LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[darkendless]

This can get circular from this point forward, so from your last post I gather that you are very unhappy in this country of our, are you still thinking on leaving? You are right I have not meet many gay people and as I told you this behaviours affect less than 3% of the population and that is the way is going to stay, the will of the majority is that marriage is between a man and a woman, there is no such thing as same sex marriages, the fact that we have decide that is the way that it must be causes me no distress whatsoever. I must tell you that I live in the very real world of our present times, we dealt with this issue and it was resolved a while ago and there is not intention on a new popular consultation, however over there in America this in a ebullient stage, so perhaps you should think on a move to the US, you are in the wrong country.
About the money that our government spends is keeping order, peace and reputation, is money well spent, we are in control of the situation, they also spent big, but with no result.
You seem to be ignorant of the History and culture of this country and are quite un-Australian, you have had plenty opportunities to decide if this country is really right for you, from what you puke in in here, Why the hell you stay?

It can get circular because you're happy to deny rights, i think its wrong. There isn't much more to say. What you fail to comprehend is that if the shoe was on the other foot you'd have a great old whinge. You're just lucky its not at the moment.

This is off topic but for some people its scarey going out at night. Ethnic minorities have made sure of that. I don't think order is being kept examples: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast.

Im completely aware of the history and culture of this country i went to school here. I think you're ignorant of the Gay community because its more convenient to ignore them rather than recognise them. As i've said before, it is UnAustralian to deny an Australian equal rights. You seem content to do so though. Theres more important stuff to worry about at the moment, but then again, why is it our right to vote on other people's rights? It wont affect me, it wont affect you. So why should we decide?

 

[emiliano]

To Darkenless, myou say:

It can get circular because you're happy to deny rights, i think its wrong. There isn't much more to say. What you fail to comprehend is that if the shoe was on the other foot you'd have a great old whinge. You're just lucky its not at the moment.

Ok you think that it is wrong, where do you go from here? To the rulers of this country right? The rulers go to the people, right? The people rules by majority vote that “ marriage is the union of a man to a woman, no other union is to be recognised as marriage, that was the outcome of the consultation, I am happy that this considers with what I think marriage is, I said before I am not against you finding someone that cares and organise orderly respectful discussion, rallies, protest and even take it to the people again, if their position wins the consultation I will accept the will of the majority.

This is off topic but for some people its scarey going out at night. Ethnic minorities have made sure of that. I don't think order is being kept examples: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast.

This is the result of tolerating disorder as when you supported the proposed gays disruptions to the papal visit, if you are referring to gay’s bashings, you know that the authorities are very diligent in punishing such acts, they aren’t soft in this sort of troubles, it is crime to incite or executed violence against gays in Australia.

Im completely aware of the history and culture of this country i went to school here.

Going to school here means nothing, you still don’t get the concept of common will, common morality that applies in this country, minorities are respected not obeyed.

I think you're ignorant of the Gay community because its more convenient to ignore them rather than recognise them.

But I have, didn’t we have gay’s parades (Mardigra) as international exhibits. There are radio programmes to cater for them, there are organization for Gays, believe me I’ve seen plenty, but still John can not be Peter’s wife, their union isn’t marriage.

As i've said before, it is UnAustralian to deny an Australian equal rights.

What right are you talking about? They were given the right to present their case to the people and the answer was clear, do you think that they have the right to force our children to this madness? Marriage cannot be between people of the seme sex. You keep on bringing foreign concept here, this is Australia, we have a different constitution, they didn’t have a leg to stand on. The way you badmouth this country is Un-Australian, you know quite well what their answer is “you are a wankers. If you don’t like us bugger off !

You seem content to do so though. Theres more important stuff to worry about at the moment, but then again, why is it our right to vote on other people's rights? It wont affect me, it wont affect you. So why should we decide?

We were consulted a wile ago, when there were none of the issues that we are facing now, soooooooooo.

