LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Magic Man]

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, I think that if you're suggesting that the United States revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended, then this would probably imply scrapping the Constitution altogether in favour of the Articles of Confederation.

Fine, so, if they didn't set up equality for all people, then we don't go with what they set up. Maybe it would be easier to just take out the founding fathers from that post.

 

[Autodidact]

The only law that should be untouchable is what was set up by the founding fathers, which is equality for everyone. That is something that can be agreed upon by any reasonable person.

If you're thinking of the 14th amendment, it was passed in 1868.
No law is untouchable in the U.S. The Constitution is always subject to possible amendment and even repeal.

 

[Magic Man]

If you're thinking of the 14th amendment, it was passed in 1868.
No law is untouchable in the U.S. The Constitution is always subject to possible amendment and even repeal.

All right, let me rephrase:

The only law that should be untouchable is equality for all people.

Is that better?

 

[Autodidact]

All right, let me rephrase:

The only law that should be untouchable is equality for all people.

Is that better?

I see where you're coming from, but would still take issue. Basically I would say that our American system, a Democratic Constitutional Republic, has worked pretty well for the last couple of centuries, and I think we should keep it pretty much as is. Part of that is a system for amending the Constitution, which I think we should keep in place.

And really, "equality for all people" isn't quite legally possible. The best you could hope for would be equal protection for all similarly situation people. Otherwise we couldn't send murderers to jail, as that would be treating them unequally.

 

[Watchmen]

Founding Fathers didn't believe in equality for all people. Only equality for white, male property owners.

 

[Sunstone]

Founding Fathers didn't believe in equality for all people. Only equality for white, male property owners.

They were liberal for their day, of course.

 

[Magic Man]

Founding Fathers didn't believe in equality for all people. Only equality for white, male property owners.

I understand, but they were on the right track, at least.

 

[Orontes]

O.K., in that case your entire contribution to this thread so far has been an irrelevant waste of time. You agree that the Justices acted properly in striking down a law they find to be unconstitutional. Now you're argument is that this law conforms to the California Constitution. As I understand it, your argument is that gay people are not a protected class, and there is no overriding state interest in protecting gay marriage, correct? But the ruling does not that gay people are a protected class, or that gay marriage serves an overriding state interest, so those arguments are also irrelevant. (And may I remark, some of the more long-winded and pompous irrelevant arguments in this forum.) You also argue that marriage is not a fundamental right, in contravention to several SCOTUS precedents dating back decades. So is it your position that the California court should have overruled those precedents? If not, what argument do you have left? Please try to stay on point and save us irrelevant, inflated, turgidly pompous essays, thank you.

Your invective is boorish. Control your hostility. Demonstrate you have a sober mind and are not simply a slave to your passions.

To your content:

I have not agreed the Justices acted properly in overturning Prop. 22. My stance has been just the opposite: their action is an example of Judicial overreach.
I don't know what "this law" in "Now you're argument is that this law conforms to the California Constitution" is referring to. If you mean the creation of a gay right to marry via judicial fiat: no, that is not my stance. I don't hold that judges are meant to make law. Making law is the domain of the legislature.

I recall earlier in the thread you stated you have read the ruling. The above comment makes that hard to believe. The majority opinion has extended discussion on, and explicitly states, sexual orientation is a suspect classification and thereby entitled to strict scrutiny even while admitting such contravenes the great majority of out of state decisions that outright reject such an idea, and further that The U.S. Supreme Court has never declared sexual orientation is entitled to any form of scrutiny beyond the rational basis review. Sexual orientation was never even granted quasi-suspect classification. Your comment is utterly wrong.

As in the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Zablocki, I reject the notion there is some fundamental right to marriage. The only exception would be if the deemed right were interpreted as a liberty whereby there is no onus on the state to provide marriage licenses, which I believe is the general direction of Court rulings on the matter.

 

[Orontes]

Regardless of any of that, it is only illegal because of the verifiable results of it. Obviously rape and similar actions are part of morality, but that's not what makes it or them legal or illegal.

