LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Magic Man]

The justification for state endorsement of a thing within a free society, is when the endorsement is a reflection of the will of the people.

Law typically imposes a morality. This is normative in the democratic process. Rape being illegal is a simple example.

No, morality is not imposed. A set of rules to keep citizens safe is imposed. Rape being immoral has nothing to do with it being illegal. It violates the rights of another citizen, so it's banned.

As to your first point, the reflection of the will of the people has to stay within boundaries in our free society. there is a limit to what the will of the people can accomplish. For instance, there is no legal way for the will of the people to make Christianity illegal. Nothing short of a complete revolution could accomplish that.

 

[Muffled]

No, morality is not imposed. A set of rules to keep citizens safe is imposed. Rape being immoral has nothing to do with it being illegal. It violates the rights of another citizen, so it's banned.

As to your first point, the reflection of the will of the people has to stay within boundaries in our free society. there is a limit to what the will of the people can accomplish. For instance, there is no legal way for the will of the people to make Christianity illegal. Nothing short of a complete revolution could accomplish that.

Howerver how one defines "rights" is also determined by vote except in the case of supreme court decisions where the will of a minority can be imposed on the majority.

This is not true. Congress and state ratification can impose a constitutional amendment banning Christianity.

A little history might help. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony (no USA at the time) there was no other legal religion than Puritan. Other religious adherents found their churches burned and left to establish colonies where they could set up a government supporting their religion. Conceivably a bunch of Muslims could move to a town become the majority and vote laws consistent with the Sharia, although for constitutional reasons they might not call it that.

 

[Magic Man]

Howerver how one defines "rights" is also determined by vote except in the case of supreme court decisions where the will of a minority can be imposed on the majority.

No, rights are clearly defined in the Constitution.

This is not true. Congress and state ratification can impose a constitutional amendment banning Christianity.

Not legally.

A little history might help. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony (no USA at the time) there was no other legal religion than Puritan. Other religious adherents found their churches burned and left to establish colonies where they could set up a government supporting their religion. Conceivably a bunch of Muslims could move to a town become the majority and vote laws consistent with the Sharia, although for constitutional reasons they might not call it that.

They could vote laws consistent with Sharia, as long as they didn't go against the Constitution. Again, discrimination against any religions cannot be done legally.

 

[Autodidact]

No, rights are clearly defined in the Constitution.
[/color][/color]


Not legally.

I believe you're wrong, mball. If the Constitution were amended in this way, that would make it legal.

They could vote laws consistent with Sharia, as long as they didn't go against the Constitution. Again, discrimination against any religions cannot be done legally.

They can if they amend the Constitution. Remember, freedom of religion in the U.S. is part of an amendment to our Constitution.

 

[Magic Man]

I believe you're wrong, mball. If the Constitution were amended in this way, that would make it legal.

They can if they amend the Constitution. Remember, freedom of religion in the U.S. is part of an amendment to our Constitution.

Well, basically then, anything can be legal. I would like to believe that that is not true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, basically then, anything can be legal. I would like to believe that that is not true.

Anything can be legal with sufficient public will. Hopefully, that prevents some of the more insane possibilities from happening.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, basically then, anything can be legal. I would like to believe that that is not true.

But you would be wrong. If the anti-gay California Republicans succeed in amending their Constitution in this manner, that will be the law in California.

Frankly, this whole argument about "majoritarianism" (or what any normal person calls Democracy) is beside the point. It doesn't matter where the Constitution comes from, what matters is that laws must conform to it.

Orontes:

Do you agree that laws that violate the Constitution are rightly struck down, under our system? Are you advocating a system where anything that is voted in by 51% of the people would stand, regardless of whether it comports with the Constitution? For example, if 51% of the citizens of Utah vote for a proposition that makes it illegal to practice any religion there but LDS, should that law be enforced, in your view?

 

[jaimesal]

Same Sex "Marriage" of two human beings is usually a legal contract institutionalized as permitted or non-permitted by a legally organized society. It may or may not be in accordance with the religion of one or both of the contracting persons. Other persons must be respectful and tolerant of any situation that is or become legally accepted. But, also, a given society can very well decide accept it or not and all persons in that society must bind to any legal decision. If one does not agree with same sex marriage then one probably would feel happier living in a place where it is not accepted.

 

[Magic Man]

But you would be wrong. If the anti-gay California Republicans succeed in amending their Constitution in this manner, that will be the law in California.

I understand. That doesn't mean it conforms to our other laws, though.

 

[Autodidact]

I understand. That doesn't mean it conforms to our other laws, though.