 

[darkendless]

To Darkenless, myou say:Ok you think that it is wrong, where do you go from here? To the rulers of this country right? The rulers go to the people, right? The people rules by majority vote that “ marriage is the union of a man to a woman, no other union is to be recognised as marriage, that was the outcome of the consultation, I am happy that this considers with what I think marriage is, I said before I am not against you finding someone that cares and organise orderly respectful discussion, rallies, protest and even take it to the people again, if their position wins the consultation I will accept the will of the majority.


This is the result of tolerating disorder as when you supported the proposed gays disruptions to the papal visit, if you are referring to gay’s bashings, you know that the authorities are very diligent in punishing such acts, they aren’t soft in this sort of troubles, it is crime to incite or executed violence against gays in Australia.


Going to school here means nothing, you still don’t get the concept of common will, common morality that applies in this country, minorities are respected not obeyed.
But I have, didn’t we have gay’s parades (Mardigra) as international exhibits. There are radio programmes to cater for them, there are organization for Gays, believe me I’ve seen plenty, but still John can not be Peter’s wife, their union isn’t marriage.
What right are you talking about? They were given the right to present their case to the people and the answer was clear, do you think that they have the right to force our children to this madness? Marriage cannot be between people of the seme sex. You keep on bringing foreign concept here, this is Australia, we have a different constitution, they didn’t have a leg to stand on. The way you badmouth this country is Un-Australian, you know quite well what their answer is “you are a wankers. If you don’t like us bugger off !
We were consulted a wile ago, when there were none of the issues that we are facing now, soooooooooo.

Well our leaders are useless when it comes to things like this. They always have been. They will only do what makes them look good (just like any politician). Since we're a pretty religious country where "***" and "Poof" is socially acceptable and gay bashing still occurs (sigh), theres pretty much no chance for the homosexuals. We're a country with mentality stuck behind forward thinking countries. It will hurt us one day. Dont get me wrong i like the country, but this issue does push my buttons. Im not gay or a sympathizer, but all this government propoganda during the Kevin 07 election and still not all Australians can marry. Then theres the religious people, i don't think i need to say any more there. They're like arguing with a brick wall sadly, totally unreasonable (not just about gay rights too).

Why do people need to protest for rights they should be getting anyway. People claim that if we allow gay marriage we'll die as a race. Gay people don't reproduce anyway, unless they're in a superficial relationship. What kind of church/government would approve of that? I just think its easier to legalise gay marriage and stop all the commotion rather than having protests. If its 3% of the population not many will know the difference. Then the government can start on the climate change protestors. Denying gay rights wont make them go away, its just ignoring the problem.

How can you call me Un-Australian when i want all Australians to have the same civil-rights? You're not making sense Emiliano i want all Aussies to have the rights they deserve, and you're trying to stop it. Our constitution can be amended and made better. We can remove the shackles of Christian influence and flourish as a nation. We can have no more protests and large scale events can be free of gay rights protests. There is no down side to this.

 

[emiliano]

Well our leaders are useless when it comes to things like this. They always have been. They will only do what makes them look good (just like any politician). Since we're a pretty religious country where "***" and "Poof" is socially acceptable and gay bashing still occurs (sigh), theres pretty much no chance for the homosexuals. We're a country with mentality stuck behind forward thinking countries. It will hurt us one day. Dont get me wrong i like the country, but this issue does push my buttons. Im not gay or a sympathizer, but all this government propoganda during the Kevin 07 election and still not all Australians can marry. Then theres the religious people, i don't think i need to say any more there. They're like arguing with a brick wall sadly, totally unreasonable (not just about gay rights too).

Why do people need to protest for rights they should be getting anyway. People claim that if we allow gay marriage we'll die as a race. Gay people don't reproduce anyway, unless they're in a superficial relationship. What kind of church/government would approve of that? I just think its easier to legalise gay marriage and stop all the commotion rather than having protests. If its 3% of the population not many will know the difference. Then the government can start on the climate change protestors. Denying gay rights wont make them go away, its just ignoring the problem.

