LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

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.

Continue reading. The issue is equal protection. Some people get the protection of the law to their marriage; therefore it is incumbent on the government (in following the intent of the people who wrote the California constitution) to provide it equally to all Californians.

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.

So does its meaning (intra-gender). However, we are not talking about the meaning of "marriage." The court was not asked to interpret its meaning, but who should have access to it.

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.

The court rightly found that they are similarly situated as regards marriage. As you well know, the ability to reproduce has no relationship to the right to marry. Gay couples have the exact same ability to reproduce as many straight couples. It is the function of the judiciary to guarantee equal rights and equal protection under the law. Your argument that gay couples are not similarly situated is laughably spurious.

 

[Watchmen]

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.

How do you explain the 9th Amendment then? You seem to be arguing that for a right to exist it must be in the Constitution. That certainly is not the case.

And if you take issue with Roe v. Wade, do you also take issue with Griswold?

 

[Autodidact]

How do you explain the 9th Amendment then? You seem to be arguing that for a right to exist it must be in the Constitution. That certainly is not the case.

And if you take issue with Roe v. Wade, do you also take issue with Griswold?

Not quite. I think it's the job of the supreme court to interpret what's in the Constitution. There are rights not specifically enumerated, such as e.g. the right to marry. SCOTUS, in my view, does not get to create them, but only to recognize them. So if there is a right, such as marriage, then it has to be provided equally (14th amendment.) But they don't get to just make **** up because they like it. I agree with Orontes that way lies despotism. So I'm in between the the wild-eyed invention of Roe v. Wade and the hypocritical originalism of Justice Scalia. I'm baby bear--just right.

The trouble with Griswold is that it was a retarded law. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not prohibit stupidity. So I hope that had I been a SCOTUS member in the early 60's (wasn't it?) that I would have had the integrity to uphold Griswold, while lecturing the Connecticutt legislature on what a stupid law it was.

Strategically as well as philosophically, there are advantages to proceeding democratically.

As you can see, unlike Orontes, I have the guts to deal with the outcomes of my judicial philosophy.

 

[Orontes]

Everyone reading or participating in this thread.

I see. You are their voice I take it.

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.

You are not reading very well or closely. I said pick a case. This isn't difficult to do. That case could then be a spring board for discussion.

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.

Rubbish! The meaning of terms can be seen in and through historical context. Mind reading is not necessary. What you submit as the "living constitution" intent of the Founders is a bald assertion. It would also seem to fall under your own attempted critique by claiming mind reading skill.

Constructionist stances simply look at a given law and note its meaning based on the historical context. When people wish to change a law, they may do so by repealing a law or new legislation. It is the purview of the people, not the tyranny of black robes where this power lies.

The bounds of cruel and unusual punishment can be understood by the context such ideas appeared under. Ear cropping was a common widely used punishment. Therefore, one can know meaning of cruel and unusual by the standard. Whether one continues the practice is a separate question.

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?

Alas. The idea the Constitution is a living document isn't found in any writings of the Founding Fathers: zero. It isn't found in any writings of any focused on jurisprudence in the 19th Century: zero. It is a term first used by Howard McBain in 1937. It is an idea associated with larger socialist approaches to the state and used to justify judicial invention and authoritarianism.

Continue reading. The issue is equal protection. Some people get the protection of the law to their marriage; therefore it is incumbent on the government (in following the intent of the people who wrote the California constitution) to provide it equally to all Californians.

Gay coupling isn't marriage. The meaning of marriage is cross gender. Gay relations are something else.

The larger point remains: if you reject judges inventing rights i.e. a right to privacy, then you must reject judges inventing a right to gay marriage. Consistency forces you to be loyal to base judicial and democratic principle over your private desires.

So does its meaning (intra-gender). However, we are not talking about the meaning of "marriage." The court was not asked to interpret its meaning, but who should have access to it.

The meaning of marriage doesn't include intra-gender, or cross-species, or cross animal/vegetable or cross animal/mineral.

The meaning of a thing informs claims about that thing. The whole to do is about access to title. The Domestic Partnership statute already gives all the same access marriages have under the power of the state to give.

