LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Orontes]

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.

I haven't seen any thus far.

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.

Your point is an odd one. The Mass. Supreme Court created a right to gay marriage and ordered the Mass. Legislature to comply. This impacted the education code in the state. It is from this point gay marriage became part of the curriculum and arguments over notification and the inability of parents to opt out began. This is not a controversial point. The time line is clear. The causality is clear. I think you're simply being argumentative.

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.

You are confused. If A can join with B and B and join with A that is symmetric and thus equitious.

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.

They were deemed legal. This is the point. I'm referring to the Korematsu case over the forced internment of U.S. Citizens during WWII. This was a Supreme Court ruling. The ruling is a clear illustration of bigotry. There is/was no justification. The power to do a thing, is not a justification. Courts cannot create rights. They cannot create laws. Both are the purview of legislatures and the people, not black robed elites.

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

No. His opinion was from a Supreme Court case based on a Wisconsin statute from 1978.

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.

As already pointed out: consent has not always been part of marriage and still isn't in some locales.

 

[Orontes]

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

Then it might be better to allow the decisions on what is or is not the legal bounds of a society to be determined by the people and not imposed from above.

 

[Orontes]

Judicial imperialism would cover any action whereby the court assumes a legislative/excutive 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.


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.

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?

What you dub odd and idiosyncratic is the stance of four of the Supreme Court Justices including the current and past Chief Justice. Constructionism holds that what is unconstitutional is what actually violates the text (the Constitution itself) not one's personal fancy or circumlocutions of thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then it might be better to allow the decisions on what is or is not the legal bounds of a society to be determined by the people and not imposed from above.

It was determined by the people. The result was what they call the Constitution.

 

[Orontes]

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.

This is not correct. If one believes New York is the capital of the U.S. and is passionate in their belief, this does not make them a liar. It simply means they are wrong.

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.

What you reference predates the vote on Prop. 8. If refers to Prop. 22. Prop 22 did pass by a wide and convincing margin. As to the later part of the statement: if it is referring to marriage as cross gender that is precisely what human history has understood it to be.

"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 has everything to do with whether gay marriage is dubbed a right. If such occurred, then it would have to be on par with standard educational and sex instruction that includes marriage. When something is deemed right, the state is no longer neutral, but sanctions and must endorse that thing.

"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.

I've had several conversations with gay lobbyists who made that very claim. Often is was couched as a secret hidden agenda.

"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.

Prop. 8 does not interfere with gay lifestyle as presently constituted. Your comment about domestic partnership and other Federal law doesn't relate to claims of the text.

"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.

Alas, no. This is a legal issue. When the California Supreme Court attempted its coup it impacted all Californians.

"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.

The Judicial coup was explicitly activist. It is even recognized by the Court in the majority opinion where they note there is no real precedent for their actions. As to what convinced the majority to opt for what one clear minded dissenting opinion noted as legal jujitsu: hard to say, but the gay legal lobby is well entrenched.

You've not done a very good job. None of the points constitute some lying agenda or deliberate false campaign.

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.

That is certainly one option to take. Shall we test your conviction a little? Inalienable rights are extra national. They stand above any given polity and are fixed (thus the "recognized" and "not created" verbiage). The 26th Amendment fixes voting rights at 18 years old. It was adopted in 1971. In Japan their voting rights age is 20 established in 1947. Now, which is the real inalienable right voting age?

If a fellow claims he has a right to beat his wife, do we simply accept his assertion? Is his stance part of the unrecognized rights camp?

Come off of it. Your assertion that there is no right to gaydom was completely irrelevant, and I told you that.

Actually rights to gaydom is the very focus of the thread. Gaydom, per the suffix, relates to government and the political arena. This is what is being discussed.

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

Actually in many cases it is. That also seems to be the situation in California vis-a-vis gay marriage rights claims.

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.

Marriage is cross gender. This is the base meaning. Gay marriage is an attempt to change/expand that meaning.