How can you call me Un-Australian when i want all Australians to have the same civil-rights? You're not making sense Emiliano i want all Aussies to have the rights they deserve, and you're trying to stop it. Our constitution can be amended and made better. We can remove the shackles of Christian influence and flourish as a nation. We can have no more protests and large scale events can be free of gay rights protests. There is no down side to this.

I have another tread where I am discussing the danger of immorality, I got to think of it as I thought of the US crisis, this is an empire that is disintegrating in the same way that the Roman empire did, it is loosing its Civil Virtues, this country (the US) flourished when they use to say “we are one nation under God, “In God we trust” now with the new push to legalise every thing I see then floor-ishing, the best thing to do is to think of solutions that do not have the US as it leader, they are not only financially bankrupt, but morally bankrupted as well. Kevin Rud can do better than better than throwing good money after bad one.

 

[Sententia]

I have another tread where I am discussing the danger of immorality, I got to think of it as I thought of the US crisis, this is an empire that is disintegrating in the same way that the Roman empire did, it is loosing its Civil Virtues, this country (the US) flourished when they use to say “we are one nation under God, “In God we trust” now with the new push to legalise every thing I see then floor-ishing, the best thing to do is to think of solutions that do not have the US as it leader, they are not only financially bankrupt, but morally bankrupted as well. Kevin Rud can do better than better than throwing good money after bad one.

The US nation's prosperity is not linked to the phrase under god... The pledge is still said today as one nation under god. In god we trust is a relatively recent addition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The US nation's prosperity is not linked to the phrase under god... The pledge is still said today as one nation under god. In god we trust is a relatively recent addition.

As is "under God". It was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the '50s. And the Pledge itself was only written in 1892 and not made official by the US government until 1942.

If you watch the movie The Bells of St. Mary's, there's a scene where a bunch of school kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance. At first, I thought it sounded odd, but I couldn't put my finger on why... then I realized what year the movie was made: 1945. The kids (in a Catholic orphanage, IIRC) didn't use the words "under God".

 

[madhatter85]

The US nation's prosperity is not linked to the phrase under god... The pledge is still said today as one nation under god. In god we trust is a relatively recent addition.

The Constitution states "Endowed by their creator"

get over yourself that the founding fathers had nothing to do with God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Constitution states "Endowed by their creator"

get over yourself that the founding fathers had nothing to do with God.

Some of the American Founding Fathers were very religious. Apparently, Washington would lead his troops in prayer so much that it upset a lot of people. By the same token, some were very irreligious, even to the point of being anti-religion.

However, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a recent addition, as is "in God we trust" on American currency.

 

[Autodidact]

The Constitution states "Endowed by their creator"

get over yourself that the founding fathers had nothing to do with God.

Really? Where in the Constitution do you find the phrase "endowed by their creator?" Or, "God," "Jesus Christ" "Lord" or any other word having anything to do with God?

 

[Watchmen]

He probably means the "Declaration of Independence."

 

[madhatter85]

He probably means the "Declaration of Independence."

yeah, tired.

 

[Autodidact]

He probably doesn't know what he means, and has never read either document.

 

[Orontes]

I'm trying to understand better what your position is, and in particular, what kinds of results it yields.

I see. You've got several famous cases you asked about. Why don't you pick one you are interested in and I can give you the skinny on how it would be interpreted. That way we can focus and go into detail if needed.

As a primer maybe I can give you a simple example from Mormon history. In the 1830's Mormons were in dire straights in Missouri. Lots of nasty things were happening where ultimately the then Governor issued an extermination order of all Mormons. During this mayhem, Joseph Smith traveled to Washington and spoke with President Van Buren asking for help. Van Buren's response is famous in Mormon quarters (at least among those who delve into this kind of stuff): "Sir, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Now, this is typically interpreted as Van Buren refusing to help because he was afraid of losing Missouri in the next election and so he is usually condemned. Whether these fears existed or not, the legal reality is there was little Van Buren could do: the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states and wouldn't until after the Civil War. From an Orginalist perspective Van Buren's response was correct.