Rape is illegal because of law noting such, but the issue is whether it was made illegal due to a moral objection to the act, which seems more than obvious.

[/size][/font]

Yes, you're right. What I meant was that generally the idea is not to impose morality. The idea is to set up rules to keep society functioning well, and keep people safe and secure. Some people misuse the law to impose their morality, but that's not the way it's supposed to work.

If you are changing from a "morality is not imposed" stance to a morality shouldn't be imposed position: why do you think "generally the idea is not to impose morality" or "that is not the way it is supposed to work"? Where are you getting this idea from?

The only law that should be untouchable is what was set up by the founding fathers, which is equality for everyone. That is something that can be agreed upon by any reasonable person.

This stance would mean reestablishing slavery, removing the right to vote from women, only allowing male property owners voting privileges, removing 17 amendments from the Constitution, making the Constitution and its remaining Amendments only applicable to the Federal Government, the reestablishing of state specific and enforced faiths i.e. Maryland is for Catholics, Rhode Island for Methodists etc. The reestablishing of legions of blue laws. These are only a few examples of the changes that would occur.

In addition, you still have the larger problems I mentioned: who decides what that law is, why should "they" be able to decide such, and why should those impacted by a law they can never change accept such a situation?

 

[Autodidact]

Your invective is boorish. Control your hostility. Demonstrate you have a sober mind and are not simply a slave to your passions.

You seem to suffering under the misapprehension that my words are in any way subject to your control or responsibility. I am merely requesting that you show your readers the courtesy of expressing yourself more concisely and clearly. Thank you.

I have not agreed the Justices acted properly in overturning Prop. 22. My stance has been just the opposite: their action is an example of Judicial overreach.

I understand that you disagree with the holding. However, for page after page you have given us the impression that you do not believe it is the province of the court to determine whether laws comport with the Constitution. Now that we have established that is not your position, that you agree that it is in fact the court's job to determine the constitutionality of any statute brought before it, what remains is your argument that this particular statute passes constitutional muster.

I don't know what "this law" in "Now you're argument is that this law conforms to the California Constitution" is referring to. If you mean the creation of a gay right to marry via judicial fiat: no, that is not my stance. I don't hold that judges are meant to make law. Making law is the domain of the legislature.

But since all the court did was to strike down a law, this is irrelevant.

I recall earlier in the thread you stated you have read the ruling. The above comment makes that hard to believe. The majority opinion has extended discussion on, and explicitly states, sexual orientation is a suspect classification

I stand corrected. I had thought that I recalled the ruling as being based only on fundamental right analysis, while it also includes a finding that sexual orientation is a suspect classification for discrimination.

First, what question was before the court?

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

That is the only question before the court. The court was cognizant of the importance of framing the question narrowly:

Whatever our views as individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative
provisions.

In so doing, the court's reasoning was based primarily on the fundamental nature of the right to marry, and never held that sexual preference was a protected class.

First, we must determine the nature and scope of the “right to marry” — a right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights embodied in the California Constitution.

In this regard, the court held that gay and straight couples are similarly situated with regard to this fundamental right, and therefore entitled to equal access to it.

The court also found that sexual orientation is a suspect class for discrimination analysis, but this finding is not necessary for the court to apply strict scrutiny, since the right being denied is a fundamental right.

and thereby entitled to strict scrutiny even while admitting such contravenes the great majority of out of state decisions that outright reject such an idea, and further that The U.S. Supreme Court has never declared sexual orientation is entitled to any form of scrutiny beyond the rational basis review. Sexual orientation was never even granted quasi-suspect classification. Your comment is utterly wrong.

True, the court actually had two bases to its ruling: suspect class and fundamental right. While I agree with the court, I doubt that SCOTUS would. However, I strongly aver that SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, so it doesn't matter.

As in the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Zablocki, I reject the notion there is some fundamental right to marriage. The only exception would be if the deemed right were interpreted as a liberty whereby there is no onus on the state to provide marriage licenses, which I believe is the general direction of Court rulings on the matter.