The court rightly found that they are similarly situated as regards marriage. As you well know, the ability to reproduce has no relationship to the right to marry. Gay couples have the exact same ability to reproduce as many straight couples. It is the function of the judiciary to guarantee equal rights and equal protection under the law. Your argument that gay couples are not similarly situated is laughably spurious.

There is no right to marry. Gay relations and marriages are not similarly situated. There is a base difference in potentiality. The judicial coup simply ignored that obvious reality to push forward a private agenda. It invented a right our of whole cloth. This is not the role of judges. It is demagogic and dangerous.

 

[Orontes]

The trouble with Griswold is that it was a retarded law. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not prohibit stupidity.

That is right.

Strategically as well as philosophically, there are advantages to proceeding democratically.

The above would require you to reject the judicial coup of the California Supreme Court

 

[Watchmen]

Not quite. I think it's the job of the supreme court to interpret what's in the Constitution. There are rights not specifically enumerated, such as e.g. the right to marry. SCOTUS, in my view, does not get to create them, but only to recognize them. So if there is a right, such as marriage, then it has to be provided equally (14th amendment.) But they don't get to just make **** up because they like it. I agree with Orontes that way lies despotism. So I'm in between the the wild-eyed invention of Roe v. Wade and the hypocritical originalism of Justice Scalia. I'm baby bear--just right.

The trouble with Griswold is that it was a retarded law. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not prohibit stupidity. So I hope that had I been a SCOTUS member in the early 60's (wasn't it?) that I would have had the integrity to uphold Griswold, while lecturing the Connecticutt legislature on what a stupid law it was.

Strategically as well as philosophically, there are advantages to proceeding democratically.

As you can see, unlike Orontes, I have the guts to deal with the outcomes of my judicial philosophy.

Interesting. So where does the right to an abortion come from if not from the right to privacy? Or, do you believe it's not a right?

 

[Watchmen]

Orontes, if the constitution isn't living then why do we still have slavery? Are you for Dread Scott?

 

[Watchmen]

Not quite. I think it's the job of the supreme court to interpret what's in the Constitution. There are rights not specifically enumerated, such as e.g. the right to marry. SCOTUS, in my view, does not get to create them, but only to recognize them. So if there is a right, such as marriage, then it has to be provided equally (14th amendment.) But they don't get to just make **** up because they like it. I agree with Orontes that way lies despotism. So I'm in between the the wild-eyed invention of Roe v. Wade and the hypocritical originalism of Justice Scalia. I'm baby bear--just right.

The trouble with Griswold is that it was a retarded law. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not prohibit stupidity. So I hope that had I been a SCOTUS member in the early 60's (wasn't it?) that I would have had the integrity to uphold Griswold, while lecturing the Connecticutt legislature on what a stupid law it was.

Strategically as well as philosophically, there are advantages to proceeding democratically.

As you can see, unlike Orontes, I have the guts to deal with the outcomes of my judicial philosophy.

Another question: How does one tell when the Supreme Court is creating **** up as opposed to it revealing a right that had always been there but had heretofore been unrecognized?

 

[Orontes]

Orontes, if the constitution isn't living then why do we still have slavery? Are you for Dread Scott?

Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

 

[Autodidact]

I see. You are their voice I take it.

I did not presume to assume what conclusion they may draw, Orontes. Speaking for myself, I suspect that you do not wish for us to see the outcome of your philosophy.

You are not reading very well or closely. I said pick a case. This isn't difficult to do. That case could then be a spring board for discussion.

I read fine. I asked you a question. You refused to answer it. Since we don't have a Judge to direct you to do so, your refusal is so noted.

Rubbish! The meaning of terms can be seen in and through historical context. Mind reading is not necessary. What you submit as the "living constitution" intent of the Founders is a bald assertion. It would also seem to fall under your own attempted critique by claiming mind reading skill.

Constructionist stances simply look at a given law and note its meaning based on the historical context. When people wish to change a law, they may do so by repealing a law or new legislation. It is the purview of the people, not the tyranny of black robes where this power lies.

The bounds of cruel and unusual punishment can be understood by the context such ideas appeared under. Ear cropping was a common widely used punishment. Therefore, one can know meaning of cruel and unusual by the standard. Whether one continues the practice is a separate question.



