LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[emiliano]

Not at all. As I said, the Western European democracies are the most prosperous, stable, and HAPPIEST nations on earth. As for Rome, it converted to Christianity in the 4th century, and collapsed in the 5th. While these countries have become more and more secular. So no, I don't see many similarities. What similarities do you see? btw, have you studied Ancient History much? But don't let a little reality disturb your worldview, emiliano.

The European Western nation are heading to a recession that is much worst than it was first thought, they are in a state of financial panic as the US is, people are afraid to buy things in a society where consumerism drives their economy, they are going faster and faster into a depression, people are beginning to realise that the solution may not be to prop up the US or EU causes they where in the red when this hit them, they have a black hole that will consume any amount of money thrown at it. The Romans lost their civil virtues and sunk into immorality, that what caused their down fall. Auto a like to ponder and that is what I think is happening, it stand the test “ immorality is destroying the empire”

 

[painted wolf]

I think you may be exaggerating just a tad.
I also don't see same sex marriage as driving our economic situation... unless you count the business lost from the loss of high priced weddings.

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

Balance FX,

See.... Wow.... This is simply a question of his biases and how he relates and perceives... He could not understand yet.

And what is there to understand? I invite you as well, have a look at your body, it wonderful design, you are either male of female, you have sexual organs, better still let us call them reproductive organs as this is more descriptive of its function, surely you see that their functions is reproduction, and that one is perfectly designed to the other, this organs are not for entertainment but reproduction.

I don't mean this in a bad way. I am just pointing out that to get to a common ground where do you have to begin?

Offcourse and I hope that you get if from what I wrote above, any deviation from this leads to treat this reproductive organ as a toy.

We seem to be arguing from two different places and coming to a conclusion neither can understand. Is this about porn, same sex marriage or sex toys?

This is treating sex as a source of pleasure, Christian don’t see it as that but as the command “be fruitful and multiply” and God instituted matrimony as sacred, a blessing “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh” and God blesses this unions with children to carry on one’s gene pool, for this to happen one must be a male and the other a female, that is marriage, same sex union? Why do they want to call it marriage?

 

[emiliano]

I think you may be exaggerating just a tad.
I also don't see same sex marriage as driving our economic situation... unless you count the business lost from the loss of high priced weddings.

wa:do

I was not referring to the same sex marriage as the only immorality, there were other immoralities committed, the trade of cheap labour through illegal workers, falsifying documents, coercing people to get indebted beyond their means, bank overvaluing their assets, corrupting good commercial practices etc

 

[Sententia]

Balance FX,

And what is there to understand? I invite you as well, have a look at your body, it wonderful design, you are either male of female, you have sexual organs, better still let us call them reproductive organs as this is more descriptive of its function, surely you see that their functions is reproduction, and that one is perfectly designed to the other, this organs are not for entertainment but reproduction.



Offcourse and I hope that you get if from what I wrote above, any deviation from this leads to treat this reproductive organ as a toy.

This is treating sex as a source of pleasure, Christian don’t see it as that but as the command “be fruitful and multiply” and God instituted matrimony as sacred, a blessing “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh” and God blesses this unions with children to carry on one’s gene pool, for this to happen one must be a male and the other a female, that is marriage, same sex union? Why do they want to call it marriage?

Your personal view of marriage is your personal view. You are describing your religions view on sex and marriage. Your religion is free to recoginize any marriage as valid and your church can make that distinction.

From a civil rights view all men and women are equal and are all entitled to a civil marriage even if your church would not recoginize such a union.

In america you are entitled to your religious beliefs and they are protected and people will fight for you to have the right to believe and practice what you want. If your church wont marry gay people you have that right. Gay and Lesbian people can still get a civil marriage outside of religion. It doesnt matter what you say god says and it has nothing to do with god or religion.

You dont need to get married to have kids and sex is not expressly about making children. Again your personal religious views may differ but our country was not founded on your religious views.

 

[emiliano]

Your personal view of marriage is your personal view. You are describing your religions view on sex and marriage. Your religion is free to recoginize any marriage as valid and your church can make that distinction.

From a civil rights view all men and women are equal and are all entitled to a civil marriage even if your church would not recoginize such a union.

In america you are entitled to your religious beliefs and they are protected and people will fight for you to have the right to believe and practice what you want. If your church wont marry gay people you have that right. Gay and Lesbian people can still get a civil marriage outside of religion. It doesnt matter what you say god says and it has nothing to do with god or religion.

You dont need to get married to have kids and sex is not expressly about making children. Again your personal religious views may differ but our country was not founded on your religious views.

We are getting somewhere, now getting back to the subject, you just had a referendum, a popular consultation, proposition 8 which restores proposition 21 was the majoritarian will, marriage is between a man a woman, same sex marriages are not marriages, as I have said, find a name for this union, define it and problem solved, don’t call them marriages. Civil unions sound right to me.

 

[Green Gaia]

.... as I have said, find a name for this union, define it and problem solved, don’t call them marriages. Civil unions sound right to me.

