All it would mean is that they’d have to come up with some plausible excuse for terminating your “at will” employment and they’re in the clear (even if their “real” reason was anti-gay sentiment).

My experience is that unless you have a clear and documented case of anti-whatever behavior, those equal protection employment laws rarely have much teeth in them.

What was voted on and passed by 61%
Has to be recomposed and needs our endorsement
As world history’s sacred institution
Must be placed in our state’s constitution

Though we feel for those in sexual exclusion
To embrace their union as marriage is delusion
For our children we cannot define this as mainstream
Though gays want acceptance and higher esteem

We’ve given them all the rights of marriage
And, sadly they still fight on and dare edge
To infringe on what God has ordained
And, for their small numbers society’s more pained

But, what of our creator- who said, “Thou shalt not”?
And of our founding father’s and of all that they fought?
We’ve commandments for how we should live
And, we can’t grant things that aren’t ours to give

I feel for those of gay circumstance
I know they want romance and an equal chance
I’ve counseled them for the antibody test
And, I know that their feelings are hard to rest

Please do not call this bigotry or hate
For I am concerned about our futures fate
Let’s focus on family and build its foundation
For there lies the future of our good nation

Let’s not redefine marriage or tear it apart
But, pray for it with every depth of our heart
And unite and fight for the noblest cause
For the purest of standards of our God’s laws

Lance says the state has an interest in PROMOTING heterosexual marriage, and the state has a prerogative to do so. Nobody nowhere is BANNING homosexual marriage, just simply not PROMOTING it. Marriage is not and never was a right in any sense of the word, it is a contract with a specific definition of being between man and woman.

One more time, the state has an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage. There are many reasons this is beneficial. I will list all the reasons I can think of, and whether or not that reason can be applied to same sex unions.

Two parent child rearing: good for children, maybe mother and father is better than two mothers, maybe not. I believe it is, but for the sake of argument we’ll leave this as an unknown and say “sure, this benefit can come from SSM”

Procreation: statistically married people produce more children then unmarried people, and BONUS! the children produced AUTOMATICALLY have a home with two parents. This is a HUGE plus!!! It saves money in adoption services, it saves children the headache of not having homes, it saves the world from social problems arising from children in unstable homes. We’re talking procreation here, not simply providing an environment for rearing children. That was covered previously. This is concerning the actual making of children, and whether or not the have an automatic stable home upon being made. So obviously it is a huge win anytime a child is born INTO a married home. Thus encouraging heterosexual marriages increases the incidence of such births and this is a GOOD THING. Applies to SSM? No way.

Taming of men: this one sounds a little crazy, but really, it works. You become more responsible when you have a family to think of. Applies to SSM? *maybe* but there’s no evidence that it does, thus no reason for the state to consider it.

The homosexuals advocating for gay marriage feel that the only way they can feel normal, in the crowd, and just as accepted as heterosexual couples is to have their unions called marriages, and upon having this victory they will all feel warm and fuzzy and all discrimination will cease and everyone will say “oh your gay, how’s your spouse, that’s so great!” Well guess what, it won’t happen that way. Forcing people to call your unions marriage won’t make them any more or less accepting of you. Well, it might make them less accepting actually because they might feel you’ve fouled their precious institution.

Anyway, enough about motives, the point is the state DOES NOT HAVE TO encourage gay marriage, and more importantly, WHAT GIVES THE STATE OR ANYONE ELSE THE RIGHT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE or any other word for that matter?

The state doesn’t ban gay marriage, it simply says “no we’re not going to redefine a word to make a minority feel good about themselves.” The state doesn’t ban gay marriage, it simply says “look, these people enter into what they call marriage, we think this is a good idea so we will put our stamp of approval on it.” That is ALL the state does, plus maybe some tax breaks and such. The state is not required to take such actions unilaterally as was already demonstrated by the food stamps example. The state has no interest in encouraging gay marriage, so why should it expend extra resources into “condoning” something which it does not have to, and which has no return value for the state? If the state wants to do all this, and grant marriage to homosexuals, then as lance said, go for it. Four men have no business striking down that law which was perfectly fine, as demonstrated the state was well within it’s constitutional power to draw the line on who it will grant marriage license to. The line drawn was rational and reasonable. It wishes to condone only those relationships which help it.

