LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Magic Man]

I thought I read you did accept the state has an interest in the production of people. If you say you don't agree that is fine. Most political thinkers hold that the state has self interests. One of those is self preservation. New citizens are a key component to state self preservation as people compose the state and yet are perishable ( get old and die). It is a standard position from a political philosophical perspective.

We have over 300 million people and are growing quickly. We barely have enough resources for the people we do have. We don't need to worry about the production of new citizens. We are doing more than we need to in that department.

As to state endorsement of marriage: as I have explained, what constitutes infertility is changing year by year as medical technology is reducing this issue. Married couples who permanently decide not to have children are very few. Both of these offered counter examples are marginal. Legislation and law rarely operate from the margins (though they could). The reality is the vast bulk of marriages do produce children. Marriage is also a stable environment for the foster of children. It is because of this large penchant to both produce and offer stability that the state interest exists.

The point is that the state endorses some marriages that have no hope of producing children. So, that cannot be a line you draw that allows them to not endorse marriages, unless they stop endorsing all marriages which cannot produce children. It doesn't matter how marginal the examples are, although, I think they are much more numerous than you think.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from my statement. Further, I don't agree everyone has the same claim to "it" (at least not on the same terms). Neither does the state. Incestuous marriage claims are not recognized. Inter-species marriage claims are not recognized. Pedophilic marriage claims are not recognized without Court sanction.

Again, with the ridiculous analogies that have been refuted time and time again. There is a very good reason incestuous marriages aren't recognized. Studies have shown that type of relationship to be detrimental to children of it. If that is not the case, then it should be changed. Your other two examples aren't even worth responding to, but I will anyway. We are talking about marriages between two consenting adults here. Neither ofyour other two examples fall into that category.

I know you don't agree to it, and that's the problem. Everyone does have the same right ot it, unless you can give a good reason why they shouldn't, namely that it harms someone. Your examples are harmful, same-sex marriage is not.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I did not say it was legal to ban heterosexual sterile couples from marrying. I did say that the state could narrow its endorsement/benefits of marriage to exclude such should the political will exist. You may want to note, within the legal history of the U.S., the state has taken some rather remarkable actions in these various areas. In 1907 the State of Indiana introduced forced sterilizations. Over the next few decades 30 other states adopted similar force sterilization policies. This was all due to Progressive political desires to regulate production (as in who could and should reproduce) to benefit the state.

Great, what does that prove? I even said that anything could be legal by your standards. If the political will existed, according to you, we could kill all non-white people, or ban the public practice of all religion, or just some religions, or ban left-handed people from having kids, etc. That is not how things work here, and it is not how things should work here.

As to a same sax couples wall and reproducing vis-a-vis heterosexual infertile couples: gay couple can opt for donors etc. to have children, but such action is dependent on a third person, who is not part of any gay marriage. Thus, it is an appeal to something not intrinsic to the marriage itself. Any equity argument is based on a direct and strict comparison. Heterosexual couples have the potential to conceive without a third party acting in a surrogate role. Insemination protocols do not require use of any third person's body etc. This is distinct from any gay couples' option. Thus the two are not the same. One can potentially reproduce on its own terms, the other cannot.

The drugs and other procedures done for an infertile heterosexual couple are not intrinsic to the relationship either. Both cases require outside help from a third party.

Your comment suggests you didn't understand my post. There is a base majoritarianism that underscores U.S. Law. It is the case at all levels. The Constitution itself is a majoritarian product. The Constitution wasn't imposed from above, but was ratified. The Constitution remains subject to the people. They can and do amend it when it is deemed necessary. This is rather basic civics. The principle behind this is that people should be the ultimate authority of the laws that control their lives. I get the sense you reject this principle. Even so, when this notion is applied to rights claims: rights do not appear by fiat. They must also pass democratic muster to have force and legitimacy. For example women's suffrage. Women could not vote. Now, one might think is silly or wrong, but no such right to vote existed under the original constitutional framework. If a judge or four judges in 1900 suddenly declared that in fact women have this right, it would be a misappropriation of the law and need to be opposed. Proponents of women's suffrage needed to gain popular support and then change the law so the right existed. This is how legitimacy is garnered. For gay marriage right advocates the same road is before them.

I understood your post. You just don't seem to understand our government.

Now as a brief aside, there is a question: if there is in fact a gay marriage right, where did it come from? Did it exist in 1789? Did it exist in 1850? If so, why wasn't it recognized? There is nothing in the text, or the Federalist Papers that speak of this gay marriage right. If it did exist from the 18th or 19th Centuries, but wasn't recognized then one has the problem of why this existence claim isn't simply bald assertion. Further, there is the problem of why an unrecognized right should have any force if one holds to the view determining law and rights are based on popular consent, which is the basis of the American Experiment. Now, if it didn't exist until 2008 when four judges declared it ex nihilo into being, then again there is the problem of how it is just a few judges can determine a right? The way one answer these questions is the difference between democratic systems and autocracies.