Why should we have to call our committed relationship something different than what you call yours??

 

[emiliano]

Why should we have to call our committed relationship something different than what you call yours??

As it stands after the referendum it has nothing to do with commitment, but with definition, proposition 22 was restored.
Main article: California Proposition 22 (2000)
On the March 7, 2000 primary election, Proposition 22 was adopted by a vote of 61.4% to 38%, thus adding § 308.5 to the Family Code, largely replicating the 1977 enactment. The one-sentence code section explicitly defines the union of a man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage in the State of California.
Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Green Gaia]

As it stands after the referendum it has nothing to do with commitment, but with definition, proposition 22 was restored.
Main article: California Proposition 22 (2000)
On the March 7, 2000 primary election, Proposition 22 was adopted by a vote of 61.4% to 38%, thus adding § 308.5 to the Family Code, largely replicating the 1977 enactment. The one-sentence code section explicitly defines the union of a man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage in the State of California.
Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So?? That's not what I asked. WHY should my committed relationship should be labeled different than yours? I'm quite aware of the bigoted, discriminatory definition that Prop 8 proposed.

Besides, California also has laws that state:

Sunshine is guaranteed to the masses.

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Women may not drive in a house coat.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.

​

 

[Autodidact]

Have you ever have had a look at your body? to your genitalia?
Psychology tell us that as early as babies and toddles we have a strange curiosity for our sexual organs, as rational being that we grow to be , What do we infer from it, where does it fit? “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply.
There are some people that got it all wrong, don’t you think? Marriage is the union of a male and a female to multiply the smallest unit into which a society can be divided into, the family, a husband, a wife and their offspring’s.

No, I don't. I think it's just as natural for some people to be gay as for others to be straight, and just as unnatural (or, in your terminology, just as much a violation of God's will) for naturally gay people to try to be straight.

 

[Autodidact]

The European Western nation are heading to a recession that is much worst than it was first thought, they are in a state of financial panic as the US is, people are afraid to buy things in a society where consumerism drives their economy, they are going faster and faster into a depression, people are beginning to realise that the solution may not be to prop up the US or EU causes they where in the red when this hit them, they have a black hole that will consume any amount of money thrown at it. The Romans lost their civil virtues and sunk into immorality, that what caused their down fall. Auto a like to ponder and that is what I think is happening, it stand the test “ immorality is destroying the empire”

How are the secular countries doing compared to the more religious ones? Which countries are more prosperous, say, Western European, or Latin American? Which states are more prosperous, more religious Mississippi, or less religious Vermont?

 

[Autodidact]

I think you may be exaggerating just a tad.
I also don't see same sex marriage as driving our economic situation... unless you count the business lost from the loss of high priced weddings.

wa:do

Have you been to any gay male weddings?

 

[Autodidact]

This is treating sex as a source of pleasure, Christian don’t see it as that

Well more pity you. And your wife, if any.

 

[emiliano]

So?? That's not what I asked. WHY should my committed relationship should be labeled different than yours? I'm quite aware of the bigoted, discriminatory definition that Prop 8 proposed.

Besides, California also has laws that state:

Sunshine is guaranteed to the masses.

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Women may not drive in a house coat.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.
​

That’s what the state referendum decided, you are part of that state, majority rules, as I said to Darken if we all become the law we have anarchy, the will of the majority is that marriage is …………………………….!What gave them the power? The referendum.

 

[emiliano]

Well more pity you. And your wife, if any.

She is happy, thanks, I still beat the everyready batteries.

 

[Green Gaia]

That’s what the state referendum decided, you are part of that state,

No, I'm not.

the will of the majority is.....

Or is it the tyranny of the majority against the equal rights of a minority??

 

[DeepShadow]

Or is it the tyranny of the majority against the equal rights of a minority??

Bingo. John Stuart Mill warned us over a century ago that a democracy put an additional burden on the government: to protect the minority when the will of a majority was wrong.

Or, as Ben Franklin said, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner.

 

[Orontes]

Part One

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.

So, Orontes, what conclusion should we draw from your refusal to answer my question?

Who is "we"? Is this pluralis majestatis showing itself?

I responded to you. I asked you to pick a ruling you wanted to understand a constructionist stance on. You have not done so. Simply giving thumbs up or down on a series of famous rulings doesn't really accomplish much: if understanding is your goal.

Anyway, here's why I strongly disagree with Originalism.

The intent of our founding fathers was to create a document that would serve as the structure of a Republic for many years.To do that, its terms need to be subject to specific content that would change in future. So by trying to read the minds of the framers, and do what they would have done in a contemporary situation, you are actually violating their original intent, not fulfilling it. Had they wanted to specify, for example, what is cruel and unusual punishment, they could have done so. Instead the deliberately chose to use terms whose meaning is known, but whose specific content can change as society, including society's standards, changes.