And finally, HOW DARE YOU tell me what constitutional amendments I can or should vote for! I will vote for any constitutional amendment that retains the traditional definition of marriage, and there ain’t nothing you can do about it!

Oh, by the way, the “church” of affirmation puts plenty of clout behind the SSM side, so why should not the LDS church put clout behind it’s position??

I was terminated as an employee of a bank in Utah 4 years ago, because I wanted to attend the funeral of my partner’s parents. Because we weren’t “legally married”, my company denied me any bereavement or vacation time. They also told me they would not have hired me if they knew I was gay, and told me I had 2 weeks to find another job. Discrimination from sexual orientation is not protected in Utah, and has been brought to the state capital many many times, and is always shot down with the same “special interest group does not deserve special rights”. That is why I moved to california, for my partner and for my family to have the same rights as any other family and to get away from laws being written or shot down because of a religious belief. There are over 100,000 gay coupled families now in Cali and I consider it an honor to stand with them.

Adieu.

-Justin

Your church is asking its members to donate money and time to pass a law that effects millions of Californians, most of which are not mormon. Your statement that your church “is not enforcing belief on others” is crap and you know it. Its using its power to sway decisions, since we’ve already seen it do before, and is actively holding disciplinary counsels for those who speak out against it and believe everyone should have an opportunity to be married.

When you have a gay son, daughter, brother, or sister, maybe you’ll wake up to the reality of the situation.

I leave with the parting words of Henry Stuart Matis, that gay mormon returned missionary who shot himself in front of his LDS church building in California because of the church’s involvement in Prop 22 (and after hearing a letter read from the pulpit):

“I implore [you] to re-assess [your] homophobic feelings. Seek to understand first before you make comments. We have the same needs as you. We desire to love and be loved. We desire to live our lives with happiness. We are not a threat to you or your families. We are your sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers and friends, and most importantly, we are all children of God.”

Henry Stuart Matis
Mar 2 1967 – Feb 29 2000

Once again, I don’t think you are following my argument. As for proof, several Supreme Court decisions have recognized that procreation is the government’s main interest when sanctioning marriages. Moreover, I’ve adequately dealt with your litany of marginal examples in my main essay.

And where did I ever say that the board is religion free? I said that my essay was purposely devoid of religious content. If you’ll note, my essay was written in response to Dr. Jeffrey Nielsen’s contention that no principles argument against same sex marriage exists that isn’t based in tradition, religion or morality. My essay specifically shows that such an argument does exist, and I’d like to thank you for proving my point that the only opposition to my argument is based in emotionalism and a vague sense of something not being “fair.”

Finally, your silliest comment: “when a church tells its followers to enforce a belief on others who are not of the same faith, it is wrong. I stand by that, and so does your Articles Of Faith: let all men the same privelidge to worship how, where, or what they may.”

My Church is not enforcing belief on others. It is simply taking a stand on a political question which it believes has major ramifications for society. And BTW, how is that my church is “forcing belief on others” but you don’t see that the 4 judges of the California Supreme Court who mandated recognition of same sex marriage in California are not “forcing belief on others” when the citizens of California less than five years ago voted overwhelmingly to not recognize same sex marriages? It’s okay for four, non-elected judges to “enforce belief” but it’s not okay for a Church to ask its members to support a democratically inspired amendment to the constitution? Your emotionalism has blinded you to your own hypocrisy.

Finally, you said: “If my God does not discrimiate against gays/blacks/women, then allow me that freedom to live in a society that allows it without enforcing your own ideals. Don’t shove your religion in my lap. That’s yours to live by, not mine.”

This vote and my views have nothing to do with worship. They are strictly political. I’m sorry if your counter arguments are so weak that you are forced into such lame responses.

Lance

If marriage is a legally binding contract for two people, traditionally between a man and women (or multiple.. Muslims can have more than one), and having it called “marriage” means something spiritually and is legally binding to the person, who are we to say that it cannot be extended to those beyond what we have considered to be traditional? Who would it harm and how?