Whenever it was decided that the government would endorse marriages is when homosexuals, along with heterosexuals, gained the right to have their marriages endorsed by the government.

 

[Magic Man]

If you admit I haven't openly declared "anything" then your bigot charges are again bogus. As to my personal views: I oppose homosexuality. I oppose it on sociological grounds, philosophical grounds, and religious grounds. Politically, I think the government should be neutral: neither supporting nor condemning homosexuality. The issue here however, is legal. This has been my focus throughout the thread. I have stated this repeatedly...

No, they are not. You are trying to discriminate against a group of people solely because of their sexuality. Some make their case emotionally, some try to do it logically, you try to do it legally. It's all the same, though. I agree that the government should not support or condemn homosexuality any more than it supports or condemns heterosexuality. Unfortunately, we are at a point where it does support heterosexaulity over homosexuality. The fact that you oppose homosexuality is apparently skewing your view of even the law.

You are not reading. I used rhetoric to refer to myself in the very first reply to your feigned umbrage. You issues with my rhetoric have been a key point of our exchanges. You see my rhetoric as bigoted etc. because I don't support the invention of rights by four judges. It may be because of my rhetoric that you have opted for an array of personal attacks. This is despite the fact my rhetoric hasn't included any hatred of gays at all. Do you see? If I refer to gay advocate rhetoric, or my rhetoric or your rhetoric I am referring to the form of arguments presented. This should have been obvious. Now, if I said something like "That is just rhetoric!" then I would be most likely condemning something and your umbrage might have had substance. What I said was in regards to a historical question and my take was that a perceived shift in gay advocacy rhetoric is why the meaning of marriage was clarified per statute. To try and take that as an insult is an amazing contortion that seems only possible if one has already decided the other is a bad guy. If that is the case, then you are not really interested in dialogue, but simply looking for an excuse to condemn which means your participation is simply masturbatory.

You used it as an example. That's a lot different than using it in conversation. You used "my rhetoric" in an attempt to support your use of "gay advocacy rhetoric". It's not the same. I'm saying that you have never used "rhetoric" to describe anything but the pro-same-sex position aside from trying to justify your use of it there. You can attack me all you want. I am interested in dialogue. Unfortunately, a good dialogue doesn't generally involve making sneaky attacks on the opposing argument by doing things like calling it rhetoric. I am trying to keep you to a standard here by stopping your efforts to sneakily undermine my position.

I don't think the common meaning of religion in the U.S. is Christianity. I do think Christianity is the common religion in the States, but I doubt asking people in the U.S. to define religion would find them exclusively equating it to Christianity.

I think you'd be surprised.

I said nothing about going with a particular definition. There was no advocacy in my reply. My reply was historical in focus: in that I took a change in statute language to undercut a perceived potential challenge. To clarify even further, if a statue simply noted marriage and then an advocate group of a non-traditional marriage structure (gay marriage) challenged any legal proscription based on the statute they would have a stronger case if they could introduce the idea: the meaning of marriage was vague. The change is statute language was meant, I think, to curtail that possibility.

Yes, the change in the legal meaning of marriage was meant to discriminate against homosexuals. I wouldn't have said it in so many words, as you did, but I'm glad you at least agree with that.

Your hostility to inter-species marriage is not my concern.

It is not hostility towards inter-species marriage. It is hostility towards the position of equating such things with same-sex marriage. The two have obvious and immense differences. They should not be mentioned together. It is offensive and not productive. Inter-species marriag has no place at all in a discussion of homosexuality or same-sex marriage, and your attempt to use it in relation to such things just shows your extreme bias.

Clearly, You have not read the ruling.

No, clearly, you, even after years of formal study, don't understand the legal process.

Logic turns on validity and invalidity. If any argument I have put forward is invalid: present it. Otherwise your charge is as vacuous as the charges I am a bigot.

I have shown your arguments to be invalid, and I have shown how your attempts fit the definition of bigotry. None of my "charges" are vacuous, seeing as how I've backed them up. It is not my fault that you can't see it.

 

[Autodidact]

If you agree that the Constitution is itself a majoritarian product, then you must reject your earlier assertion: "In our society, rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will. "

No I don't. That is, not unless the constitution is amended by popular will, according to the process set forth in the Constitution.

which is a fundamental error

.

The Constitution did not descend from Heaven. It is the product of the people and amenable to the same.

