Prop H8 mostly upheld

[Storm]

For those attacking the California Supreme Court, you should know their decision was exactly spot on. Legal experts on both sides predicted this result as early as November when challenges to Prop 8 were raised. It's not about the Court being bigoted (did you already forget they ruled in favor of gay marriages last year?), but about the Court being asked to interpret a very narrow area of California constitutional law (amendment vs. revision). Complicating matters further is California's bone-headed voter initiative process. Please remember that. The Court can't just make stuff up and say "same-sex marriages are legal." They're restrained to hear and rule on the issue before them.

You know, reposting the same reply over and over could easily be considered spam.

 

[Smoke]

Sloppy and self-contradictory opinions are fairly common these days. And, as I said before: both sides predicted months ago what the decision would be. These predictions were based in law, not emotion.

Yes, we were all pretty sure what the result would be, but the prediction was based on the justice's questions during oral arguments, not to mention the fact that there are six Republicans on the bench. The decision was sloppy and self-contradictory, as you admit. If it was based in law -- even California law -- it was based in a particularly selective and even emotional interpretation of such law.

Your opinion is contra to the vast majority of opinions out there.

So what? That doesn't mean it's wrong; in fact, it's quite obviously correct. Many people -- including the justices, obviously -- found applying the amendment as a statutory provision prohibiting future marriages a more palatable approach. I find it more palatable myself. But it's legal nonsense.

 

[Autodidact]

The practice of polygamy is not presently encouraged, but that is not what you implied. You implied that our theology changed, when it hasn't.

Right. God permits polygamy. Revelation! God prohibits polygamy. No change. Right.

We still recognise that the polygamous marriages made during the time the church practiced are completely valid. We hold that there will likely be (new) polygamous marriage in the life to come. We do not practice it for the time being.

Yes, probably if the government permits polygamy, the prophet will get a revelation that God once again approves of it.

Similary, if for some reason the Mormon Church will in future be damaged by prohibiting Gay marriage, the right person will get a revelation that God likes that too. And once again, it will not be a change in theology.

If you want to discuss the topic of blacks and the priesthood, start one. If you are only interested in taunts, I am not interested in responding.

No, do you? I'm just pointing out that the prophet gets whatever revelation he needs to get to protect and advance the church. At this point I wonder whether Joseph Smith would recognize the religion he founded.

I'm 19, and confident that in the next 50 or so years of life I am likely to have there will not be so much as an (official) whisper of the church getting rid of the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin.

I'm 53, and I'm equally confident you're wrong. Others around here can tell you I have a pretty good track record on my guesses. It's because I base my guesses on the empirical system.

Actually I don't know whether they will allow Gay relationships for Mormons, although they might. Pretty soon though they'll stop trying to influence what the rest of society does about it.

 

[Magic Man]

For those attacking the California Supreme Court, you should know their decision was exactly spot on. Legal experts on both sides predicted this result as early as November when challenges to Prop 8 were raised. It's not about the Court being bigoted (did you already forget they ruled in favor of gay marriages last year?), but about the Court being asked to interpret a very narrow area of California constitutional law (amendment vs. revision). Complicating matters further is California's bone-headed voter initiative process. Please remember that. The Court can't just make stuff up and say "same-sex marriages are legal." They're restrained to hear and rule on the issue before them.

I'll take that as a "No, I won't admit that I've learned anything, so you'll have to guess whether or not I did".

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, we were all pretty sure what the result would be, but the prediction was based on the justice's questions during oral arguments, not to mention the fact that there are six Republicans on the bench. The decision was sloppy and self-contradictory, as you admit. If it was based in law -- even California law -- it was based in a particularly selective and even emotional interpretation of such law.

No the predictions were made BEFORE oral arguments ever took place and the predictions had the law as foundation. BOTH sides made these predictions.

So what? That doesn't mean it's wrong; in fact, it's quite obviously correct. Many people -- including the justices, obviously -- found applying the amendment as a statutory provision prohibiting future marriages a more palatable approach. I find it more palatable myself. But it's legal nonsense.

Your emotion clouds your judgment. Both sides predicted the outcome long ago based on their analysis of the law and not based on what the justices would find palatable.

 

[Watchmen]

I'll take that as a "No, I won't admit that I've learned anything, so you'll have to guess whether or not I did".

You can take it however you want.

 

[Smoke]

Your emotion clouds your judgment. Both sides predicted the outcome long ago based on their analysis of the law and not based on what the justices would find palatable.

You aren't paying the slightest attention to what I'm saying; I wonder why you feel the need to respond to it.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I'm 53, and I'm equally confident you're wrong. Others around here can tell you I have a pretty good track record on my guesses. It's because I base my guesses on the empirical system.

So at first I was naive for thinking the church would face any political pressure concerning its position on homosexual marriage, and thus you claimed the church had no reason at all to get involved in prop 8. Now you seem to have drawn some rather massive confidence that the church will face political pressure to review its position in what would be the near future if you were saying I would see it in my lifetime if I were in my 40's.