Alas. The idea the Constitution is a living document isn't found in any writings of the Founding Fathers: zero. It isn't found in any writings of any focused on jurisprudence in the 19th Century: zero. It is a term first used by Howard McBain in 1937. It is an idea associated with larger socialist approaches to the state and used to justify judicial invention and authoritarianism.

I will try to continue this discussion later, when time permits. I think it's a bit interesting, but I doubt that many others do. It is important, though.

Gay coupling isn't marriage. The meaning of marriage is cross gender. Gay relations are something else.

Who died and put you in charge of deciding what things mean?

Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

wiki

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Merriam-Webster

Definition: The definition of marriage depends on not only the historial period, but also on the geographical location and the cultural traditions of the individuals involved in the marriage relationship. A general definition of marriage is that it is a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally.

Answers.com

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. 4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage

.Dictionary.com

The definition of marriage lies in the relationship, not in who is allowed to enter into it.

The larger point remains: if you reject judges inventing rights i.e. a right to privacy, then you must reject judges inventing a right to gay marriage. Consistency forces you to be loyal to base judicial and democratic principle over your private desires.

The judges did not invent a right to gay marriage. They held that under the California Constitution, since there exists a right to marry, it must be provided to all Californians equally.

The meaning of marriage doesn't include intra-gender, or cross-species, or cross- vegetable or mineral.

Tell it to the Romans. The meaning of marriage is the contractual or status relationship of the two married people. Different societies allow different people to enter into it.

There is no right to marry. Gay relations and marriages are not similarly situated. There is a base difference in potentiality. The judicial coup simply ignored that obvious reality to push forward a private agenda. It invented a right our of whole cloth. This is not the role of judges. It is demagogic and dangerous.

That's funny. Are you married? If so, apparently you think you don't have that right, so I suggest that you get unmarried ASAP.

I notice that you don't much like talking about equal protection, is that because it's at the core of this discussion?

 

[Autodidact]

Interesting. So where does the right to an abortion come from if not from the right to privacy? Or, do you believe it's not a right?

I believe it's not a Constitutional right.

To analogize to the California case, if the state allowed some women to have abortions, then they could not deny that right to other women without a darned good reason for the distinction. That's what equal protection means. Since California grants some couples the right to marry, they cannot deny that right to other couples without a darned good reason. The court held that they don't have a good enough reason. That's also the reasoning behind the Hawaii ruling that got this whole thing started.

That doesn't mean that I'm against abortion rights, merely that I don't think they're guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[Autodidact]

Another question: How does one tell when the Supreme Court is creating **** up as opposed to it revealing a right that had always been there but had heretofore been unrecognized?

Have you read Roe v Wade? I think it's pretty clear. The court found that the Constitution guarantees something called a right to privacy. The word privacy (or any related word, such as autonomy) does not appear in the Constitution. This is supposedly hidden behind the Constitutional guarantee to "due process of law." Now you tell me how you get from due process to a general right to not be interfered with? Maybe we'd like it to be in the Constitution, but it isn't. And it's not up to the Justices to put it in there, IMO. Because if they can put in whatever they like, they can also take out whatever they like, and then where are you? And what about those penumbras? Outside of astronomy and Roe v Wade, ever hear of a penumbra? It's like, if you stick all the rights in the Bill of Rights together, they each have these auras, and if you tilt your head to side and squint, all the auras together look kinda like privacy to me. Right.

 

[Luminous]

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.

how fruitful should one be? Is one going against 'god's' law when they choose not to have children, or they can't have children?

 

[Luminous]

Another question: How does one tell when the Supreme Court is creating **** up as opposed to it revealing a right that had always been there but had heretofore been unrecognized?

you read the constitution and you agree or disagree.
The same goes to christianity, but in that case their constitution is litterally always changing its words as writters see fit to change or explain.

 

[Watchmen]

Have you read Roe v Wade? I think it's pretty clear. The court found that the Constitution guarantees something called a right to privacy. The word privacy (or any related word, such as autonomy) does not appear in the Constitution. This is supposedly hidden behind the Constitutional guarantee to "due process of law." Now you tell me how you get from due process to a general right to not be interfered with? Maybe we'd like it to be in the Constitution, but it isn't. And it's not up to the Justices to put it in there, IMO. Because if they can put in whatever they like, they can also take out whatever they like, and then where are you? And what about those penumbras? Outside of astronomy and Roe v Wade, ever hear of a penumbra? It's like, if you stick all the rights in the Bill of Rights together, they each have these auras, and if you tilt your head to side and squint, all the auras together look kinda like privacy to me. Right.

