arguing.

 

[Magic Man]

[/b]I was out of town.

As to your reply, unfortunately, it is not an irrelevant difference. It is a fundamental distinction.

Well, we can go back and forth with "Yuh-huh. Nuh-uh", or you can attempt to show how that is a relevant difference. You've already tried to show that the state has some special interest in marriage because of its ability to procreate. That has shown to be false several times. The state gives marriages to people regardless of whether or not they can or plan to have kids, so that shoots down that argument. I'd rather you come up with something else, so that I can shoot that down, too, rather than just keep telling you that you're wrong.

There is no constitutional right to marriage. There is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

OK, then all marriages are null and void then, right?

Equity refers to being equal. The meaning of equal per the law and state interest is similarly situated. If one relation can do a thing and another relation cannot then the two are not similarly situated, but something else and thus do not warrant equal standing.

OK, well a couple involving a woman who is sterile with no hope of ever becoming pregnant would fit into your "not similarly situated" example. Why, again, can they get married, but other couples who are similarly situated to them cannot? This goes back to showing how they are not similarly situated. The fact that that relation cannot have children has been shown now to be irrelevant. Some couples get married regardless of whether or not they can or plan to have children. (As I just said, but I want to make sure it gets through) So, that argument is meaningless. Try again.

The above is a non sequitur. It is not an argument, but simple invective. If you disagree that the majoritarian model is the model that informs political discourse in the U.S. present your argument.

You're right. It is a non sequitur. I'm just flabbergasted is all. I don't know what else to say. I honestly don't understand how someone with your understanding of the legal system passed the bar. I have presented my argument, and you have done nothing to prove it wrong. I can keep presenting it like all of my other arguments, but it gets tiring. I'd rather wait until you provide a valid point to respond to.

Your comments are becoming juvenile. They are also inaccurate as my focus is and has been the legal question of Prop. 8. I have said nothing about the moral state of homosexuality or expressed any hatred toward gays. The fact you opt for the bigot label indicates a basic sloppiness. If you disagree that is fine. If you cannot express you disagreement without reverting to base attack then your stance is its own refutation. It also undercuts any ability to dialogue.

Do you, or do you not think that homosexuality itself is wrong? I was responding to your assertion that I was demonizing you. I was not. I was using a label that was created specifically for the very thing I was using it for. I'm sorry if you don't like my choice of words, but, if you don't want to be associated with bigotry, then stop promoting it.

Rhetoric refers to persuasion. It is one of the liberal arts. Any position argued (where one puts forward a position contra another view) is a form of rhetoric insofar as one is attempting to show one position is superior to another. When one refers to the rhetoric of a person or group in reasoned discourse, they are pointing out or focusing on the model of discourse of that person or group. This is much like when one refers to a group or person's argument. The word does not refer to anything negative (as in heated dispute) but the position championed.

So, why do you only use the word in reference to homosexuals? I have yet to see you use it in any other context? My guess is that you understand the connotation it has, and use it accordingly, so that you can then fall back on "Well, I wasn't using it like that".

Perhaps, but I was referring to both the common understanding as well as what one might find in a dictionary until challenges to the idea started to sprout.

Exactly. Until it was useful to specify to disallow same-sex marriages, it wasn't specified. It's called backtracking. "Obviously, I didn't mean just any two people who fall in love. They obviously have to be male and female." It's like making a bet with someone, and trying to change the rules after you lose the bet.

Judicial overreach and/or the invention of rights is not content specific, but a procedural failing and abuse of power. It is the misuse of position in pursuit of an agenda

The problem is that you only see it as judicial overreach or invention of rights because of your bias about the content. Yours is the misuse of position in pursuit of an agenda. The only agenda the supreme court had was to uphold the Constitution and be fair and just to all people. I'm sorry you have a problem with them attempting to correct problems created by predecessors who weren't doing their jobs correctly. That is unfortunate.

More invective.

Maybe, but it's true. You have provided many responses here. None of them have stood up to logic and reason, even though you refuse to see that. So, it's a pretty good guess to say that you will have a response, but it will probably not be logical or rational.

 

[Magic Man]

Hello,

I haven't commented on the raising of kids either by gay, straight or single parents. My focus has been on rights claims and judicial overreach. In a free society laws and rights should be the product of popular will. This is the basis of U.S. Jurisprudence. Any rights claim may make its case in the public square. If a majority agree, the claim will be inculcated in law. The same applies to rights. Should popular will move in a contrary direction then said law/right may be repealed. Prohibition rising to be an Amendment to the Constitution and its repeal is a simple illustration. Popular consent is the basis for legitimacy. This applies to laws, rights and political leadership. Any usurping of this process is a repudiation of popular consent and the democratic model. The product of such a usurpation is illegitimate. Judges do not have the power to create rights. Loyalty to any particular rights claim does not justify ignoring the democratic process by imposing it from above. This is the position I have been arguing.