Yes, well we're all fascinated with your idiosyncratic religious views, we can also recognize the reality that it is the views of the Supreme Court that obtain. Just as you think it's important that SCOTUS has not found sexual orientation to be suspect, I find it equally important that it has repeatedly found marriage to be a fundamental right. To find differently, you would need to undo decades of strong, consistent precedent, which ain't gonna happen.

 

[Magic Man]

Rape is illegal because of law noting such, but the issue is whether it was made illegal due to a moral objection to the act, which seems more than obvious.

No, that's not the issue. The issue is why it is illegal, not why it was made illegal.

If you are changing from a "morality is not imposed" stance to a morality shouldn't be imposed position: why do you think "generally the idea is not to impose morality" or "that is not the way it is supposed to work"? Where are you getting this idea from?

From the fact that our laws are in place not to impose morality, but to insure a safe, secure environment for citizens to thrive in.

This stance would mean reestablishing slavery, removing the right to vote from women, only allowing male property owners voting privileges, removing 17 amendments from the Constitution, making the Constitution and its remaining Amendments only applicable to the Federal Government, the reestablishing of state specific and enforced faiths i.e. Maryland is for Catholics, Rhode Island for Methodists etc. The reestablishing of legions of blue laws. These are only a few examples of the changes that would occur.

In addition, you still have the larger problems I mentioned: who decides what that law is, why should "they" be able to decide such, and why should those impacted by a law they can never change accept such a situation?

As has already been clarified, let's take out the founding fathers. The point is that the goal is equality for everyone. That was the original intent of the founding fathers, which is why I mentioned them. The problem was that they were living in a different world where certain groups of people were pretty much not even considered people.

"They" should be able to decide such because I don't believe the general population should rule everything. "They" should be able to decide certain things because not everyone is reasonable and able to set aside their biases.

 

[madhatter85]

I haven't been here for a while because i have been dealing with my recent new born child.

LEt me set one thing straight.

No organization or government has the authority to assign "rights" or deny "rights" the only "Right" that any person has is the right to live. all else are merely privledges that are given to those in which the government rules. It's kind of like an acceptable use policy.

If voting and other thing were indeed "rights" then the government would have to allow criminals to vote. no, it is a privilege that can be taken away. Rights can not be taken away.

Mormon Times - Science on gays falls short

This article is great.

In recent days the Affirmation group has appealed tot he lds church for changes and such but they clearly do not understand God or Christ or thier Gospel Doctrine. It will NEVER be okay to act on homosexual urges, Just as it will NEVER be okay to act on ANY sexual urges outside of marriage. We are not takign away Anyone's "Rights" because there is no "Right" to be taken away. It's a privilege to be married, one that is to be shared between one woman and one man in providing and raising offspring for the next generation of human beings.

 

[Father Heathen]

I haven't been here for a while because i have been dealing with my recent new born child.

LEt me set one thing straight.

No organization or government has the authority to assign "rights" or deny "rights" the only "Right" that any person has is the right to live. all else are merely privledges that are given to those in which the government rules. It's kind of like an acceptable use policy.

If voting and other thing were indeed "rights" then the government would have to allow criminals to vote. no, it is a privilege that can be taken away. Rights can not be taken away.

Mormon Times - Science on gays falls short

This article is great.

In recent days the Affirmation group has appealed tot he lds church for changes and such but they clearly do not understand God or Christ or thier Gospel Doctrine. It will NEVER be okay to act on homosexual urges, Just as it will NEVER be okay to act on ANY sexual urges outside of marriage. We are not takign away Anyone's "Rights" because there is no "Right" to be taken away. It's a privilege to be married, one that is to be shared between one woman and one man in providing and raising offspring for the next generation of human beings.

But you fail to explain why your religious beliefs should have any baring on those who don't share them. So your religion forbids homosexuality, so what? Why should those not part of your religion give a damn? Why should your hocus pocus effect other peoples freedoms? If people don't have rights, then surely you wouldn't mind if Mormonism was banned for being a blasphemous mockery of true Christianity? If it's okay to restrict gays, why not Mormons too? Why do you want to destroy America?

 

[McBell]

http://www.mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1702This article is great.

Only if you are in the choir.

