LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

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

I get you. If LDS says sex outside of marriage is wrong, and then they don't let gay people marry, they've set you up for a life of celibacy.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

And this is where you are fundamentally wrong, radical, and anti-American. In our society, rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will. If the popular will passes a law that violates the rights of a minority, under our system, that law can and should be struck down by the court. Whether that is the case in an individual piece of legislation is up to the courts and only the courts to decide. You may disagree with the court's reasoning, as for example I do in the case of Roe v Wade, but I do not question the right of the court to make the decision. To do so takes issue with one of the most basic tenets of our system of government.

 

[madhatter85]

I get you. If LDS says sex outside of marriage is wrong, and then they don't let gay people marry, they've set you up for a life of celibacy.

Nope, they can go on and live perfectly healthy and normal lives with spouses who are members of the opposite sex with the help of the savior's guidance. Nothing is impossible with the Lord's help.

 

[madhatter85]

And this is where you are fundamentally wrong, radical, and anti-American. In our society, rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will. If the popular will passes a law that violates the rights of a minority, under our system, that law can and should be struck down by the court. Whether that is the case in an individual piece of legislation is up to the courts and only the courts to decide. You may disagree with the court's reasoning, as for example I do in the case of Roe v Wade, but I do not question the right of the court to make the decision. To do so takes issue with one of the most basic tenets of our system of government.

Oh, so the courts can decide who becomes president even if the popular vote says otherwise.

okay i see now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope, they can go on and live perfectly healthy and normal lives with spouses who are members of the opposite sex with the help of the savior's guidance. Nothing is impossible with the Lord's help.

But then why would a righteous same-sex marriage be impossible?

 

[Orontes]

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.

You have admitted the potential to produce people and the lack of potential is a difference. You have also admitted the state has an interest in the production of people. Marriage is the standard vehicle through which people are both produced and fostered. The state endorses this relation. A base relation that has no potential to produce cannot claim the same state endorsement on the same terms with a relation that does have this potential. It must look to another way.

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

This doesn't follow. The absence of a right, does not then mean something is void. It does mean there is no duty on the state.

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.

You are right a woman in that situation would not be similarly situated. The state could narrow its endorsement of marriage to exclude such, should the will be there to do so. Of course, the infertility label is not a set wall. Advances in medicine have radically changed who may conceive and when. The parameters of this only continue to expand. There is a potentiality within heterosexual relations that doesn't exist among same sex relations. Thus the base existential difference.

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.

Given you have no formal study of the law, your being flabbergasted is not a concern. This is my post again, the ideas explained are rather rudimentary:

" 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."
​

Now if you wish the challenge the content of the above with an argument that is fine. Non sequiturs will not do.

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.

The fact you are only now asking whether I think homosexuality is wrong after having thrown down the bigot label only magnifies your error. Such doesn't relate to my arguments, all of which have been legal in scope. Unless you can point to some post of mine that demonstrates hatred toward gays your charge is/was simply sloppy and unjustified. You need to rise above knee jerk labels and consider the ideas actually presented and do so in a sober manner.

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".

Alas, this was my first reply to your umbrage with the word rhetoric: "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." I think my using " any" and "my rhetoric" and "your rhetoric" etc. are about as extensive examples of usage possible. Again, I think it would be better if you focused on engaging your interlocutor rather and looking for excuses to condemn.

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.

Who are you quoting in the post? That isn't a statement from me.

I took you to be asking a historical question on the 77 statute. I don't think my initial answer is really different from what you are now saying. I said, I think the qualification was in reaction to a perceived shift in gay advocate rhetoric: the shift from tolerance arguments to demands for state endorsement. So, I think it was in direct response to gay stances.

As far as the meaning of marriage: I don't think its arguable that the common meaning of marriage has been the joining of male and female. One can certainly challenge the basic idea: same sex marriage, inter-species marriage etc. but these are not common understandings, which was the point.

The problem is that you only see it as judicial overreach or invention of rights because of your bias about the content.