If this is really all about pro-creation, we had a sociology class about this, and interviewed teens and adults who grew up in gay families, and saw no difference emotionally, physically, sexually or socially.

Good point Justin, and I hope your children don’t endure much by the way of mean schoolkids as they grow up. One of our interviewees went through quite an ordeal through high school. But she’s 32 now, and a high school counselor at a Jr High in Tempe Arizona, which I think is pretty amazing.

This board is nowhere near 100% religion free. What website is this? Oh yes, that’s right. A sister-site of FARMS.

As for my comment: And when a church tells its followers to enforce a belief on others who are not of the same faith, it is wrong. I stand by that, and so does your Articles Of Faith: let all men the same privelidge to worship how, where, or what they may. If my God does not discrimiate against gays/blacks/women, then allow me that freedom to live in a society that allows it without enforcing your own ideals. Don’t shove your religion in my lap. That’s yours to live by, not mine.

-Justin

I’m sorry that you find my essay to distressing. Unfortunately, you still aren’t grasping the point. You make an example of the anti-miscegenation laws of many states in past. Unfortunately for you, those examples don’t really help you case. You see, if you accept the premise of my essay, i.e., that the logical basis of state sanctioned marriage is procreation, then a law which prevents couples of different races from marrying is not rational because those couples can procreate just a well as a same-race couple. However, the irrationality of that law does not apply to a law prohibiting same sex marriage because the line drawn by such a law is based on procreative potentiality v. non-procreative potentiality. In other words, no matter what you do, two men cannot procreate and neither can two women. Therefore, if the state’s purpose in sanctioning marriage is to encourage and support procreation, then the line drawn is very rational because same sex marriages do not, and indeed cannot, procreate. Thus, your example is flawed.

I find especially amusing your continued insistence that my religion is influencing my posts. My posts are 100% religion free by design. Yet apparently my logic is so bulletproof that you must assign a religious motivation to me and then attack that motivation. What you, in your unstudied ignorance, do not realize, is that the New York Supreme Court used the very same arguments that I’ve used here in upholding New York’s marriage laws. So did the supreme courts of Washington State, Oregon, and the court of appeal in Arizona.

Also, the obvious reason why the Church did very little in New York was because we relatively few members there as compared to the number of members in California.

Lastly, while you obviously do not like it, a church has every right to participate in the political process and make sure that it’s views are heard. That’s been part of the constitution for centuries.

Lance

Wonderful address to the jury, counsel. Let me explain a few things to you about the reality of the situation.

Like a good lawyer, you continue to skirt around the issues, making excuses for who you represent. The law of the state of California used to deny blacks to marry whites, and the majority voted for that. Was it law? Yes. Was it right? No. It took an act of a minority of people to challenge that. Were religious people upset? Hell yes, they were. California overturned that ruling in the early 1900s, against the voice of the “majority”.

If you check your books, Utah had a similar law. In fact, enacted by Brigham Young, any black woman who slept with a white man was to pay for her sin by blood atonement. That’s in the utah law books, and in the History of the Church. Was that right? No. Was it any business of the church to influence a state law? No.

Situation is no different than today. Your posts are obviously influenced by your religion and what it is actively doing to influence the outcome in California. Why then, didn’t the church actively oppose the same thing in New York, when the governor enforced the state to recognize all marriages, giving the opportunity to EVERYONE to have a legally recognized marriage, who got married in another state or country? What about the same issue in Spain? The UK? Canada? Where were the letters to the bishops in those areas and the millions of dollars spent on church advertising to sway votes?

Everyone has the right to the political process. But a church does not. And when a church tells its followers to enforce a belief on others who are not of the same faith, it is wrong.

-Justin

Were you directing your invective at me? If so, then I question whether you read what I actually wrote. For example, you state that:

[QUOTE]It is none of you or your religion’s business who I choose to share my life with. I have the right to love and the pursuit of happiness as any other person in this country.[QUOTE/]

I find this comment puzzling, since I specifically omitted any reference to religion in my essay. Moreover, nothing in my blog even came close to insinuating that anyone has the right to dictate whom you can love and who you may spend your life with.