The U.S. Constitution allows for content change. This is the amendment process. It is was designed to be a difficult process. The means there is a reactionary element to foundational law: something that runs against the idea of change based on convenience or personal desire. If one assumes the content can change simply by applying new understanding: this is both contra the noted process for change and at its core authoritarian. The meaning of terms and verbiage in the Constitution are not empty or subject to the whimsy of whoever is in power at a given moment. To use your example of cruel and unusual punishment: these base term's meaning are found from the punishment standards of the day. For example ear cropping was a common punishment during the early Republic. Knowing this one can see that current ballyhoo about the pain a condemned prisoner might feel when undergoing a lethal injection becomes absurd.

The reason for this was to ensure that the Constitution would be a living document for a living nation, that it could respond to the telegraph and the internet and whatever comes next. Justice Scalia has said that the Constitution is not a living document. If adopted, this view ensures that we would no longer have a living nation, as only a dead nation can base its governance on a dead document.

The Constitution is not a living document. Such is an idea is the product of revisionist minds in the later part of the Twentieth Century. It is an empty rhetoric designed to justify judicial imperialism and circumvent democratic practice.

 

[Orontes]

Part Two

This does not mean that it is the job of the Supreme Court to (excuse my language) just make **** up, as in e.g. Roe v Wade, which IMO is bad law. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. We might like one, but it's not there. Claiming that there is is creating stuff out of whole cloth, and that way lies despotism. If they can make up rights, they can unmake them.

If the above are you sentiments, then you must reject the absurdity of the California Supreme Court inventing a right to gay marriage. Just as Roe is judicial invention and there is no right to privacy in the Constitution: there is no right to marriage, let alone gay marriage. Such is an example of Justices, to use your phrase making " *** up". It is completely agenda driven, authoritarian and contra the democratic model.

There is, however, for example, a right to free speech, and it is the job of today's Supreme Court to decide what that means to today's society is the job of the Supreme Court to determine, not just to be historians and determine what it meant to the founding fathers.

There is a right to free speech because it is noted in the text. It is also more than obvious the meaning of that right based on historical context: free speech is political. Therefore burning the flag would be covered, but kiddy porn would not be.

Where does that leave marriage? There the question is what is entailed in equal protection. In determining what is equal protection, it makes sense to look at what rights in practice exist, what is government in the business of regulating, and make sure it is doing so without unjustified discrimination. Government is certainly in the business of regulating marriage, so it is appropriate for a court to ask whether any discrimination in offering that right is justified. You might reasonably argue that this discrimination is justified, but I don't think you can argue that it is not the business of the court to make that determination.

There is no necessity the government be involved in marriage, but it is. It is the third party and guarantor of the contract. Even so, marriage is pre-political. Its meaning (cross gender) predates the state. Further, the state's involvement is basically because marriage was recognized as the best model for producing and fostering new citizens.

Equal protection claim's merits are based off of "similarly situated" status. Gay couplings and marriages are not similarly situated. One can create people, the other cannot. If gays and the pro-gay lobby want standing under the law, then the process is to get a majority to agree with whatever provision is sought and have legislation passed to that effect, as with what occurred with the Domestic Partnership statue(s). Judicial coups attempting to impose edicts from above must be opposed by all who believe in the democratic process. What amazes me is how so many are so willing to sacrifice process out of personal preference. It is myopic and disturbing: what has the power to give a thing can take it away. Judges do not have the power to create rights or create legislation.

 

[Autodidact]

Who is "we"? Is this pluralis majestatis showing itself?

Everyone reading or participating in this thread.

I responded to you. I asked you to pick a ruling you wanted to understand a constructionist stance on. You have not done so. Simply giving thumbs up or down on a series of famous rulings doesn't really accomplish much: if understanding is your goal.

Yes, I understand. You refuse to answer my question. It is unavoidable that we, and by we I mean everyone reading this thread, will draw such conclusions as they may.

The U.S. Constitution allows for content change. This is the amendment process. It is was designed to be a difficult process. The means there is a reactionary element to foundational law: something that runs against the idea of change based on convenience or personal desire. If one assumes the content can change simply by applying new understanding: this is both contra the noted process for change and at its core authoritarian. The meaning of terms and verbiage in the Constitution are not empty or subject to the whimsy of whoever is in power at a given moment. To use your example of cruel and unusual punishment: these base term's meaning are found from the punishment standards of the day. For example ear cropping was a common punishment during the early Republic. Knowing this one can see that current ballyhoo about the pain a condemned prisoner might feel when undergoing a lethal injection becomes absurd.

Exactly. So under originalism, ear cropping would be permissible. Under a "living document," it would not, because today's Americans would consider that cruel and unusual. I submit that the intent of our founders was to allow for that result, and by sticking to an attempt to fathom the literal position of the founders, you are actually violating their intent. I note that you have not responded to this point. And, of course, it's also doomed to failure, since we do not and cannot know what that interpretation may have been. It reduces the SCOTUS to mere historians, trivializing their role.

The Constitution is not a living document. Such is an idea is the product of revisionist minds in the later part of the Twentieth Century. It is an empty rhetoric designed to justify judicial imperialism and circumvent democratic practice.

Argue by assertion much? Got any evidence to support your view of the founders' intent regarding this issue?