No, I see judicial overreach when judges assume the role of the legislature and the people. It is a procedural failing.

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.

If you think there anything I've argued that is invalid, demonstrate the invalidity, otherwise this comment is simply another demonstration (like the bigotry assertions) that lack substance.

 

[Orontes]

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".

Majority does rule. This is why the U.S. political system fails under the democratic rubric and not the autocratic rubric. Your comment indicates a basic failure to understand U.S. Jurisprudence. The Constitution was determined by the majority. Rights are determined by the majority. Any minority rights (any restriction on majority will) is self imposed by the majority and can be reversed should the majority change. A simple example is slavery. Those who were slaves were a minority. The majority inculcated slavery into the Constitution independent of the views of slaves. Slaves were recognized as three-fifths a man. This reversal with the 13th Amendment was also a majority decision wherein the majority restricted itself from owning slaves. Do you see?

 

[Orontes]

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.

And this is where you are fundamentally wrong, radical, and anti-American. In our society, rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will. If the popular will passes a law that violates the rights of a minority, under our system, that law can and should be struck down by the court. Whether that is the case in an individual piece of legislation is up to the courts and only the courts to decide. You may disagree with the court's reasoning, as for example I do in the case of Roe v Wade, but I do not question the right of the court to make the decision. To do so takes issue with one of the most basic tenets of our system of government.

Your comment is flawed. The Constitution is itself a majoritarian product. To appeal to it is to recognize majoritarianism on its face. It was ratified, not imposed. The 27 Amendments were ratified, not imposed. Laws and rights exist by and through popular will. Laws and rights can and are created and reversed by popular will. Prohibition is a simple example. It was created via ratification of the 18th Amendment. It was then repealed by the 21st Amendment. Women didn't have the right to vote until the 19th Amendment, not before The American System is majoritarian. There are examples of injustice and judicial overreach certainly. Roe v. Wade is a perfect illustration. These instances of judicial failing are not the American System, but contra that system. You have confused a part for the whole.

Let me illustrate the point another way. Let's say there is rights claim X. Does that fact someone makes the claim thereby mean it is in fact a right? If I claim I have a right to $10 million a year from the government, is it then so? If the assertion is not sufficient, then where do rights come from. I have explained rights gain force and legitimacy because they reflect popular will (majoritarianism) and they retain that force only insofar as they hold popular will. Now, if you reject that notion that means rights come from another source. What is that? Is it a minority who decides? If so, why should those outside the decision making process accept the decision? You recall the mantra of the American Revolution "no taxation without representation" this is the idea that those not part of the decision making process are not bound by the decisions of that process. If you reject popular will as the core principle that both creates and legitimizes law/rights, then you must put forward another source and then explain why it is legitimate and why those excluded from the process should recognize such edicts.

 

[Magic Man]

Nothing is impossible with the Lord's help.

Except, apparently, for tolerance of those who are different from you.

 

[madhatter85]

But then why would a righteous same-sex marriage be impossible?

because same sex marriage is not righteous.

 

[Magic Man]

You have admitted the potential to produce people and the lack of potential is a difference. You have also admitted the state has an interest in the production of people. Marriage is the standard vehicle through which people are both produced and fostered. The state endorses this relation. A base relation that has no potential to produce cannot claim the same state endorsement on the same terms with a relation that does have this potential. It must look to another way.

I have not admitted the state has an interest in the production of people. That is your assertion. It is not true. If we were a struggling country, maybe, but we're not. Many resources are running low for the people that we do have.


Then, you need to show why the state endorses marriages that involve couples who are sterile or have other physical problems that don't allow pregnancy or simply don't want to have children. For that to be a deciding difference in the equation, you have to either show that all couples who cannot produce children are not endorsed by the state, or show what makes some couples who cannot reproduce different from other couples who cannot reproduce. You have done neither so far.

This doesn't follow. The absence of a right, does not then mean something is void. It does mean there is no duty on the state.