Originalism recognizes that justice and the law do not always correspond. Yet the hope for justice, must come through a loyalty to the base system (over a particular perceived injustice) because it is this larger loyalty to the system that serves as the glue for society and legitimacy. In the system, the Legislative Branch is the first among equals. The Judicial Branch is supposed to be the least powerful of the three. This is because the Judiciary is the farthest removed from the will/control of the people. The ranking of the respective branches is seen not only in how they are ordered in the Constitution, but also the length of treatment and powers assigned to each. The construction of law and rights is the purview of the legislature. When the legislature refuses to take up its mantle or that mantle is usurped by the another branch, there is a real fear of authoritarianism and social breakdown. There are multiple examples along these lines. Roe v Wade is a simple illustration of a Judicial usurpation and the various Modern military ventures Presidents have committed the nation to, independent of a Congressional declaration of war or equivalent sanction, would be examples of Executive usurpations of power. In simple terms, originalism recognizes that power is dangerous: concentrated power all the more so. What can give a thing can also take it away. Defused power and the hope in the collective wisdom of the citizenry is the only option against authoritarianism. Judicial Imperialism is an authoritarianism. It is dangerous. The people will no doubt err, but in maintaining open dialogue in the public square and constantly referring to the popular will (in its myriad forms) what fails one day has hope to succeed another. Thus the bounds of society remain an ultimate reflection of the people and their responsibility. As Jefferson said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" this is a vigilance against all authoritarian penchants.

O.K., thanks for your total failure to respond to my question. It doesn't require any discussion at all. (And you wonder why you have trouble communicating.) All you need to do is go through the list and say: Yes, I support the ruling, or no, I don't. Thank you. Sheez.

This is a curious response. I took wanting to better understand meaning something more than an attempt to pigeonhole. I asked you to pick a ruling you were keen on and I would explain an Originalist stance. If I simply gave thumbs up to the base Brown decision (something I assume you agree with), that doesn't explain the wherefore behind the conclusion. Understanding how a view is arrived at is important, over and above the conclusion itself.

 

[Watchmen]

He probably doesn't know what he means, and has never read either document.

Personal attacks don't take away from his point. Do you have anything of substance to say?

 

[Autodidact]

Orontes: So I take it you do not want to answer my question?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., madhatter, now put on your thinking hat. There is no Creator, no God and no religion in the Constitution, the founding document of our nation. The authors of that document deliberately left it out. They made a choice to write a founding document and not include any reference to God. Why do you think they did that?

 

[gnomon]

The Constitution states "Endowed by their creator"

get over yourself that the founding fathers had nothing to do with God.

They definitely had nothing to do with your concept of God.

So for you, the phrase they had nothing to do with God would actually be ideal.

 

[madhatter85]

They definitely had nothing to do with your concept of God.

So for you, the phrase they had nothing to do with God would actually be ideal.

Actually no, We believe that the Constitution was Inspired of God

 

[Sententia]

Actually no, We believe that the Constitution was Inspired of God

Ahh... all mormons believe that? I didnt realize... wow... So like we dont have free will we are just puppets who occasionally leak out god inspiration every now and then...

How does that story go btw? We're their secret prophets? Secret golden scrolls now trapped in the city of gold and map to the scrolls is printed on the back on the Constitution in magic ink?

Perhaps I am overreacting to inspired of god... we are all gods children so everything we do is inspired of his will.... Or are we thetans and everything we do it to become a clear? No thats scientology... hmmm....

Which god inspired this famous document? One I have heard of?

To distill the argument... the same right you have to believe mormonism and love chicks is also given to Manson and Slim Shady. A follower of Bhaal who summons forth Orcus to guide his everyday life who loves another of the same sex gets the same rights as you too...

Equal rights. If bob loves paul instead of jane he doesnt lose his rights... Bob keeps his rights.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually no, We believe that the Constitution was Inspired of God

Yeah, well, you also believe a lot of other whacko things.

Anyway, did you figure out yet why the founding fathers deliberately decided to leave God OUT of the Constitution? Were they just forgetful or careless?