[QUOTE]How dare you and your religion that I do not belong to attempt to meddle in politics which effects me, my personal life, and my family. [QUOTE/]

Excuse me? It almost sounds as if you are denying the member of my faith who reside in California their right to participate in the political process. Is it really you contention that anyone who disagrees with you politically should be disenfranchised in such a way?

[QUOTE]Defend the law, not your church, not the old men who are giving this socially and politically charged message to you. I don’t recall Jesus trying to force people his way. He invited those who were interested to follow him. The rest were free to live as they pleased, without judgement or his restriction.

Who are you? More than Jesus?[QUOTE/]

In fact,that is exactly what my lengthy post did. I did nothing more than defend that law which states that the government is not in any way required to give official sanction to same sex marriage. The entirety of my essay is, essentially, a legal brief which defends the right of the state to dictate which relationships it will favor and sanction versus those it choses not to.

The ironic thing is that at the very first of my post, I specifically stated that I firmly believe that if a state like California wishes to initiate same sex marriage, it has every right to do so. Your venomous comments against the leaders of my church are especially troubling seeing as how I never made religious belief or moral dogma any part of my argument. Moreover, I note you utterly failed to provide any substantive rebuttal to a single argument I’ve made.

If you believe my argument is wrong, wouldn’t it be best to provide something of substance to rebut that which I have written, rather than making yourself look like a fool with your over-hyped, emotional outburst. You have once again proven my point that the vast majority of support for same sex marriage is based on visceral emotional response rather than on any firm public policy basis.

Lance

Newsflash.

It’s a free country.

Opinions welcome.

Even yours.

Your lengthy page of vomit, arrogance, and ignorance is disgusting.

It is none of you or your religion’s business who I choose to share my life with. I have the right to love and the pursuit of happiness as any other person in this country.

How dare you and your religion that I do not belong to attempt to meddle in politics which effects me, my personal life, and my family.

Defend the law, not your church, not the old men who are giving this socially and politically charged message to you. I don’t recall Jesus trying to force people his way. He invited those who were interested to follow him. The rest were free to live as they pleased, without judgement or his restriction.

Who are you? More than Jesus?

-Justin

“The argument Lance presents seems basically sound: the state has a stake in heterosexual marriage (men and women who are married to each other cost less and are less trouble, in general, than those who are not), and so expends resources toward that goal. Heterosexual marriage is a generic “good.” Homosexual marriage has not proved that it has any positive effect for the state–people on this thread have seemed to posit a null effect, at most. The argument for homosexual marriage seems to reduce to “it’s not fair” and “it doesn’t affect you,” but fail to show any positive benefits to the state. “It’s not fair” is just not a valid argument for making a significant change to any institution, especially marriage: it’s really the general basis for the introduction of no-fault divorce, which has substantially changed marriage and the concept of marriage–even among LDS people whose parents taught them differently!=)

In California, we have had gay rights activists burst into meetings of church groups and taunt them, while wearing ski masks. Pastors are being muffled and told to publicly recant their faith, because preaching against homosexuality is “hate speech.” If you don’t think that’s coming here, you are delusional.

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. Whether or not the “jury is still” out is irrelevant. Whether or not same sex marriage is “right or wrong”, “moral or immoral” is irrelevant. In fact, I purposely constructed an argument that excluded from consideration factors such as right and wrong and morality and immorality. My argument doesn’t change one whit if it eventually determined that same sex attraction is entirely genetic, entirely environment, the result of abuse or any other theory you want to toss out.

My argument is based solely on public policy and political economy. Honestly, that’s why so many folks detest the arguments I’ve made. Like Jeffrey Nielsen, they had deluded themselves into believing that no argument against same sex marriage could be sustained without recourse to “tradition”, “religion” or notions morality and immorality. I have shown that, in fact, a solid argument which excludes these factors can, has and is being made. Many find that disturbing.