Good. Then we agree that since state-endorsed marriage exists, everyone has the same claim to it. BTW, I think you're going a little too far with your definition of "right".

You are right a woman in that situation would not be similarly situated. The state could narrow its endorsement of marriage to exclude such, should the will be there to do so. Of course, the infertility label is not a set wall. Advances in medicine have radically changed who may conceive and when. The parameters of this only continue. This is a potentiality within heterosexual relations that doesn't exist among same sex relations. Thus the base existential difference.

Not legally it couldn't. I would love to see some state try to ban a heterosexual couple from getting married because they're sterile. It amazes me that you think it's perfectly legal to do such a thing. Just as the infertility label is not a set wall, the same sex wall is not either. Just as a woman can get help to overcome sterility, a lesbian can get help to conceive a child without a father. I understand that you're going to claim that that is two different things, but for the purposes of this topic they are not.


Obviously, the state can do whatever it wants. It's the government. It cannot do what you say here legally according to the Constitution, though. The government could also narrow the parameters of freedom of religion to mean that you need to have a religion. I'm pretty sure even you wouldn't support that as Constitutional, although, with what you've already claimed here, I can't even say that for certain.

Given you have no formal study of the law, your being flabbergasted is not a concern. This is my post again, the ideas explained are rather rudimentary:

" 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."
​

Now if you wish the challenge the content of the above with an argument that is fine. Non sequiturs will not do.

It is sad that, even with no formal study of the law, I still have a better basic understanding of it than you do. Our government is not "Majority rules". I hesitate to go any further with that, though, seeing as you haven't picked that up in your several to many years of studying the law. I'm not sure I can accomplish in this setting what many years of formal study failed to do. Majority rules in this country as long as it abides by the Constitution. In this case, the majority didn't abide by that, so these "four people" stepped in and made things right.

The fact you are only now asking whether I think homosexuality is wrong after having thrown out the bigot label only magnifies your error. Such doesn't relate to my arguments, all of which have been legal in scope. Unless you can point to some post of mine that demonstrates hatred toward gays your charge is/was simply sloppy and unjustified. You need to rise above knee jerk labels and consider the ideas actually presented and do so in a sober manner.

I am only asking now because you have not openly declared anything. I'm only asking openly because you've been dancing around the subject trying not to admit it so far. All of your ideas up until this point have shown your lack of respect for homosexuals. If I have been so wrong and you really have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality, why not just clearly state that you have no problem with it? I understand that your arguments have been legal in scope. What I'm saying is that your views on these legal topics are skewed by your bias against homosexuality. If you didn't think there was something wrong with it to begin with, you wouldn't even try to make these arguments. You would see it completely differently.


I have tried everything. I've tried explaining how your ideas are wrong, and that doesn't work. I'm just trying to show how you are letting your bias influence your thinking, and that, if you let go of that bias, your thinking on this matter would change.

Alas, this was my first reply to your umbrage with the word rhetoric: "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." I think my using " any" and "my rhetoric" and "your rhetoric" etc. are about as extensive examples of use possible. Again, I think it would be better if you focused on engaging your interlocutor rather and looking for excuses to condemn.

And I think it would be better for you to focus on the argument, too, without throwing in sneaky, underhanded insults at the other side. If you use the same language for everything, there's no problem. The problem is that you only use that word, which often if not always has a degrading connotation, to describe your opposition, and never to describe anyone on your side.

Who are you quoting in the post? That isn't a statement from me.

I'm restating the argument. No, it was not meant to be a quote from you, or else it would be in a quote box.

I took you to be asking a historical question on the 77 statute. I don't think my answer is really different from what you are now saying. I said, I think the qualification was in reaction to a perceived shift in gay advocate rhetoric: the shift from tolerance arguments to demands for state endorsement. So, I think it was in direct response to gay stances.

As far as the meaning of marriage: I don't think its arguable that the common meaning of marriage has been the joining of male and female. One can certainly challenge the basic idea: same sex marriage, inter-species marriage etc. but these are not common understanding which was the point.