 

[McBell]

It's a privilege to be married, one that is to be shared between one woman and one man in providing and raising offspring for the next generation of human beings.

Amazing how you keep spouting this bold faced flat out lie over and over.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I haven't been here for a while because i have been dealing with my recent new born child.

LEt me set one thing straight.

No organization or government has the authority to assign "rights" or deny "rights" the only "Right" that any person has is the right to live. all else are merely privledges that are given to those in which the government rules. It's kind of like an acceptable use policy.

Wow... you realize that this position is completely contrary to the founding principles of your country, right?

If voting and other thing were indeed "rights" then the government would have to allow criminals to vote. no, it is a privilege that can be taken away. Rights can not be taken away.

If you want to look at it that way, then even the right to life does not exist in a country that still has capital punishment.

And slightly OT, many countries allow felons (or the local equivalent) to vote once they've paid their debt to society; some even allow them to vote from prison.

It will NEVER be okay to act on homosexual urges, Just as it will NEVER be okay to act on ANY sexual urges outside of marriage. We are not takign away Anyone's "Rights" because there is no "Right" to be taken away. It's a privilege to be married, one that is to be shared between one woman and one man in providing and raising offspring for the next generation of human beings.

Contrast what you've said here with this (FYI - Muslims, I'm not trying to single you out; I'm just trying to give an illustrative example):

It will NEVER be okay to practice Christianity, just as it will NEVER be okay to practice ANY religion that is not Islam. We are not taking away anyone's "rights" because there is no "right" to be taken away. It's a privilege to worship God, one that is to be done only in keeping with the Qu'ran and the Hadiths.

Would you be okay with this statement? If not, why would you expect non-Mormons to be okay with yours?

 

[Father Heathen]

Amazing how you keep spouting this bold faced flat out lie over and over.

Kind of robotic, isn't it? Funny thing about it is that he'll complain about people slandering Mormonism, but has no trouble slandering others himself. Talk about blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Magic Man]

If voting and other thing were indeed "rights" then the government would have to allow criminals to vote. no, it is a privilege that can be taken away. Rights can not be taken away.

Anything can be taken away. Even if you consider the right to life the only real right, many states still perform executions. It's not about whether or not it can be taken away; it's about whether or not it should be taken away.

We are not takign away Anyone's "Rights" because there is no "Right" to be taken away. It's a privilege to be married, one that is to be shared between one woman and one man in providing and raising offspring for the next generation of human beings.

It doesn't have to be a right. To use your voting example: One cannot be banned from voting due to one's sexuality. Voting might be a privilege, but when it's given to some people, there has to be a good reason to deny other people the same thing. For instance, children under 18 cannot do it, but the reasoning is that they are not fully competent yet, the same reason they can't do many other things legally.

Also, as to your last sentence, you forget to include all of the couples who get married and don't provide and raise offspring. What about them?

 

[Autodidact]

I haven't been here for a while because i have been dealing with my recent new born child.

LEt me set one thing straight.

No organization or government has the authority to assign "rights" or deny "rights" the only "Right" that any person has is the right to live. all else are merely privledges that are given to those in which the government rules. It's kind of like an acceptable use policy.

If voting and other thing were indeed "rights" then the government would have to allow criminals to vote. no, it is a privilege that can be taken away. Rights can not be taken away.

Why do you hate America? Here in America we have certain rights, protected by our system of government. This includes the right to practice your religion freely, which I'm sure you enjoy. Under your theory, the government could revoke this right at any time. It also includes the right at issue here, the right to equal protection of the laws. If you prefer a system without government protection of individual rights, I think you'll be more comfortable in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

 

[madhatter85]

Anything can be taken away. Even if you consider the right to life the only real right, many states still perform executions. It's not about whether or not it can be taken away; it's about whether or not it should be taken away.

And that is why i am against the death penalty. The only basic human right is the right to live. Everything else are privliges granted by those in authority above us.

Also, as to your last sentence, you forget to include all of the couples who get married and don't provide and raise offspring. What about them?

It's not my fault people abuse marriage and get married for the wrong reasons.