LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is fine.

As to your parting shot, it appears simply emotive. There are no logical flaws in my argument(s). Further, how law is determined is fundamental to the political process. How one answered that question spoke in large measure to which side one was on in the American Revolution.

For example, consider this answer to that question:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This side of the Revolution acknowledged entitlements and rights that were absolute and not contingent on any law. It also declared that the legitimacy of democratic government flowed out of its securing those innate rights (which, I would argue, implies that a government that does not secure those rights is illegitimate, however democratic its processes may be).

Now... you mentioned a difference between the two sides: what was it?

 

[McBell]

Hmmm, you ask a question, but don't like the answer because it takes your question seriously. There is nothing I can do about that.

Why can't same sex couples get married in Ohio?
Because Ohio has prohibited same sex marriage.

il·le·gal
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.

n.
An illegal immigrant.

il·le

gal·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

​

Now, what again does this proposal in California do?
Oh yeah, prohibit same sex marriage.

pro·hib·it
tr.v.
pro·hib·it·ed, pro·hib·it·ing, pro·hib·its 1. To forbid by authority: Smoking is prohibited in most theaters. See Synonyms at forbid.
2. To prevent; preclude: Modesty prohibits me from saying what happened.

[Middle English prohibiten, from Latin prohib

re, prohibit- : pro-, in front; see pro-1 + hab

re, to hold; see ghabh- in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
​

As I said, your semantics game is boring.

 

[McBell]

My stance has been and is, law (rights claim etc.) to be legitimate must reflect popular will.

What a load of crap:

Abortion
Slavery
inter-racial marriage
Women's right to vote
women's right to own land
African American's right to vote
​

Need I find more or this list enough to show that your quoted comment is nothing more than wishful thinking?

 

[McBell]

That is fine.

As to your parting shot, it appears simply emotive. There are no logical flaws in my argument(s). Further, how law is determined is fundamental to the political process. How one answered that question spoke in large measure to which side one was on in the American Revolution.

Just plain flat out wrong comes to mind.
Please see my list in post #1263

 

[Orontes]

For example, consider this answer to that question:



This side of the Revolution acknowledged entitlements and rights that were absolute and not contingent on any law. It also declared that the legitimacy of democratic government flowed out of its securing those innate rights (which, I would argue, implies that a government that does not secure those rights is illegitimate, however democratic its processes may be).

Now... you mentioned a difference between the two sides: what was it?

The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. It doesn't have the force of law. It is a declaration of rebellion. The impetus for that rebellion was that the Colonies had no representation in Parliament. This is where the refrain "no taxation without representation" derives. The Constitution is the foundational law for the U.S.

As to the content of the Declaration of Independence, it makes reference to natural law. Natural law is the other traditional appeal to rights claims. I mentioned this before in the thread. Natural law entails appeals to a metaphysic. In this case Scholasticism i.e. St. Thomas and the larger Christian Tradition. Natural law is tied to eternal law which is dictated by Deity. Now, if one wished to make a natural rights argument for gay marriage, showing that God had decreed His favor, that would be interesting. Even so, natural rights appeals don't carry legal force in and of themselves. For example, if someone claimed they have a natural right to beat their wife and cited the Koran as justification, it wouldn't sway a judge. The U.S. legal model is based on law as a product of the people. This is why a constitution was proposed and then ratified by the people after independence had been secured. It is also why laws pass through a legislative process.

 

[Orontes]

Why can't same sex couples get married in Ohio?
Because Ohio has prohibited same sex marriage.

Same sex couples can get married in Ohio. The marriage however isn't recognized by the state. It two gays want to stand under a tree or in a church and declare they are wed, they may do so. No one will come and arrest them. Their declaration however won't be recognized by the state as having any force.

Now, what again does this proposal in California do?
Oh yeah, prohibit same sex marriage.

Proposition 8 restricts recognized marriage to between a man and a women.

As I said, your semantics game is boring.

Then don't read my posts.

My stance has been and is, law (rights claim etc.) to be legitimate must reflect popular will.

What a load of crap:

Abortion
Slavery
inter-racial marriage
Women's right to vote
women's right to own land
African American's right to vote
​

Need I find more or this list enough to show that your quoted comment is nothing more than wishful thinking?