Yes, just like the common meaning of religion in America is Christianity. That doesn't mean that we should go with that particular definition. We should go with the basic definition. Same-sex marriage is not changing the basic idea, it's changing a detail. Two people who are in love are still pledging their lives to each other. The inter-species is a tired, insulting example. You should know better than to use that in any context here. It's just another underhanded insult like "rhetoric". It has no place in this discussion.

No, I see judicial overreach when judges assume the role of the legislature and the people. It is a procedural failing.

Well, that would be fine, if that was what happened. It's not. What happened was the Supreme Court said that this "law" that was in effect was unconstitutional. That's what it's there to do. The banning of gay marriage is not in keeping with the California Constitution, and they had the courage to stand up and say it.

 

[Autodidact]

Nope, they can go on and live perfectly healthy and normal lives with spouses who are members of the opposite sex with the help of the savior's guidance. Nothing is impossible with the Lord's help.

Can you provide some cite that in any way supports this false assertion? btw, I guess lying is NOT considered sinful in LDS belief?
Are you trying to assert that lesbianism is not normal or healthy? Do you have some cite to support that implication, which is also false? I assure you that I'm quite normal and healthy, in all probability, more so than you.
And I suppose you'd be fine with living with a spouse of the same sex? After all, nothing is impossible with the Lord's help.

 

[Magic Man]

If you think there anything I've argued that is invalid, demonstrate the invalidity, otherwise this comment is simply another demonstration (like the bigotry assertions) that lack substance.

I have tried to demostrate just that. You refuse to see it, though. Again, I'm sorry if the words "bigotry", "illogical" and "irrational" are insulting to you. The fact is that they describe your assertions, though. It would be like talking about Jesus, and I called him the Messiah. When something is the basic definition of a label, I see no reason not to apply the label.

 

[madhatter85]

Except, apparently, for tolerance of those who are different from you.

We tolerate them, we aren't telling them what to do, just letting them know what they can't do.

 

[Autodidact]

Oh, so the courts can decide who becomes president even if the popular vote says otherwise.

okay i see now.

Three words. Bush v. Gore. Are you familiar with the case?

 

[Magic Man]

We tolerate them, we aren't telling them what to do, just letting them know what they can't do.

Does that really make sense to you? I'm honestly asking.

 

[Autodidact]

Your comment is flawed. The Constitution is itself a majoritarian product.

That's right. And we are all bound by it. And under it, all laws that conflict with it are struck down. That's our system. I understand that you don't like our system, but I'm sorry to tell you that your chances of changing it are slim. Maybe there's another country somewhere whose system of government you like better?

 

[Autodidact]

We tolerate them, we aren't telling them what to do, just letting them know what they can't do.

And the difference between these two is...? Here, how do you like it? I won't tell you what to do, just let you know what you can't do, like get married. How does that feel to you, madhatter? Because I think we've pretty well established in this thread that Mormonism is intrinsically immoral, and therefore Mormons should obviously not be allowed to marry each other and abuse children by indoctrinating them in their immoral beliefs. We'll tolerate you, and we aren't telling you what to do, just letting you know what you can't do. How's that feel? Just? Fair? Moral?

 

[Apex]

We tolerate them, we aren't telling them what to do, just letting them know what they can't do.

You can not be serious. This sentence does not even make sense.

 

[madhatter85]

And the difference between these two is...? Here, how do you like it? I won't tell you what to do, just let you know what you can't do, like get married. How does that feel to you, madhatter? Because I think we've pretty well established in this thread that Mormonism is intrinsically immoral, and therefore Mormons should obviously not be allowed to marry each other and abuse children by indoctrinating them in their immoral beliefs. We'll tolerate you, and we aren't telling you what to do, just letting you know what you can't do. How's that feel? Just? Fair? Moral?

and this is why i am going to just hit the ignore button because of you're bafooning around not knowing about anything you're talking about. you're on the same level as Fish-Hunter in my book.