Lance

Pardon the pun, since you are a lawyer, but as for my opinion, the jury is out. I don’t know if it is right or wrong, moral or immoral, or neither. But your arguement is intriguing. I can’t say to others that I can get married and you can’t because of something still largely unexplained about your genetic and psychological makeup. I’m glad the ultimate decision is not in my hands.

I agree that it was possible that the letter was due to local leaders writting to the General Authorities about what to do. I say this because, like you said there didn’t seem to be a whole lot that we heard about it going on in other areas of the country or world. I say country because this was a similar instance to what was going on in Mass, as well as other nations besideds Canada.

It may very well have everything to do with what the local leaders and congregations asked of the First Presidnency as well.

That being said, I do agree that it is pretty interesting that we haven’t heard much lately (unless you listen to the MAD Board) on this discussion. Thank you for taking part in such a lively one. I have enjoyed it greatly. Thank you. (Both of you.)

Lee Wyatt

I would pose the same question again, this time about massachusetts. I believe that was the first state to legalize? And wasn’t Mitt Romney governor at the time?

Perhaps the letter to cali members was due to cali members writing to general authorities and expressing a desire for written guidance?

This passed Sunday, I asked the second counselor in my branch presidency if he recalls some sort of statement made by the Church regarding SSM and he remembers a statement from the Stake presidency to the effect of making sure we participated in the debate, wrote to our local members of government etc.

Lee,

This is probably a thread-jack, but since there are only a few of us left on the thread, who cares?

Many of the leaders of the Church, the First Presidency among them, work hard to cater messages to people in all nations. The proclamation to the family is a good example, as are most conference talks.

But U.S. Church leaders often view things through the lense of a U.S. citizen.

We get American news, American politics, and American culture. A Church leader living in Utah cannot help but have a U.S.-centric point of view.

Lee said: “I have a really hard time believing that people think that the First Presidency’s stance is a new one in regards to the CA issue. Especially when they issued that statement 10 years ago.”

I think Jason’s point was not that the statement is new, rather that the Church didn’t push nearly as hard for preventing homosexual marriage in Canada (and France, Spain, among others) as it has in California. Why? US (and Western US, in particular)-centricity may not be explanation, but it may be part of the explanation.

I think that this can help show you that. It was a simple, yet profound statement, about what the definition of marriage is and why it was instituted.

I hope tha this helps illustrate where I am coming from.

I think your statement here describes the general (and I have no facts to back it up, so I am generalizing) feeling of what Canada has gone through regarding SSM:
“The alternative doesn’t seem terrible to me. If we don’t amend the constitution and we allow homosexuals to marry, then it won’t change what marriage means to us. It will continue to be a significant commitment to some (including an eternal commitment for Mormons) and a trivial commitment, or a big show, to others.”

Two major names I can drop here are, I guess, evangelical christians who have TV time that were very active against SSM: Charles McVeity who runs Canada Christian College, and David Mainse who is head of the Crossroads Alliance.

As far as I know, the 2006 census included SSM as a marriage description.

There seems to be many common law situations in Ontario at least. The ‘big show’ can happen years after the couple has been together, had children, and they decide they have enough $ to put on something ‘worthy’.

There were maybe 2 members of the Federal Liberal Party that ‘quit’ because they disagreed with their party and also saying that a big portion of their constituants had spoken to them against SSM.

The United Church of Canada (read big doctrinal mess) I believe, was mostly in favor of SSM.

“So what makes California so special?”

Three words: The Beach Boys.

I’m wildly speculating here, but there are any number of possible reasons:
1) Although the Church is multinational, many leaders of the Church are still U.S.-centric,
2) Church leaders feel the high concentration and activity of CA Mormons has the potential to give disproportionate influence to Mormons in California and U.S. national policy, and
3) a change in leadership inevitably changes wording and focus of statements from the Church.

In your case, any one of these three reasons could result in a letter that may have seemed less emphatic than the recent CA letter.

By the way, how’s marriage in Canada? Has allowing homosexuals to marry changed the institution of marriage for heterosexuals?

I think SSM was passed into law in Canada about 5 years ago. I know of a couple sitting members of both provincial and federal parliament from the Liberal party that have married their partners.