Within the limitations of the process it sets forth; that is, it is capable of being amended, but not by 50% of the people. And until and unless that happens, all laws passed in this country must be in conformity with it, or be struck down. All of that is fundamental to our American system of government, which you oppose.

I'm not arguing against democracy, I think it's a good thing, and part of our American system of government--but only part.

Whether the Constitution as written would be ratified by 51% of our current population (highly dubious), it remains the law of the land. That's our system, and I think it's a darned good one. Why do you believe pure democracy would work better?

 

[Magic Man]

Grammar and spelling for the win

It's Except.

Way to go! I didn't think your arguments could get any more vacuous, but you proved me wrong! Well done!

(BTW, I'll be sure to keep this in mind whenever I see a typo or simple mistake by you, as obviously, that means that your whole argument is wrong.)

 

[Autodidact]

name 5

Edit: (I personally can only really think of two biggies)

Maybe I shouldn't have used the technical term, "doctrine". My knowledge of Mormon stuff comes mostly from reading. So I'll just say "position" or "tune." A few that occur to me are:
polygamy
equality for African-Americans
position of Indians
historicity and literal acceptance of the Book of Mormon, including:
BoM people the principal ancestors of American Indians
location of the Hill Cumorah
location of the land Bountiful; extent of BoM lands, etc.
blood atonement
the nature of the relationship between God and Jesus (I'm a little fuzzy on this one; as a Jew, none of it comes easily to me.)
the nature of Adam, and his relationship to God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A super majority and a simple majority are both majoritarian. It is a difference of degree not kind.

It's a difference of degree that constitutes a difference of kind. Under the American system, even an overwheming majority of popular support may not be enough to change the law of the land. In that regard, the US Constitution is not majoritarian in the normal sense of the term.

I've made no argument the Constitution is changeable by a simple majority. I have specifically noted several times it was ratified. The ratification process is clear. I have explained the Constitution and the basis of U.S. politics is majoritarian. This means it is not minoritarian or autocratic. Therefore, the idea "rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will." is wrong on its face.

No, it's not. Whatever the popular will of the country, if even the thirteen least populous states' legislatures (who themselves might only reflect ~50% of the votes of those states) disagree with some amendment, the amendment will not pass. When less than three percent of a country's population can control whether an amendment is passed, can you really say that the Constitution will always follow popular will? If you can't, then you have to recognize that it's not wholly majoritarian.

 

[Orontes]

And what will you say when the majority rejects Prop 8?

I will say the majority has spoken. The consequences of that decision will then begin.

 

[Orontes]

[/size][/font]

We have over...

mball1297,

I read through your replies. I don't think we will ever come to agreement. I think you are quite entrenched. Given the number of hostile comments you've made, you no doubt feel the same about me. These long replies eat up a lot of time and aren't very manageable. If you have one of two points you want to focus on that is fine, otherwise I think we will always be on opposite sides.

 

[Orontes]

If you agree that the Constitution is itself a majoritarian product, then you must reject your earlier assertion: "In our society, rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will. " which is a fundamental error.

No I don't. That is, not unless the constitution is amended by popular will...

Thus, your comment is contradicted.

The Constitution did not descend from Heaven. It is the product of the people and amenable to the same.

Within the limitations of the process it sets forth;

That is right. Thus the people can inform both law and rights at a fundamental level.

-(T)hat is, it is capable of being amended, but not by 50% of the people. And until and unless that happens, all laws passed in this country must be in conformity with it, or be struck down. All of that is fundamental to our American system of government, which you oppose.

I'm not arguing against democracy, I think it's a good thing, and part of our American system of government--but only part.Whether the Constitution as written would be ratified by 51% of our current population (highly dubious), it remains the law of the land. That's our system, and I think it's a darned good one. Why do you believe pure democracy would work better?

I oppose the invention of rights by judges which is contra the U.S. System.
I've made no arguments for or on behalf of a pure democracy. I have simply explained the U.S. operates off of a majoritarian model: laws and rights are not imposed from above, but are to reflect the will of the people. Any attempt to impose a law or right claim by a process that circumvents the people being able to set the bounds of their society is thereby contra the base notions of the nation.

 

[Orontes]

[/font]
It's a difference of degree that constitutes a difference of kind.

This is absurd. A super majority and a simple majority are by definition majoritarian.

No, it's not. Whatever the popular will of the country, if even the thirteen least populous states' legislatures (who themselves might only reflect ~50% of the votes of those states) disagree with some amendment, the amendment will not pass. When less than three percent of a country's population can control whether an amendment is passed, can you really say that the Constitution will always follow popular will? If you can't, then you have to recognize that it's not wholly majoritarian.