You see, me entire flip flopping has been on the premise that the gay marriage issue poses no risk to the church. It seems to me you are telling me there is reason to be cautious.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Right. God permits polygamy. Revelation! God prohibits polygamy. No change. Right. Yes, probably if the government permits polygamy, the prophet will get a revelation that God once again approves of it.

I agree entirely the motive of ending the practice of polygamy was to prevent the church being annihilated, though we obviously disagree on what authority the call was made. As to whether we would continue the practice in the US a future where there are no restrictions on plural marriage, I doubt that legality is the key issue given that in countries where polygamy would be perfectly acceptable, the church still does not allow it.

 

[Watchmen]

You aren't paying the slightest attention to what I'm saying; I wonder why you feel the need to respond to it.

And I wonder why you're ignoring the facts.

 

[Smoke]

And I wonder why you're ignoring the facts.

Fine, then suppose you explain your interpretation of the law in this case, instead of just claiming, "Everybody says so!"

 

[DallasApple]

Not that its good news..But I was relieved to see that at least the couples already married didnt have their marriage certificates shredded.

Love

Dallas

 

[Smoke]

Not that its good news..But I was relieved to see that at least the couples already married didnt have their marriage certificates shredded.

I was, too, and not just because I don't want to see those marriages annulled. That part of the ruling is so obviously incompatible with the decision to uphold Prop 8 that I think it calls the legitimacy of the whole decision into question.

 

[Autodidact]

So at first I was naive for thinking the church would face any political pressure concerning its position on homosexual marriage, and thus you claimed the church had no reason at all to get involved in prop 8. Now you seem to have drawn some rather massive confidence that the church will face political pressure to review its position in what would be the near future if you were saying I would see it in my lifetime if I were in my 40's.

You see, me entire flip flopping has been on the premise that the gay marriage issue poses no risk to the church. It seems to me you are telling me there is reason to be cautious.

Sorry, I didn't follow all this.

My perception is that the Mormon Church, for some reason I don't understand, has thrust itself into the fight against Gay marriage. It looks like Gay marriage will be permissible throughout the country pretty soon, and their view will fall further and further into disfavor. I don't know why they care, but they seem to, so they're seeing it as a threat; I am not. As it becomes widely accepted, and legal, and anti-Gay forces viewed more and more as bigoted and backward, they will eventually accommodate themselves to the law, because that's what Mormons do. When they think this will benefit them more than it harms them, they will get the revelation they need to make this possible. (Afterward, they will deny that it is any change in basic theology; after arguing for decades that it is just that.) Whether they will ever perform such marriage themselves I do not feel so confident. It depends on how things go on a societal level.

I think the way the Mormon Church is flexible, and changes with society and its needs, it unusual and kind of cool. It helps make it a successful meme.

 

[Autodidact]

Not that its good news..But I was relieved to see that at least the couples already married didnt have their marriage certificates shredded.

Love

Dallas

I think they can now be the "camel's nose." If 36,000 people get their friends, families, co-workers and parishioners on their side, it will tilt the outcome next time.

 

[Autodidact]

Interesting commentary on Mormon dilemma here.

 

[DallasApple]

I was, too, and not just because I don't want to see those marriages annulled. That part of the ruling is so obviously incompatible with the decision to uphold Prop 8 that I think it calls the legitimacy of the whole decision into question.

Yeah that makes sense..If its legitimate and legal at all for anyone..How can it not be legitmate or legal for all?

Not to "minimize" the situation but it reminds be of the legal drinking age.It used to be 19 here..My husband turned 19 and could drink legally..They changed it to 21 soon after..to my recollection he could still buy alcohol under 21 where as someone who had truned 19 after him by a few months when the law had changed was a criminal if they were in possesion.I want to call it the "Grandfather clause"

Love

Dallas

 

[Smoke]

When they think this will benefit them more than it harms them, they will get the revelation they need to make this possible.

Okay, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies between you two.

A revelation wouldn't be necessary for the Mormon Church to cease its political harassment of gay people, and such harassment will end when it becomes more trouble than it's worth to the leaders.

A revelation would only be necessary if the Mormon Church were (for example) to start allowing same-sex Temple marriages. That kind of change isn't likely to occur in our lifetimes, or misanthropic_clown's, either -- if ever.

 

[Smoke]

Not to "minimize" the situation but it reminds be of the legal drinking age.It used to be 19 here..My husband turned 19 and could drink legally..They changed it to 21 soon after..to my recollection he could still buy alcohol under 21 where as someone who had truned 19 after him by a few months when the law had changed was a criminal if they were in possesion.I want to call it the "Grandfather clause"

In South Carolina, they didn't do it that way. The legal age was raised incrementally from 18 to 21, and people born in 1965 or so were of legal drinking age for a few months, then they weren't, then they were again, and so on until the legal age finally reached 21.

That kind of reminds me of California, too.

 

[Watchmen]

Fine, then suppose you explain your interpretation of the law in this case, instead of just claiming, "Everybody says so!"

My interpretation is the same as the Court's. That's why me and everyone else predicted the result months ago. The Court's interpretation was the only one that works in California's scheme.

The problem is with voter initiatives, but since that problem isn't going to go away, there needs to be a better run campaign to get equal rights.