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.

No. It is your penchant to personally attack those you don't agree with. Such behavior is common among those who do not have arguments and let their emotions run amuck.

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.

More invective.

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.

This comments suggests you do not understand the basic issue. The issue turns on rights claims. One side is claiming a right to gay marriage. Because of this deemed right, the state is then required to sanction and endorse that right. The other side rejects that view.

At its root this is an attempt to force social acceptability through the power of the state.

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.

My argument is and has been that law and rights should reflect the popular will. Therefore, gay marriage supporters should convince their fellow citizens in the public square the merits of their view and have laws passed to reflect that view.

 

[Orontes]

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

The two first cases, no. There are very good reasons to discourage them. The latter two, I guess I do indeed approve. There is no point in attempting to forbid people from attaining what they really want just out of principle. Let's at least have a good reason for interfering with such personal matters.

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.

Hello,

LuisDantas seems to agree inter-species marriage is fine. Your issue is with him, not me.

 

[Orontes]

Then it might be better to allow the decisions on what is or is not the legal bounds of a society to be determined by the people and not imposed from above.

It was determined by the people. The result was what they call the Constitution.

With the passing of Prop. 8 that is right.

 

[Autodidact]

What you dub odd and idiosyncratic is the stance of four of the Supreme Court Justices including the current and past Chief Justice. Constructionism holds that what is unconstitutional is what actually violates the text (the Constitution itself) not one's personal fancy or circumlocutions of thought.

So, if I understand you correctly, it's not that you don't agree that it is the province of the SCOTUS to strike down unconstitutional laws, but that you are an "originalist," that you believe their only job is to discern the intent of the original framers as applied to the question before them? If so, you're terrible at expressing your position, as this is the first hint I've gotten that was your position. If so, although I disagree vehemently, I agree that it is not bizarre, just extreme.

It's statements like this that caused me to believe your position was different from that:

My argument is and has been that law and rights should reflect the popular will.

This seems to say that regardless of the text or intent of the Constitution, if the people vote against a certain right, then it's not the province of the court to restore it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I haven't seen any thus far.

I find it hard to believe that you've stated disagreement to all of them without noticing them.

Your point is an odd one. The Mass. Supreme Court created a right to gay marriage and ordered the Mass. Legislature to comply. This impacted the education code in the state. It is from this point gay marriage became part of the curriculum and arguments over notification and the inability of parents to opt out began. This is not a controversial point. The time line is clear. The causality is clear. I think you're simply being argumentative.

The time line may be clear, but the causality is not.

Note the following from the judge's decision:

Massachusetts law prohibits discrimination in public schools based on sex or sexual orientation. It also requires that public school curricula encourage respect for all individuals regardless of, among other things, sexual orientation. Pursuant to these directives, the Massachusetts Department of Education has issued standards which encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth grade students concerning different types of people and families.

The issue that brought rise to the lawsuit would have been an issue without same-sex marriage. The existence of homosexual people and same-sex families is not dependent on same-sex marriage being legal.

You are confused. If A can join with B and B and join with A that is symmetric and thus equitious.

It's only symmetric if A and B are equivalent. If they are, then there's no rational basis for a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.

They were deemed legal. This is the point. I'm referring to the Korematsu case over the forced internment of U.S. Citizens during WWII. This was a Supreme Court ruling. The ruling is a clear illustration of bigotry. There is/was no justification. The power to do a thing, is not a justification. Courts cannot create rights. They cannot create laws. Both are the purview of legislatures and the people, not black robed elites.

I agree that the Japanese internment during WWII was awful (and the US isn't unique in doing this - it's an unfortunate episode in Canada's history as well), however, bigoted judicial rulings can be caused by a judge faithfully interpreted bigoted law.

No. His opinion was from a Supreme Court case based on a Wisconsin statute from 1978.

So, then, it's not strictly relevant, is it?

As already pointed out: consent has not always been part of marriage and still isn't in some locales.