You are confused. Outside of a national convention, the ratification process entails: a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and House of Representatives. This is majoritarian. It then must pass 2/3 of the state legislatures. This is majoritarian. All legislatures of the legislative branch are also subject to elections. They are by definition a reflection a popular will and remain amenable to popular will. Further, if a state legislature fails to ratify an amendment, it may address the issue again at another time under the same or different legislature. If a state legislature passes a proposed amendment the action is considered final. Whenever 2/3 of states ratify a proposed amendment the process is considered complete and the amendment is added to the Constitution. The XXVII Amendment is illustrative. It was proposed in 1789 and not ratified until 1992.

Note: amending the California Constitution only requires a simple majority. A simple majority is also majoritarian.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is absurd. A super majority and a simple majority are by definition majoritarian.

Yes, and the way that the US Constitution is set up, a simple majority, which you acknowledge is majoritarian, may not be able to change it. It is anti-majoritarian until you reach the high threshhold of support needed to amend it.

 

[Magic Man]

mball1297,

I read through your replies. I don't think we will ever come to agreement. I think you are quite entrenched. Given the number of hostile comments you've made, you no doubt feel the same about me. These long replies eat up a lot of time and aren't very manageable. If you have one of two points you want to focus on that is fine, otherwise I think we will always be on opposite sides.

My only point is that there is no legal justification for not endorsing same-sex marriages. There is also no reason, legal or otherwise, to discriminate against homosexuals.

I have little problem with people thinking homosexuality is wrong. I have a huge problem with imposing their morality on others. That is what you are trying to do.

 

[McBell]

This is absurd. A super majority and a simple majority are by definition majoritarian.


You are confused. Outside of a national convention, the ratification process entails: a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and House of Representatives. This is majoritarian. It then must pass 2/3 of the state legislatures. This is majoritarian. All legislatures of the legislative branch are also subject to elections. They are by definition a reflection a popular will and remain amenable to popular will. Further, if a state legislature fails to ratify an amendment, it may address the issue again at another time under the same or different legislature. If a state legislature passes a proposed amendment the action is considered final. Whenever 2/3 of states ratify a proposed amendment the process is considered complete and the amendment is added to the Constitution. The XXVII Amendment is illustrative. It was proposed in 1789 and not ratified until 1992.

Note: amending the California Constitution only requires a simple majority. A simple majority is also majoritarian.

Then you concede that the 'majority' over ruled prop 22.

 

[Orontes]

[/size][/font]
Yes, and the way that the US Constitution is set up, a simple majority, which you acknowledge is majoritarian, may not be able to change it. It is anti-majoritarian until you reach the high threshhold of support needed to amend it.

A super majority is not anti-majoritarian. It is a majoritarian standard over and above a simple majority.

 

[Orontes]

My only point is that there is no legal justification for not endorsing same-sex marriages. There is also no reason, legal or otherwise, to discriminate against homosexuals.

I have little problem with people thinking homosexuality is wrong. I have a huge problem with imposing their morality on others. That is what you are trying to do.

The justification for state endorsement of a thing within a free society, is when the endorsement is a reflection of the will of the people.

Law typically imposes a morality. This is normative in the democratic process. Rape being illegal is a simple example.

 

[Orontes]

Then you concede that the 'majority' over ruled prop 22.

I don't understand your comment in connection with what you quote from me. It doesn't relate to super majorities and simple majorities both being majoritarian, nor to the ratification process of the U.S. Constitution nor to the amendment process of the California Constitution. Did you mean that the 4 to 3 ruling of the California Supreme Court is another example of majoritarianism? If so, that is right. As I have explained: it is the base line standard for the U.S. System. If you meant the four judges overturning Prop. 22 against the 61% of Californians who voted for it and the invention of a gay right to marry is an example of majoritarianism, that would be incorrect

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A super majority is not anti-majoritarian. It is a majoritarian standard over and above a simple majority.

When the will of the people is in favour of a change in the law but has not yet reached the point where that change will pass, yes, a supermajority is anti-majoritarian... that's the whole point, IMO.

 

[Orontes]

When the will of the people is in favour of a change in the law but has not yet reached the point where that change will pass, yes, a supermajority is anti-majoritarian... that's the whole point, IMO.

A super majority or supermajority per the root or noun is by defintion a majority and when applied as a political determinative thereby majoritarian. Something anti-majoritarian, per its prefix is opposed to or hostile to what is majoritarian.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A super majority or supermajority per the root or noun is by defintion a majority and when applied as a political determinative thereby majoritarian. Something anti-majoritarian, per its prefix is opposed to or hostile to what is majoritarian.

And in that range between a simple majority and a sufficient supermajority to pass whatever the test in question is, the law follows the will of the minority, not the majority, and is therefore not majoritarian.

 

[McBell]

it is simple.
There was a vote and the majority voted to overturn prop 22.