Well, couple of things about that:
1. Family Law is generally considered the province of the states, and SCOTUS would give tremendous deference to a law or court decision of an individual state in a family law matter.
2. This decision was based on the California, not U.S. Constitution.
3. I can't see our current SCOTUS even striking down the proposition in this case, let alone declaring such a provision of the California Constitution to violate the U.S. Constitution.

So, this vote in California this fall will be quite important. I think it only requires 51% of the voters to amend the California Constitution (?) (which is probably a bad thing, and they should probably amend their Constitution to change that), but as of this moment opinion polls are running against. Should be interesting, to say the least.

 

[Orontes]

A super majority or supermajority per the root or noun is by defintion a majority and when applied as a political determinative thereby majoritarian. Something anti-majoritarian, per its prefix is opposed to or hostile to what is majoritarian.

And in that range between a simple majority and a sufficient supermajority to pass whatever the test in question is, the law follows the will of the minority, not the majority, and is therefore not majoritarian.

This reply does not speak to your claim that a super majority is anti-majoritarian which is impossible given the meaning of super majority.

As to legal process in Constitutional law: whatever "test in question" exists, is itself a product of majoritarianism. In other words, the majority set up the bounds and limits within which questions of law operate and those limits remain subject to majoritarian consent.

 

[Orontes]

it is simple.
There was a vote and the majority voted to overturn prop 22.

Yes, that four judges overturned Prop. 22 has never been disputed, neither does it relate to my argument which is a judicial overreach argument.

 

[Orontes]

The justification for state endorsement of a thing within a free society, is when the endorsement is a reflection of the will of the people.

Law typically imposes a morality. This is normative in the democratic process. Rape being illegal is a simple example.

No, morality is not imposed. A set of rules to keep citizens safe is imposed. Rape being immoral has nothing to do with it being illegal. It violates the rights of another citizen, so it's banned.

As to your first point, the reflection of the will of the people has to stay within boundaries in our free society. there is a limit to what the will of the people can accomplish. For instance, there is no legal way for the will of the people to make Christianity illegal. Nothing short of a complete revolution could accomplish that.

Morality is imposed all the time via legislation. Your comment is fundamentally wrong. If a majority of people think thing X is a bad thing it can, and has, and does often become illegal. Rape is illegal because of the general consensus it is an evil act. Doobage is illegal due to a base moral hostility to weed which predates any medical rationale. Prostitution is generally illegal due to moral sensibilities. Strip clubs are often banned being next to schools due to moral notions. Slavery was overturned due to a shift in moral stance. The list is vast.

As to limits of what the people can accomplish: several posters have already corrected your error. If there is a large enough percentage of people that wish a thing to be, it can be implemented into either law or the Constitution. Recall, slavery was allowed in the Constitution. Democratic societies can do bad things just a autocratic societies and appeal to legally in the process. Within a Constitutional republic as in the U.S.'s case: the mobocratic impulse is partially stymied by there being foundational law (the Constitution) which the people have previously set up to curtail tyranny of the majority. Even so, any foundational law is still subject to popular consent (per the amendment process) and if the people move in large enough numbers, the law can and will reflect that movement: Prohibition and its reversal is a simple example.

 

[Orontes]

Frankly, this whole argument about "majoritarianism" (or what any normal person calls Democracy) is beside the point. It doesn't matter where the Constitution comes from, what matters is that laws must conform to it.

Majoritarianism is a tangent, but there have been posters who do not believe the U.S. is a majoritarian system (which is quite wrong) and also seem to believe autocratic actions are justified if it is for something they like, which is disturbing.

Orontes:

Do you agree that laws that violate the Constitution are rightly struck down, under our system?

Yes.

Are you advocating a system where anything that is voted in by 51% of the people would stand, regardless of whether it comports with the Constitution?

No.

For example, if 51% of the citizens of Utah vote for a proposition that makes it illegal to practice any religion there but LDS, should that law be enforced, in your view?

No, such a law would be unconstitutional and per my sensibilities immoral. I would work against it. Similarly, if four California Supreme Court Justices declared Mormons are a protected class and the government must pay each Mormon $10,000.00 yearly, it would be an abuse of power and must be opposed.

 

[Orontes]

So, this vote in California this fall will be quite important. I think it only requires 51% of the voters to amend the California Constitution (?)

That is right, only 51% is required to change California's Constitution. Even so, I am skeptical Prop. 8 will pass.

 

[Magic Man]

Rape is illegal because of the general consensus it is an evil act.

Wrong. Rape is illegal because it violates another citizen's rights. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's "evil". There is clear and scientifically verified data showing how results of rape are harmful to the victim.