Are any of those locales within the United States?

Despite the fact that "traditional" marriage does not necessarily require consent, consent is explicitly require for marriage under US law. It appears you've already deviated from the "traditional" model, so I don't see how it's justifiable to claim it as support against same-sex marriage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

With the passing of Prop. 8 that is right.

Not if Proposition 8 was passed improperly. I expect that this will shown to be the case.

 

[Autodidact]

Not if Proposition 8 was passed improperly. I expect that this will shown to be the case.

Why is that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is that?

The whole revision vs. amendment thing. It seems to me that Proposition 8 substantially alters the existing rights to gender equality in the California State Constitution. From what I've read (though I'm no lawyer), it seems to me like this is enough for it to have been properly deemed a revision, not an amendment, and therefore would have needed to get a 2/3 majority in the legislature before being voted on generally.

 

[painted wolf]

Then it might be better to allow the decisions on what is or is not the legal bounds of a society to be determined by the people and not imposed from above.

Your in favor of the Medicinal Marajuana bills then?

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

What you reference predates the vote on Prop. 8. If refers to Prop. 22. Prop 22 did pass by a wide and convincing margin. As to the later part of the statement: if it is referring to marriage as cross gender that is precisely what human history has understood it to be.

It doesn't matter whether you talk about Prop 8 or Prop 22 or anything else. They say that the vast majority of voters agree with them, and that is wrong. Even if you look at it in reference to Prop 22, that was only passed by about 61%, which is still far from the vast majority of voters. You might want to go take a history class, or read some books or something, because there have been many, many societies that had no problem whatsoever with same-sex marriage.

The Judicial coup was explicitly activist. It is even recognized by the Court in the majority opinion where they note there is no real precedent for their actions. As to what convinced the majority to opt for what one clear minded dissenting opinion noted as legal jujitsu: hard to say, but the gay legal lobby is well entrenched.

You've not done a very good job. None of the points constitute some lying agenda or deliberate false campaign.

Yeah, I didn't actually expect you to admit you're wrong, either. So, in reality, your statement should not read "The campaign for Yes on Prop 8 has hasn't used any false information". Instead it should read "I refuse to acknowledge that the information used by the Yes on Prop 8 campaign is false". I've done a perfectly good job of pointing it out. Your refusal to see and admit the facts doesn't change that.

You're obviously not interested in honest discussion.

If a fellow claims he has a right to beat his wife, do we simply accept his assertion? Is his stance part of the unrecognized rights camp?

Sure, everyone has a right to everything. I have a right to beat up my boss (not that I'd want to, he's actually a good boss). However, when those rights conflict with the rights of others, some rights lose out. For instance, the right of a husband to beat his wife loses out to the right of the wife not to be beaten.

Actually rights to gaydom is the very focus of the thread. Gaydom, per the suffix, relates to government and the political arena. This is what is being discussed.

Actually, it's not. The focus of the thread is the right to marriage.

Actually in many cases it is. That also seems to be the situation in California vis-a-vis gay marriage rights claims.

You don't really believe that, do you? In essence, you're claiming that the president comes and asks your opinion on every matter before making it law.

Marriage is cross gender. This is the base meaning. Gay marriage is an attempt to change/expand that meaning.

Nope. Marriage is a union of two people. Gay marriage doesn't change or expand that definition.

No. It is your penchant to personally attack those you don't agree with. Such behavior is common among those who do not have arguments and let their emotions run amuck.

No, it's a commentary on the state of affairs of our legal system.

More invective.

You sure love that word.

This comments suggests you do not understand the basic issue. The issue turns on rights claims. One side is claiming a right to gay marriage. Because of this deemed right, the state is then required to sanction and endorse that right. The other side rejects that view.

And?

At its root this is an attempt to force social acceptability through the power of the state.

Yes, the banning of gay marriage is an attempt to force social acceptability through the power of the state. I'm glad you finally understand.