Are you saying my stance hasn't been that "law (rights claim etc.) to be legitimate must reflect popular will"? I have argued something else? Are you saying I've argued: abortion, slavery, inter-racial marriage, women's right to vote, women's right to own land, African American's right to vote etc. were laws that were passed but they were unjust because they lack popular will?

Just plain flat out wrong comes to mind.
Please see my list in post #1263

Non sequitur.

 

[McBell]

Are you saying my stance hasn't been that "law (rights claim etc.) to be legitimate must reflect popular will"? I have argued something else? Are you saying I've argued: abortion, slavery, inter-racial marriage, women's right to vote, women's right to own land, African American's right to vote etc. were laws that were passed but they were unjust because they lack popular will?

As I said, boring.
Since you have no desire to actually discuss anything I will refrain from commenting on your nonsense.

And for the record, the BS is the bit about laws having to reflect popular will to be legit.
BUt somehow, I suspect you know that.
Especially given the presented list of laws that go against said popular will.

 

[madhatter85]

Proposition 8 restricts recognized marriage to between a man and a women.

That's correct it doesn't prohibit ya'll from doing whatever you want. "Love" is not recognized by any government agency anwyays. You can feel free to love and cohabitate with whomever you see fit.

 

[madhatter85]

As I said, boring.
Since you have no desire to actually discuss anything I will refrain from commenting on your nonsense.

And for the record, the BS is the bit about laws having to reflect popular will to be legit.
BUt somehow, I suspect you know that.
Especially given the presented list of laws that go against said popular will.

What laws against popular will right now?

 

[Watchmen]

That's correct it doesn't prohibit ya'll from doing whatever you want. "Love" is not recognized by any government agency anwyays. You can feel free to love and cohabitate with whomever you see fit.

It's not about love. It's about a civil contract. Prop 8 discriminates and denies members of society an equal right to contract. This sort of discrimination has already been stomped out in other areas of the law.

 

[Orontes]

As I said, boring.
Since you have no desire to actually discuss anything I will refrain from commenting on your nonsense.

?

And for the record, the BS is the bit about laws having to reflect popular will to be legit.
BUt somehow, I suspect you know that.
Especially given the presented list of laws that go against said popular will.

I don't know what to make of the above either. It doesn't make sense. My stance is as I stated: "law (rights claim etc.) to be legitimate must reflect popular will". I believe in the democratic process. If you disagree and believe, like others on the thread, that laws can be legitimate while contravening popular will then that is a stark divide between us.

 

[madhatter85]

It's not about love. It's about a civil contract. Prop 8 discriminates and denies members of society an equal right to contract. This sort of discrimination has already been stomped out in other areas of the law.

For homosexuals the argument i see has been "you're telling us who we can or cannot love"

they think Love and marriage are synonomous when they are not. Marriage should only be recognized by the state as between a man and a woman because that is the only way this country will continue to re-populate itself and produce more workers and taxpayers.

 

[Orontes]

It's not about love. It's about a civil contract. Prop 8 discriminates and denies members of society an equal right to contract. This sort of discrimination has already been stomped out in other areas of the law.

Law by definition discriminates.

 

[madhatter85]

What a load of crap:

Abortion
Slavery
inter-racial marriage
Women's right to vote
women's right to own land
African American's right to vote
​

Need I find more or this list enough to show that your quoted comment is nothing more than wishful thinking?

These quotes are from Wikipedia.
Abortion

Currently Legal, Only 5% of the united states population believes Abortion should be completely illegal. As of right now, Abortion remains legal while the 5% keep trying to change that.

Looks like popular Will to me

Slavery

After debating the amendment, the Senate passed it on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6. Although they initially rejected the amendment, the House of Representatives passed it on January 31, 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56. President Abraham Lincoln signed a Joint Resolution, February 1, 1865, and submitted the proposed amendment to the states for ratification. Secretary of State William Henry Seward issued a statement verifying the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865.
The Thirteenth Amendment completed legislation to abolish slavery, which had begun with the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. Approximately 40,000 slaves remaining in Kentucky were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.[2]

Abolished due to popular will

Interracial Marriage

Of less importance was the segregation in basic public facilities, which was abolished with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most tenacious form of legal segregation, the banning of interracial marriage, was not fully lifted until the last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 by the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia.

