LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Orontes]

Do you feel the same about incestuous, pederastial, polygamous and inter-species marriage?

Wow, you really don't invest a lot of thought in your posts, do you (as I'm sure it must be quite strenuous)? Pedophilia is obviously not comparable as it is the violation and victimization of a child, and bestiality is the abuse of an animal. Neither have the ability for informed consent. Other than those two examples, what consenting adults (try to wrap your mind around those two terms) do in their private lives is their own business.

Your notions on abuse and victimization have not been universally held. Child brides/grooms have been common across cultures and time. Similarly bestiality also has cultural components. One could also add: consent has not been a universal standard for marriage. If culture is to be the standard for determining sexual appropriateness then the Judeo-Christian Tradition is quite clear on the subject.

 

[Storm]

Personally, I think that once the normal requirements of marriage (informed consent given by all parties to the union, relevant fees paid, etc.) a person should be able to marry a German Shepherd.

For the dim-witted among us, the informed consent part of that makes such a marriage impossible.

 

[Father Heathen]

Your notions on abuse and victimization have not been universally held. Child brides/grooms have been common across cultures and time. Similarly bestiality also has cultural components. One could also add: consent has not been a universal standard for marriage. If culture is to be the standard for determining sexual appropriateness then the Judeo-Christian Tradition is quite clear on the subject.

The standards should be based on logic, liberty, and compassion, not on any particular culture norms (and especially not savage, primitive ones). Culture needs to progress and evolve.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As to "proving there are no queer infants": one cannot prove a negative. It is logically impossible. For example, if one denies there is a Santa Clause, there is no "proof" for that claim. Rather, the way one counters such an assertion is to show there is a rotund fellow who lives in the North with flying reindeer giving out toys on Christmas Eve. Similarly, if you wish to counter my claim about there being no gay infants, you would need to bring some evidence to the table. Otherwise, to believe such, never moves beyond bald assertion.

Personally, I'll settle for you refuting or discrediting the numerous studies showing the following:

- the effects of genetic and pre-natal environmental factors on adult sexual orientation.
- "separated twin"-type studies that show strong correlation between sexual orientation of individuals who share genetics, pre-natal environment and nothing else.
- strong correlations between traits developed early in pregnancy and sexual orientation, indicating that by the time the trait is developed, sexual orientation is largely set.
- that behavioral surveys serve as strong predictors of adult sexual orientation as soon as a child is capable of participating in them.

I can't respond to what you choose to believe, but what happened in Massachusetts to Catholic Charities and Adoption Services is well documented. There was reason to fear something similar happening in California. I have you the relevant California case.

Catholic Charities voluntarily contracted with the Massachussetts government to provide adoption services. In doing so, they chose to subject themselves to the same standards as the government with regards to discrimination. When the rules regarding discrimination changed, they elected to not continue in their voluntary relationship and continued to be free to discriminate as they pleased.

The right to free exercise of religion does not include the right to have your religiously-affiliated adoption agency sanctioned and supported by the government. They had an agreement in place to provide government services; changes in the law resulted in changes in their obligations, so they decided to end the agreement rather than change their methods. No rights were infringed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your notions on abuse and victimization have not been universally held. Child brides/grooms have been common across cultures and time. Similarly bestiality also has cultural components. One could also add: consent has not been a universal standard for marriage. If culture is to be the standard for determining sexual appropriateness then the Judeo-Christian Tradition is quite clear on the subject.

Consent for marriage was absent through much of Judeo-Christian tradition, yet it is now a strong part of our current rules and conventions around marriage. It appears we progressed beyond your traditional model some time ago, so that makes me question its relevance in the same-sex marriage debate.

 

[Orontes]

Making a demand to change a thing is not judicial imperialism. Judicial imperialism is a usurpation of power by the courts: the creation of rights or legislating from the bench. Law creation and rights creation come by and through the legislature and the ratification process.

A Court creating a right to a thing is an example of judicial imperialism. It is an undemocratic repugnancy and civically dangerous.