In other words: Majority rules.

Which, of course, is not the way our legal system actually works. This is exactly why I wonder how you became a lawyer without understanding basic concepts like this. The correct way of putting it is "Majority rules, unless it infringes on the rights of anyone including the minority, which is why the Constitution is there".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

San Francisco is a municipality. It is not a private organization. It is part of the government of California.

The County of San Francisco is a county. The City of San Francisco is a city. Both are subject to the laws of the State of California, but neither are part of the state government.

It did give out bogus marriage licenses for a time, but they were not recognized by the state. Further, it is the responsibility of the state (or any government) to control agencies or branches the move beyond their purview. Thus, if San Francisco began issuing its own currency action would and should be taken.

Yes, because issuing of currency is reserved to the federal government by the US Constitution. There is no similar provision for marriage licences.

This penchant to ignore process and jurisdiction is illustrative of a larger pattern. Even so, churches or other private organizations or individuals may declare or title themselves as they may, but such titles do not constitute state certification.

Just as a county business licence doesn't mean state-wide certification of that business. There are many ways in which municipalities are free to do their own thing.

A couple living in Napa and a couple living in L.A. would be a base geographic difference and that would impact issues relevant to their respective domiciles i.e. taxes and obligations owed to their cities. If someone were to argue that is inequitious, they would be confused. When considering equity claims, the government may discriminate among people and relations insofar as those relations are not similarly situated.

Yes - when considering equality, it's only relevant differences that enter into whether or not equal treatment under the law should be granted. With regards to the differences between LA and Napa that are relevant (you mentioned taxes, which is a function of being in different municipalities, which is a relevant difference), the two homeowners may be treated differently under the law. However, the differences that are not relevant are not the proper basis of discrimination: for example, the fact that the two places are at different elevations, have different annual rainfalls, or have different soil pH are not valid reasons to extend rights or benefits to one homeowner that are not extended to the other.

Same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. Same-race couples are also different from interracial couples. However, in both cases, if the state is proposing that different couples be extended different rights, benefits or privileges, it is up to the state to justify this by demonstrating that the difference is relevant.

Function is a base aspect of this concept. The ability to produce and the lack of that ability is a base difference. The state has a vested interest in new citizens and their foster. Homosexual couples cannot produce new citizens and so they are not an interest of the state and their relations mandate no special endorsement.

As I and others have pointed out before, the rights of marriage are not tied to procreation in any way whatsoever. In fact, many opposite-sex couples enjoy the rights and benefits of marriage who do not have either the ability or intention to have children. Infertile couples can marry. Post-menopausal women can marry. Even people whose spouses have died continue to experience benefits of their marriage through things like pension survivorship rights and exemptions from estate taxes.

When you consider the vast spectrum of ways in which people who cannot or will not have children experience the rights and benefits of marriage, and consider along with it the fact that the state attaches no test or requirement for procreation (in either intent or capacity) whatsoever and even explicitly extends these rights in cases where it's obvious that there will be no procreation, you have to see that when it comes to marriage, non-breeding couples are far from the "margins" of the issue or the law; they're a significant segment of those who marry, and they should be recognized and accounted for on their own merits.

The Judiciary does not enforce the law. That falls under the Executive Branch. Invention of rights is not part of the Judicial purview. Rights are created via a legislative and majoritarian process. In a democratic system the people determine the parameters of the law, not elites.

And the people did. This case is not a matter of invention of rights; it's a matter of interpretation of the law, which is very much the purpose of (in fact, it's the entire reason for) the judiciary.

The law in California is that same-sex marriage is legal. As it happens, this was the law all along, but this fact was only recognized this year. If the public want to change the law from the form they approved, there is an amendment process for them to do so. Until they do, the current form of the California State Constitution, and its legalization of same-sex marriage along with it, stands. This is in keeping with the democratically-ratified Constitution itself, and the democratically-appointed powers of the State Supreme Court. Suggesting that either of these things be cast aside is undemocratic.

There was a question on why a 1977 statue included specific language noting marriage is between a man and a woman. Perez and 1948 do not apply to the question.

They apply to the larger question of how marriage is regarded under the law. Perez established that, at least in California, marriage is a right.

Marriage has been traditionally understood as between men and women. Any use of the term other than that understanding would typically need a qualifier.

No, it doesn't. If I were to describe a married same-sex couple, I would say "they're married", not "they're same-sex married".

In contrast, if I were to describe someone playing field hockey, I would not say "she's playing hockey", I would say "she's playing field hockey", since "hockey" by itself implies a game that's played on ice.

The term "marriage" is equally applicable to same-sex or opposite-sex marriages.

Gay marriage or homosexual marriage would be examples of qualifiers. In this thread making distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual marriage (which I have done regularly) is to recognize there is a challenge to the standard meaning. Making this distinction (at least on my part) is/was to facilitate discussion.

What you call facilitating discussion, I call moving the goalposts.