My argument is and has been that law and rights should reflect the popular will. Therefore, gay marriage supporters should convince their fellow citizens in the public square the merits of their view and have laws passed to reflect that view.

That's why your argument fails. Laws should reflect the popular will as long as they don't unnecessarily infringe on others' rights. That's why we have the Constitution, and that's why this country was founded in the first place. Maybe you forgot that the reason people started coming here int he first place was to escape persecution for things like their religion. When they set up this country, the whole point was that the majority doesn't rule at all costs. The point was to protect the rights of everyone including minorities because that's what the founders were in their former countries.

The fact that you don't understand this leads me to believe that you either haven't studied law at all, or you are willfully ignorant.

 

[emiliano]

No, his mathematical genius. Here's some info. Historians consider that by breaking the Nazi's "unbreakable" code, he made a huge contribution to winning the war. Unfortunately, he was persecuted for his homosexuality, and committed suicide as a result, thereby depriving us of one of our greatest minds.

Thank for the info, but it wasn’t his homosexuality that did it, so it is irrelevant, how would reading his works is going to make thankful to the existence of gays and change my mind about same sex marriages? Consider that genius are the result of reproduction, so his homosexuality actually prevented the possible propagation of this trait.

 

[Magic Man]

Thank for the info, but it wasn’t his homosexuality that did it, so it is irrelevant, how would reading his works is going to make thankful to the existence of gays and change my mind about same sex marriages? Consider that genius are the result of reproduction, so his homosexuality actually prevented the possible propagation of this trait.

No, but then it wasn't Einstein's heterosexuality that made him so important and brilliant. However, it usually helps to let someone be themselves. Most people are more productive when they are comfortable and happy. Also, all she was doing is showing you that there are many homosexuals who have accomplished great things that you are thankful for, in response to a comment by you rejecting that notion.

 

[Autodidact]

The whole revision vs. amendment thing. It seems to me that Proposition 8 substantially alters the existing rights to gender equality in the California State Constitution. From what I've read (though I'm no lawyer), it seems to me like this is enough for it to have been properly deemed a revision, not an amendment, and therefore would have needed to get a 2/3 majority in the legislature before being voted on generally.

Oh, I'm not up on that. What's that about, the "revision vs. amendment" thing?

 

[Autodidact]

Thank for the info, but it wasn’t his homosexuality that did it, so it is irrelevant, how would reading his works is going to make thankful to the existence of gays and change my mind about same sex marriages?

Cuz you owe your freedom in part to a homosexual, it might make you appreciate a homosexual person, that's all. Or, you just might be another ungrateful person.

 

[emiliano]

No, but then it wasn't Einstein's heterosexuality that made him so important and brilliant. However, it usually helps to let someone be themselves. Most people are more productive when they are comfortable and happy. Also, all she was doing is showing you that there are many homosexuals who have accomplished great things that you are thankful for, in response to a comment by you rejecting that notion.

But, is not their homosexuality that made the difference, I clearly said “the homosexuality of this fellow prevented the possible propagation of his trait, his brilliancy at math, that allowed him to break the code that according to auto won the war. I don’t think that homosexual are less intelligent that heterosexual, just that if they were heterosexual there is chance that their superior trait could be propagated.
PS you’re straying for the thread topic, it's OK with me, but don’t come with another quip as you have done in this discussion.

 

[darkendless]

But, is not their homosexuality that made the difference, I clearly said “the homosexuality of this fellow prevented the possible propagation of his trait, his brilliancy at math, that allowed him to break the code that according to auto won the war. I don’t think that homosexual are less intelligent that heterosexual, just that if they were heterosexual there is chance that their superior trait could be propagated.
PS you’re straying for the thread topic, it's OK with me, but don’t come with another quip as you have done in this discussion.

Intelligence Genes aren't always passed on. Family friends are genius's who designed some of the dreamworld rides. Their son is a drug addict. Last time i checked drug addicts weren't genius's.