You're going in circles because now we're at the Ninth and you're ignoring Griswold.

 

[Autodidact]

You're going in circles because now we're at the Ninth and you're ignoring Griswold.

No, I talked about Griswold above. Although it makes me ill, I would disagree with the ruling in Griswold.

 

[Watchmen]

No, I talked about Griswold above. Although it makes me ill, I would disagree with the ruling in Griswold.

But Griswold provides the fundamental right to privacy upon wich Roe v Wade is based. So, in some sense, the Court wasn't making **** up in Roe, they were applying the **** they found in Griswold.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, that's true. The horror was born in Griswold, grew in Eisenstadt v Baird, and became a monster in Roe v Wade. That would be the slippery slope that Orontes warns us about.

 

[Orontes]

Another question: How does one tell when the Supreme Court is creating **** up as opposed to it revealing a right that had always been there but had heretofore been unrecognized?

One can tell when the Court is making " *** up" when there is no legislative or ratification pedigree behind the decision i.e. your questions on the Court's rulings on a right to privacy.

When one moves away from the people determing the laws and rights they are bound by, one has allowed for authoritarianism. The simple reality is power is seductive and corruptive. Those in power must be subject to the people. Judges and Courts are typically the farthest removed from the people and therefore are the least allowable to dicate laws and rights.

 

[Orontes]

I did not presume to assume what conclusion they may draw, Orontes. Speaking for myself, I suspect that you do not wish for us to see the outcome of your philosophy.

If you are not presuming and speak only for yourself, then you should use the singular. As to what you expect, your expectation is incorrect. If you claim to want to understand a thing, it requires more than simple judgements: thumbs up or down. As I explained initially, my support for Brown would likely not be the same rationale as yours. A thumbs up alone wouldn't clarify a position.

I read fine. I asked you a question. You refused to answer it.

Alas. I gave you an answer: pick a case so we can go into detail if needed. The fact you don't like the answer, does not a refusal make.

I will try to continue this discussion later, when time permits. I think it's a bit interesting, but I doubt that many others do. It is important, though.

OK.

Who died and put you in charge of deciding what things mean?

wiki
Merriam-Webster
Answers.com

.Dictionary.com

Knowing the meaning of marriage isn't exclusive. It simply requires knowing the English language. If you want to actually delve into the meaning of the obvious, then go to the OED. It is the standard of the English Language. It is exhaustive in the history of a word. You will not find any histoical referent for marriage entailing homosexuality. To reference Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

The definition of marriage lies in the relationship, not in who is allowed to enter into it.

No it does not. A person cannot marry a rose bush regardless the relationship he has with it.

The judges did not invent a right to gay marriage. They held that under the California Constitution, since there exists a right to marry, it must be provided to all Californians equally.

There is no right to marriage in the California Constitution.
Marriage under the law is provided equally: a man may marry a woman and a woman may marry a man. The fact a man cannot marry his German sheppard does not constitute a breech. The fact a man cannot marry his sister (even though cross gender) does not constitute a breech).

Tell it to the Romans. The meaning of marriage is the contractual or status relationship of the two married people. Different societies allow different people to enter into it.

There was no gay marriage under Roman law. Homosexuality itself was suspect. We know from Polybius, homosexuality was punishable by death in the Legion. The enemies of Julius Caesar charged "Caesar is a man to every woman and a women for every man" based on the idea that early in his political career he allowed himself to be buggered by a fellow whose help he needed. Caesar always denied the charge. Of course there were certainly cases of homosexuality. The Emperor Tiberius was condemned for it. We also have the example of a Roman Senator who announced a wedding celebration for himself and his male lover. This is found in the works of the satirist Junvenal who lampooned for its absurdity.

I notice that you don't much like talking about equal protection, is that because it's at the core of this discussion?

I've spoken about equal protection quite a lot in this very thread. Gay relations and marriage are not equal. They are not similarly situated. I gave you a clear existential illustration.