I take the opposite view. Since the purpose of our Constitution is to limit the power of government, a court eliminating or limiting a right to a thing is closer to judicial imperialism.

Judicial imperialism would cover any action whereby the court assumes a legislative/xxecutive power and attempts to impose its will. I would agree a court eliminating a right would also be an example of judicial imperialism. For example, if a court declared women no longer have the right to vote.

Your post above and my comment do not contradict. The theoretical basis for many of the basic rights claims made by the Founding Fathers derived from the Natural Law Tradition. There is no natural law for gaydom.

Really? Demonstrate the truth of that. I'll do the opposite: Gay people exist. It is natural for them to do so.

The theoretical pedigree for the ideas that informed the Founding Fathers is well lain out, particularly the rights claims that were used to justify rebellion against one's sovereign king. These ideas go back through the writings of Locke and Montesquieu to be found at the very least in the Scholastic Tradition. There is no natural law/right on gaydom in this tradition.

Note: noting a type of person exists doesn't address the point I was making. The point I made is theoretical not existential.

 

[Orontes]

No claims put forward by the Campaign were false.

That is incorrect.

Not that I know of.

Parker v Hurley demonstrates my point. Note the year. It is after the Judicial imperialism of the Court.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

On the contrary, my point is historical. I stated gay marriage was not part of the curriculum in Massachusetts until the Massachusetts Supreme Court created a gay marriage right by fiat. There was no issue with forced indoctrination and the inability of parents to opt out prior.

This doesn't follow: each gender is equaling entitled to marry one of the opposite gender.

Exactly: the right to marry a man is only extended to women; the right to marry a woman is only extended to men. This is gender discrimination at the most basic level.

This is incoherent. If each gender is entitled to marry the other, that is equitious.

There is no right to marry.

You're wrong. This was demonstrated by several key rulings that noted that the right to marry exists, remember?

No, I am not. Judges do not have the authority to create rights. If you disagree, show me where this power is noted in the law. You confuse an abuse of the system with being a justification. If a Court rules it's OK to place Japanese Americans in concentration camps, that doesn't constitute a justification of the act.

My stance on there being no marriage right is the same as Chief Justice Rehnquist's.

The challenges I know of are nuts and bolts type challenges, namely that Prop. 8 was an amendment, but should have been a revision. A revision is a more strict form of changing the Constitution. This is the same argument pro-gay advocates attempted in the early summer to stop Prop. 8 from going to ballot and was rejected by the Court. Even Erwin Chemerinsky the well know leftist legal scholar and Dean of the Irvine Law School admitted it was a problematic argument to attempt. Even so, sometimes goofy arguments prevail simply because of their goofiness.

And the argument that it should have been a revision is based on the claim that Proposition 8 substantially modified a significant right previously enumerated in the Constitution, namely gender equality.

I don't recall if gender equality was part of the original challenge that was rejected by the court or not.

 

[Orontes]

Personally, I think that once the normal requirements of marriage (informed consent given by all parties to the union, relevant fees paid, etc.) a person should be able to marry a German Shepherd.

There you go. Clarity is a good thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not that I know of.

Several people have pointed out several times here ways in which the Yes on 8 campaign put out false statements. If you haven't managed to absorb it so far, I don't know what will help.

On the contrary, my point is historical. I stated gay marriage was not part of the curriculum in Massachusetts until the Massachusetts Supreme Court created a gay marriage right by fiat. There was no issue with forced indoctrination and the inability of parents to opt out prior.

And my point is that there was no causal relationship between same-sex marriage and the curriculum issue as you're implying there to be.

This is incoherent. If each gender is entitled to marry the other, that is equitious.

No, it's not. Equitous would be if each gender can marry either gender. Prohibiting same-sex marriage would only be equitable if there were no relevant differences between the genders... however, I know many people (myself included) for whom those differences are somewhat important.