Even though the Anti-Miscegenation laws were in effect, 30 of the 48 states NEVER Enacted them.
Segregation Laws Abolished due to popular Will.

Women's Right to Vote

After the 1918 election, most members of Congress were pro-suffrage. On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment by a vote of 304 to 89, and 2 weeks later on June 4, the Senate finally followed, where the amendment passed by a vote of 56 to 25

19th Ammendment Passes Due to popular Will

Civil Right's Act of 1968

The passage of the bill was largely spurred by the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. a week before. [2] Vote statistics (Senate):

• Passed 71-20
• Democrats: 42-17 (71.2% For, 28.8% Against)
• Republicans: 29-3 (90.6% For, 9.4% Against)

House:

• Passed 250-172
• Democrats: 150-88 (63% For, 37% Against)
• Republicans: 100-84 (54.3% For, 45.6% Against)

Civil Right's Act of 1968 Passes due to popular Will

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. It doesn't have the force of law. It is a declaration of rebellion.

I didn't say it was a legal document. My post was in response to your statement about how the two sides of the American Revolution would have answered the question about how law is determined.

The impetus for that rebellion was that the Colonies had no representation in Parliament.

...which they felt was a contravention of their innate rights.

This is where the refrain "no taxation without representation" derives.

...because they felt they had the innate right to self-determination.

The Constitution is the foundational law for the U.S.

Yes... now.

As to the content of the Declaration of Independence, it makes reference to natural law. Natural law is the other traditional appeal to rights claims. I mentioned this before in the thread. Natural law entails appeals to a metaphysic. In this case Scholasticism i.e. St. Thomas and the larger Christian Tradition. Natural law is tied to eternal law which is dictated by Deity. Now, if one wished to make a natural rights argument for gay marriage, showing that God had decreed His favor, that would be interesting.

I disagree. Natural law entails an appeal to ethics. Some forms of ethics are based in metaphysics and religion, others are not.

Even so, natural rights appeals don't carry legal force in and of themselves. For example, if someone claimed they have a natural right to beat their wife and cited the Koran as justification, it wouldn't sway a judge.

Perhaps this is more an indication that the Koran is not a source of natural rights than it is an indication that natural rights don't carry legal force.

Now... if someone claimed common law precedent as their justification, that quite possibly would convince the judge, and when the chain of precedent is traced back to their beginnings, I believe you'll find that much of common law was originally based on interpretations of natural rights.

The U.S. legal model is based on law as a product of the people. This is why a constitution was proposed and then ratified by the people after independence had been secured. It is also why laws pass through a legislative process.

Yes... the Declaration of Independence mentions that: the power of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and the purpose of a government is to secure the innate rights of the people.

 

[madhatter85]

As above, all of the acts passed Due to popluar will, they didn't gain ground until then.

As of right now, Califmornians voted to ban Same Sex marriage 68% to 32% reflecting popular will same sex marriage would be made illegal.

It was the Supreme Court that overstepped thier jurisdiction in overruling the ammendment. That kind of authority only lies in the House and Senate.

 

[Autodidact]

For homosexuals the argument i see has been "you're telling us who we can or cannot love"

, NO, the argument is, "You're telling us who we can or cannot marry."

they think Love and marriage are synonomous when they are not. Marriage should only be recognized by the state as between a man and a woman because that is the only way this country will continue to re-populate itself and produce more workers and taxpayers.

Because unless we prohibit gay marriage, everyone will turn gay and stop having babies. This is a serious risk. I suggest Congressional hearings.

 

[Autodidact]

As above, all of the acts passed Due to popluar will, they didn't gain ground until then.

ahem, Brown v. Board of Education

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because unless we prohibit gay marriage, everyone will turn gay and stop having babies. This is a serious risk. I suggest Congressional hearings.

They could have a point. I haven't had a single baby since Canada legalized same-sex marriage. Maybe I've turned gay.

 

[Magic Man]

That is fine.

As to your parting shot, it appears simply emotive. There are no logical flaws in my argument(s). Further, how law is determined is fundamental to the political process. How one answered that question spoke in large measure to which side one was on in the American Revolution.

It's not a parting shot. It's a statement that I don't expect you to grasp. You are too entrenched in your bias to see things at all objectively. It is not emotive. I wasn't insulting you. I was just describing your arguments to this point. The saddest part is just that you practice law without grasping the fundamentals of it.