As to limits of what the people can accomplish: several posters have already corrected your error. If there is a large enough percentage of people that wish a thing to be, it can be implemented into either law or the Constitution. Recall, slavery was allowed in the Constitution. Democratic societies can do bad things just a autocratic societies and appeal to legally in the process. Within a Constitutional republic as in the U.S.'s case: the mobocratic impulse is partially stymied by there being foundational law (the Constitution) which the people have previously set up to curtail tyranny of the majority. Even so, any foundational law is still subject to popular consent (per the amendment process) and if the people move in large enough numbers, the law can and will reflect that movement: Prohibition and its reversal is a simple example.

I think the problem is that we're talking about two different things. Obviously, some people are successful in legislating morality. That's obvious by the fact that same-sex marriage is illegal. What I'm saying is that, as things are now, certain things are illegal. You can change things around to make them legal, but that doesn't change the way they are now.

My examples were to show how even the most basic rights we have could be taken away "legally" by this process. Should that be how it works, though?

 

[Orontes]

Wrong. Rape is illegal because it violates another citizen's rights. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's "evil". There is clear and scientifically verified data showing how results of rape are harmful to the victim.

Alas, rights and a harm principles are themselves wrapped in moral terms. Further, if you ask 100 people: should rape be made legal? All, or nearly all, would say no. If you ask why not? The answer would most likely be: it's wrong, it's evil, it's disgusting. The illegality of rape predates any scientific/psychological analysis that attempts to argue a harm that is independent of any moral notions.

I think the problem is that we're talking about two different things. Obviously, some people are successful in legislating morality.

Yes they can and do which is why I responded to your assertion "No, morality is not imposed."

That's obvious by the fact that same-sex marriage is illegal. What I'm saying is that, as things are now, certain things are illegal. You can change things around to make them legal, but that doesn't change the way they are now.

My examples were to show how even the most basic rights we have could be taken away "legally" by this process. Should that be how it works, though?

If you ask whether there should be a level of law that is untouchable, then you need to consider: who decides what that law is, why should "they" be able to decide such, and why should those impacted by a law they can never change accept such a situation?

 

[Autodidact]

Majoritarianism is a tangent, but there have been posters who do not believe the U.S. is a majoritarian system (which is quite wrong) and also seem to believe autocratic actions are justified if it is for something they like, which is disturbing.



Yes.



No.

O.K., in that case your entire contribution to this thread so far has been an irrelevant waste of time. You agree that the Justices acted properly in striking down a law they find to be unconstitutional. Now you're argument is that this law conforms to the California Constitution. As I understand it, your argument is that gay people are not a protected class, and there is no overriding state interest in protecting gay marriage, correct? But the ruling does not that gay people are a protected class, or that gay marriage serves an overriding state interest, so those arguments are also irrelevant. (And may I remark, some of the more long-winded and pompous irrelevant arguments in this forum.) You also argue that marriage is not a fundamental right, in contravention to several SCOTUS precedents dating back decades. So is it your position that the California court should have overruled those precedents? If not, what argument do you have left? Please try to stay on point and save us irrelevant, inflated, turgidly pompous essays, thank you.

 

[Magic Man]

Alas, rights and a harm principles are themselves wrapped in moral terms. Further, if you ask 100 people: should rape be made legal? All, or nearly all, would say no. If you ask why not? The answer would most likely be: it's wrong, it's evil, it's disgusting. The illegality of rape predates any scientific/psychological analysis that attempts to argue a harm that is independent of any moral notions.

Regardless of any of that, it is only illegal because of the verifiable results of it. Obviously rape and similar actions are part of morality, but that's not what makes it or them legal or illegal.

Yes they can and do which is why I responded to your assertion "No, morality is not imposed."

Yes, you're right. What I meant was that generally the idea is not to impose morality. The idea is to set up rules to keep society functioning well, and keep people safe and secure. Some people misuse the law to impose their morality, but that's not the way it's supposed to work.

If you ask whether there should be a level of law that is untouchable, then you need to consider: who decides what that law is, why should "they" be able to decide such, and why should those impacted by a law they can never change accept such a situation?

The only law that should be untouchable is what was set up by the founding fathers, which is equality for everyone. That is something that can be agreed upon by any reasonable person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only law that should be untouchable is what was set up by the founding fathers, which is equality for everyone. That is something that can be agreed upon by any reasonable person.

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, I think that if you're suggesting that the United States revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended, then this would probably imply scrapping the Constitution altogether in favour of the Articles of Confederation.