No, I am not. Judges do not have the authority to create rights. If you disagree, show me where this power is noted in the law. You confuse an abuse of the system with being a justification. If a Court rules it's OK to place Japanese Americans in concentration camps, that doesn't constitute a justification of the act.

You're confusing a few different things here, I think.

I don't think that concentration camps were justified, however, they may very well have been legal at the time (I'm not familiar with the laws involved, so I really don't know whether they were or not). The fact that you dislike the implications of a judge's interpretation of the law does not make that interpretation incorrect.

My stance on there being no marriage right is the same as Chief Justice Rehnquist's.

Was Chief Justice Rehnquist's stance based on the California State Constitution?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There you go. Clarity is a good thing.

I guess you missed my point: other species are not capable of demonstrating informed consent for marriage. Inter-species marriage is not analogous to same-sex marriage.

 

[painted wolf]

If culture is to be the standard for determining sexual appropriateness then the Judeo-Christian Tradition is quite clear on the subject.

Right... Men buy women from their fathers.
Men can have several wives.
Women have no right to divorce and have to be taken care of by their brothers in law should their husband die.
Age of 'consent' is twelve or sometimes younger.
It's ok to kill or return your bride if she isn't a virgin when you marry her.
Its ok to kick her out when she stops 'pleasing' you.
She has no right to remarry, but he does.

I don't think any culture gets to claim the high road on this issue.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Judicial imperialism would cover any action whereby the court assumes a legislative/xxecutive power and attempts to impose its will. I would agree a court eliminating a right would also be an example of judicial imperialism. For example, if a court declared women no longer have the right to vote.

Under your (odd, idiosyncratic) view, is it ever permissible for SCOTUS to strike down a law as violating the Constitution? If so, under what circumstances?

 

[Magic Man]

If you believe that a lie is "False information is a lie, whether it's intentional or not" then you do not understand the meaning to the concept. A lie is inextricably tied to deception. One must know the true and then intentionally attempt to conceal it.

For one, false information given out to others to convince them of something is a lie. It doesn't matter whether or not you knew it was false, you gave it out anyway, and that is deceitful and a lie.

For another, as I and others have said, it's pretty hard to believe that they didn't know it was false info.

The Campaign didn't give out false information.

OK, let's go through some stuff straight from Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Home Page.

"It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be."

The vast majority of Californian voters haven't even voted on this. Even this time, it was only about 10 million votes and only 52% of them voted yes. So, it was not even the majority of registered voters who voted on it and even out of those who did, it was only a slight majority, not a vast majority. It's a small difference, but still false info. Also, the vast majority of human history has not shared the definition of marriage that Prop 8 has.

"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will. "

That possibility has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed. All it has to do with is the law about teaching marriage in school. You can allow gay marriage and disallow teaching about marriage in school. Prop 8 does not protect the children from being taught that same-sex marriage is OK. That could still be taught even with Prop 8 in place. Also, even if same-sex marriage is allowed, and marriage is taught about in school, it's not necessarily taught that gay marriage is "OK". It's just taught that some people do it. Parents are still welcome to teach whether or not it's ok. The fact that a child can go out and get soda with caffeine isn't teaching them that it's ok, just that some people do it. LDS parents are still the ones who have to teach that caffeine is bad. Nothing is being forced on you.

"Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships."

Nobody is trying to say that. It doesn't even make sense.

"Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose."

It does interfere with "gays" as they so eloquently put it. Domestic partnerships aren't recognized everywhere and aren't granted federal rights.

"However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else."

They are not redefining marriage for everyone else. Everyone else is still allowed to define what marriage means to them and live their own lives by that definition. Plus, they're not the ones trying to redefine marriage. That's exactly what Prop 8 is doing.

"Instead, they have gone behind the backs of voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for the rest of society."

This is the worst of all. No one has "gone behind anyone's backs", and calling the judges activists is false. Homosexuals didn't convince those judges to do anything, like it's some conspiracy. The judges looked at the law and realized it wasn't constitutional with no coercion whatsoever.

I'm sure there is more, if I look, but that should suffice.

