LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see that either of those is being violated.

With same-sex marriage being illegal, a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot. This mean that a right or privilege (i.e. marrying a woman) is denied to women solely on the basis of their gender. This is unequal treatment under the law.

 

[SoyLeche]

With same-sex marriage being illegal, a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot. This mean that a right or privilege (i.e. marrying a woman) is denied to women solely on the basis of their gender. This is unequal treatment under the law.

Just one nit-pick: I don't think the term "illegal" really fits. "Not recognized by the state" is better.

I see how you can stretch that one to fit though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just one nit-pick: I don't think the term "illegal" really fits. "Not recognized by the state" is better.

I think of "not recognized by the state" as more applicable to things like disputed borders and the status of Kosovo.

When the City of San Francisco started issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples, the State of California didn't just say "well, we're not going to recognize those", it actually barred the City from doing it. I think that's closer to illegal than to a lack of recognition.

 

[Orontes]

Consequently, I believe the Church leadership has made a grievous error in opposing the rights of homosexuals and others --

This thread has grown some.


Hello,

What rights of homosexuals are your referring to?

I just read this:

Marriage is a basic human right. Homosexuals are human. Either they have a basic human right to marriage or no one does. If the State can deny them their right to marriage, the State can deny you your right to marriage.

Marriage is not a right.

 

[Sunstone]

Marriage is not a right.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why marriage is not a right.

 

[Orontes]

With same-sex marriage being illegal, a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot. This mean that a right or privilege (i.e. marrying a woman) is denied to women solely on the basis of their gender. This is unequal treatment under the law.

Are you claiming that any distinction in the law is thereby a violation of equal treatment under the law?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you claiming that any distinction in the law is thereby a violation of equal treatment under the law?

If the distinction is based on gender alone, then yes, at least in California.

 

[Orontes]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why marriage is not a right.

The simple answer is because it does not fit with the meaning of what a right is. Do you understand what claiming a right entails?

 

[Orontes]

If the distinction is based on gender alone, then yes, at least in California.

Making an "unequal treatment under the law" claim and then privileging gender and location (California) appear to contradict.

What are you basing these assertions on?

 

[Sunstone]

The simple answer is because it does not fit with the meaning of what a right is. Do you understand what claiming a right entails?

I understand what evading a question entails. Now will you please answer mine?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Making an "unequal treatment under the law" claim and then privileging gender and location (California) appear to contradict.

You asked about the law. Laws vary from place to place.

What are you basing these assertions on?

Article 1, section 7, subsection (b) of the California State Constitution:

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

Marriage to a man is a privilege. Marriage to a woman is a privilege. Under California law, both must be granted to all citizens on the same terms if they are to be granted to citizens at all.

 

[Orontes]

I understand what evading a question entails. Now will you please answer mine?

I don't think that is an evasion. If one understands the wherefore of rights claims the answer is clear. Right's claims only derived from two sources. Natural law claims or positive law. In neither case is marriage a right.

 

[Sunstone]

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

I don't like it. Principles like that one are subversive of the very bigotry many of us fervently wish this country had been founded upon.

 

[Orontes]

[/size][/font]
You asked about the law. Laws vary from place to place.




Article 1, section 7, subsection (b) of the California State Constitution:



Marriage to a man is a privilege. Marriage to a woman is a privilege. Under California law, both must be granted to all citizens on the same terms if they are to be granted to citizens at all.

If your claims recognize different laws only have applicabilty in certain locales, then I assume there will be no general assertions about law and rights being made hereafter.

There is no privilege of gender in what you reference. Further, your assertion is undercut because it does not take into account the base operative for any "unequal treatment" charge. That operative is known in law as "similarly situated". This is what "same terms to all citizens" means. This is why men can be barred from women's restrooms for example, or sixteen year olds are not allowed to vote.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If your claims recognize different laws only have applicabilty in certain locales, then I assume there will be no general assertions about law and rights being made hereafter.

I could talk all day long about principles I see as fundamental and how I think they should be applied in law, but I think the actual law is what's relevant to this discussion.

There is no privilege of gender in what you reference. Further, your assertion is undercut because it does not take into account the base operative for any "unequal treatment" charge. That operative is known in law as "similarly situated". This is what "same terms to all citizens" means. This is why men can be barred from women's restrooms for example, or sixteen year olds are not allowed to vote.

I'm not familiar with any challenge of a law prohibiting a man from entering a women's restroom in California. My guess is that there would be a good chance that such a law would be struck down.

And age limits for voting are a different animal: for one thing, the voting age is set by the US Constitution, which takes precedence over a state constitution. For another, age is generally (and maybe improperly, but that's a separate issue) used as a determinant for the mental capacity and experience needed to properly make decisions for themselves. Just as a person who is mentally challenged may be deemed not to meet the functional prerequisites for voting, the government has so deemed children. Whether that's fair or not, and whether they're correct to do so, that's the justification. Rightly or wrongly, voting age is included in the larger idea that all citizens are entitled to vote if qualified to do so.

This clause of the state constitution prevents the government from doling out privileges unequally: you wouldn't be able to have a "Gentiles Only" public park (which used to be the case in some places in Canada, unfortunately), waive the driver's licence road test for men, or bar unmarried people from filing suit in small claims court.

Just as this law prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of gender in other regards, it prohibits it in the case of same-sex marriage as well.

But let's give your way a shot: In your view, what are the terms under which the privilege of marriage to a man is granted in California, and how exactly are they granted equally to all citizens?

 

[Starfish]

Equal treatment under the law is a right. While marriage might not be a right per se, the State prohibited from doling out rights unequally just on the basis of gender.

If a man can marry a woman (assuming the woman agrees, of course ) and a woman cannot, then the right (if marriage is a right) or privilege (if it is not) to marry a woman is not provided to both genders equally, and therefore violates the principle of equal treatment under the law.

Even if marriage is a privilege and not a fundamental right, the government is prohibited from extending this privilege unequally.


I think it's disingenuous to portray that as equality. Would you consider it to be "equality" of religion for the government to abolish your religion, but allow everyone (you included! Don't you feel lucky?) to worship at a mosque every Saturday?

Are you saying that, in the eyes of the law, there should be no difference between males and females? No difference whatsoever?

 

[Storm]

Are you saying that, in the eyes of the law, there should be no difference between males and females? No difference whatsoever?

In the eyes of the law, no.

 

[Starfish]

In the eyes of the law, no.

This might create a problem in that men are very different than women. Total equality in the law must then include child custody, military draft and combat, medical needs, etc. Sexual harrassment laws become complicated, locker rooms and bathrooms must become non-gender, etc. etc, etc. Basically gender is eliminated from our society, in the eyes of the law.

How far are you willing to see this go?

 

[Storm]

This might create a problem in that men are very different than women. Total equality in the law must then include child custody, military draft and combat, medical needs, etc.

Medical needs? What medical needs does the law address?

Sexual harrassment laws become complicated,

They're already complicated. They'd become equal. Women can, and do, harass men, too, you know.

locker rooms and bathrooms must become non-gender,

Now you're really stretching. Separated locker/ bathroms are a matter of social convention, not legal requirement.

etc. etc, etc. Basically gender is eliminated from our society, in the eyes of the law.

How far are you willing to see this go?

Show me a fair and righteous gender-based legal discrimination. Just one.

 

[Starfish]

Now you're really stretching. Separated locker/ bathroms are a matter of social convention, not legal requirement.

Colorado Senate Bill 200. Public restrooms designated by gender can now be challenged under the law.