I'm not sure how to respond to the above. What you should do is provide quotes of material the official Campaign put out and then we can discuss. What you mention above is rather general. I can respond to the generalities, but that doesn't address your charge which was to the Campaign itself.

That was a quote from protectmarriage.com. It was a part of the campaign. You can try to get around it if you want, but that's exactly what you asked for and what I gave.

If you agree "Creating a right by fiat and imposing it on a populace by force is not an example of diversity and love of freedom. It is something quite different." then you must reject the court's invention of rights. Rights for a free people are the creation of a free people, as the people themselves must set the bounds of their society. This occurs through the free exchange of ideas and majoritarianism in a democratic system.

Rights are not created, they are recognized. We all have inalienable rights according to the founders of the country. Some of them are being supported, others are not.

You need to reread the posts. I stated quite clearly:

"There is no basic human right to gaydom.". You responded with typical invective. I gave you the chance to make an argument to demonstrate this right. You have not done so. The choice is yours. Regardless, I didn't give any argument on that point. I simply asserted it.

Come off of it. Your assertion that there is no right to gaydom was completely irrelevant, and I told you that. I then tried to get you back to the topic it was attempting to respond to. So, please just stop with this before you look any worse because of it.

As to marriage. I don't believe there is any right to marriage.

Good for you. Luckily, the country is not run by what you personally consider a right.

Even so, marriage and gay marriage are not the same. Marriage is cross gender. That is its meaning. Gay marriage is an attempt to change/expand that meaning. This is why the adjective "gay" or similar fare, is necessary to even advance a discussion.

No, the reason the "gay" or similar fare is necessary is to make a distinction. If we were talking about someone and it was important that you knew it was a woman, I would specify that it was a woman. Same here. Marriage is cross-gender to you and some others. It is not cross-gender to most people. It's simply a [supposedly] lifelong union of two people.

This doesn't respond to my statement. It is simple hostility. It is boorish.

It responds to all of your statements. It's not so much hostility, but a commentary on the state of our legal system. I don't mind anyone having opinions or anything, but it's sad to see them get in the way of work, especially when it's the legal system.

More invective I see.

Um...no. I'm just describing the situation. You are clearly ignorant of how the legal system works on a basic level, and it's hard to believe that a lawyer would have that fundamental ignorance of something he's spent years learning about.

The Constitution is a product of a majoritarian process. It is/was not the creation of judges to be imposed. The California constitution created in 1850 did not include any reference to homosexual marriage. To assert such is in the California constitution is simply wrong, just as it would be for someone to claim polygamy or incestuous marriage were in the Constitution. Now, if pro-gay marriage advocates wish to create space in the law for such, then they should have law passed to that effect through the legislative process.

It did not need to include any reference to homosexual marriage. It did not include any prohibition of it, which is what would have been necessary, otherwise the Constitution wouldn't even need to be changed to disallow it. Does my company dress code need to specify that I can wear a black long-sleeve polo made by Land's End in XL or does it just have say that I need to wear some kind of polo or dress shirt? There is nothing in my company dress code that disallows this particular shirt I'm wearing, and so I can wear it. There is nothing in the Constitution that disallows same-sex marriage, and so people can (or should be able to) have such a marriage.

I don't understand what you're asking here.

I'm saying you're welcome to show me what you think to be good reasons for why same-sex marriage should not be allowed. You mention things like incest and bestiality. They have good, logical reasons, which don't work against same-sex marriage. I'm inviting you to show me such reasons against same-sex marriage.

 

[Green Gaia]

Interesting, so you think a fellow should be able to marry their German Shepard for example and the state should endorse the same? Is that your view?

Can a German Shepard give informed consent and sign a legal document and understand what that legal document means? C'mon, be serious.

 

[Green Gaia]

I guess you missed my point: other species are not capable of demonstrating informed consent for marriage. Inter-species marriage is not analogous to same-sex marriage.

Yep and I am quite offended that the bigots like to compare us to dogs.

 

[Luminous]

many conservative christians compare evolutionists with monkeys (in some sarcastic backslap of evolutionist logic) ... but who is more like a monkey when monkeys still don't comprehend that they evoled from other species.

 

[Sententia]

Is it just me or do the LDS seem content to put their money and their efforts forth to force their religious views on our society as a whole?

Why cant they just refuse to seal homosexuals... why do they have to attack the legal marriage? Clearly legally married individuals enjoy more rights then those not legally married. This is a matter of our country and not your personal religion....

 

[Green Gaia]

Is it just me or do the LDS seem content to put their money and their efforts forth to force their religious views on our society as a whole?

Why cant they just refuse to seal homosexuals... why do they have to attack the legal marriage? Clearly legally married individuals enjoy more rights then those not legally married. This is a matter of our country and not your personal religion....

It may seem that way in the case, but on the whole, I don't think the LDS church tries to force itself upon others. I think they were misguided by getting involved in this and may be regretting it now and didn't foresee the backlash should the prop have passed, which unfortunately it did. I think they forget they were once persecuted for being different and have now (the LDS church in general, not all Mormons) have turned to support persecution of others. It's sad, really. It's not the Mormons I know. But we need to forget about the Mormons, the blacks, the Evangelicals, everyone who voted for discrimination and inequality. We need to stand up and demand our rights from our government because we are citizens and we deserve them. Religious groups can't give us that and they definitely shouldn't be allowed to be a part of taking them away.

 

[Sententia]

It may seem that way in the case, but on the whole, I don't think the LDS church tries to force itself upon others. I think they were misguided by getting involved in this and may be regretting it now and didn't foresee the backlash should the prop have passed, which unfortunately it did. I think they forget they were once persecuted for being different and have now (the LDS church in general, not all Mormons) have turned to support persecution of others. It's sad, really. It's not the Mormons I know. But we need to forget about the Mormons, the blacks, the Evangelicals, everyone who voted for discrimination and inequality. We need to stand up and demand our rights from our government because we are citizens and we deserve them. Religious groups can't give us that and they definitely shouldn't be allowed to be a part of taking them away.

Fine but the right to personal religious beliefs should never interfere with out societal beliefs... The beleifs we have as a secular country.

To restate...

We are a nation with a defined seperation between church and state.

We are a seperaratist nation.

When religions take their donations and TAX EXEMPT money and put them towards changing our secular world which we will need to use taxed monies to defend I begin to think we give too much slack to religions...

Is this not something we should mobilize on?

As a seperate issue... Im not fighting just for the gay issue issue... I am saying when religions begin peddling their beliefs onto our nation and using millions of dollars we as a secular nation have chosen they are entitled to on a tax exempt basis are they not overstepping their rights?

They can personally believe what they want but when they advocate and monetarily support changes to our secular society based on their personal religious beliefs... what are we to do?

Ignore them and smile and move on? I personally dont have millions to throw back supporting my own personal views but I cant support them pushing and peddling their political views while masquerading as a personal belief system with a clear seperation from our states.

 

[Autodidact]

It may seem that way in the case, but on the whole, I don't think the LDS church tries to force itself upon others. I think they were misguided by getting involved in this and may be regretting it now and didn't foresee the backlash should the prop have passed, which unfortunately it did. I think they forget they were once persecuted for being different and have now (the LDS church in general, not all Mormons) have turned to support persecution of others. It's sad, really. It's not the Mormons I know. But we need to forget about the Mormons, the blacks, the Evangelicals, everyone who voted for discrimination and inequality. We need to stand up and demand our rights from our government because we are citizens and we deserve them. Religious groups can't give us that and they definitely shouldn't be allowed to be a part of taking them away.

Well here's a weird, made-up theory of my own. Maybe they feel cheated and jealous, because when they were in a comparable situation, instead of fighting for their right to be polygamous, they gave in and gave it up. Like, "Well, if we have to accept society's marriage rules, so do gay people."