It was a liberal government in power when the law was enacted. The Conservative government, once in power, opened the law up for one more debate and that was it.

Various religious groups protested and I do believe that the Church issued a letter to stakes about writing to members of parliament and expressing their views. I do not recall the letter being anymore than that. No encouragement of ‘time, talents, funds’ to fight the law.

So what makes California so special?

“But, if you don’t think that keeping marriage the way it has been defined for so long now is preserving tradtional marriage, then I would be interested to know how YOU WOULD perserve it?”

If I was going to preserve it as a heterosexual contract, I don’t see an alternative to amending the CA constitution at this point. I’m on the fence as to whether preserving marriage as a heterosexual contract would justify the discrimination.

The alternative doesn’t seem terrible to me. If we don’t amend the constitution and we allow homosexuals to marry, then it won’t change what marriage means to us. It will continue to be a significant commitment to some (including an eternal commitment for Mormons) and a trivial commitment, or a big show, to others.

But, if you don’t think that keeping marriage the way it has been defined for so long now is preserving tradtional marriage, then I would be interested to know how YOU WOULD perserve it? I have asked this of other people in my life, and have yet to hear of a way that would realistically work. A compromise if you will.

(I am asking this in all sincerity, and not meaning it to come across as sarcastic as it sounds upon reading it. So please forgive me if this question seems sarcastic).

I agree with you that the line between what is good discrimination and what is unjust discrimination has evolved over time and it is different for each person. You probably draw the line to include preventing homosexual marriage as good, or at least acceptable, discrimination. I think I’m sitting on that line. I’m not sure if it is fair/just/good. I want to preserve traditional marriage, but I’m not sure that preventing homosexuals from marrying is a just way to do it. I think much of our society is also sitting on the line. Some are for, some against, and some aren’t sure.

At the same time, I am wanting to know where we draw the line.

Any ideas?

I agree. Laws do not define moral behavior.

“Would you say that Pornography is right? Probably not, but it is legal. How about gambling? Drinking? Smoking?”

Porn: bad.
Drinking: bad for Mormons. (Getting drunk: bad for all).
Smoking: bad for Mormons; unhealthy for everyone else.

“Slavery? (The last USED to be legal, now isn’t – and more than 1/3 thought that it WAS Right.) I only mention these beacuase they provide sucha good example for things that are legal, but MANY feel are WRONG, certainly more than 1/3 of the population.”

w/r/t slavery, 3/4 of the states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, so even if many people thought it was right at one time, by 1865 they agreed to do away with it. (Mississipi ratified the Amendment in 1995!)

Back to the thread: making homosexual marriage legal cannot make homosexuality morally correct or good. Many people who believe homosexuality is a sin do not want to discriminate against homosexuals by preventing them from marrying. Similarly, we don’t discriminate against adulterers, pornographers, or wine-bibbers by preventing them from being married. Homosexuality may be immoral, but so are many other behaviors that go unpunished in our society, because we believe people can disagree with us regarding what is moral and still enjoy all the same rights we do.

Since when does the fact that something is the law make it Right or not? All it does is make it legal. Would you say that Pornography is right? Probably not, but it is legal. How about gambling? Drinking? Smoking? Slavery? (The last USED to be legal, now isn’t – and more than 1/3 thought that it WAS Right.) I only mention these beacuase they provide sucha good example for things that are legal, but MANY feel are WRONG, certainly more than 1/3 of the population.

Personally, I believe that we do need to stand up and fight against things that we belive are morally wrong. If we compromise on SOME moral issues, why not on others? We no longer really then have the right to say what is morally right or wrong, do we?

I can understand and respect (to and extent) where the gay community is comming from – I really can. But at the same time, I have a real big problem with that whole “I was born that way, so therefore it is ok” line. The same thing has been used as an excuse by others who have made bad moral choices in the past. They say that since it is the way nature, or God, amde them then it is ok.

When I hear that, I have a tendency to think of the scripture that says “The natural man is an enemy of God.”

So again, and I don’t want to seem like I am beating a dead horse here, but where do we draw the line? At what point do we say enough is enough? If we keep allowing all the “tolerance” that we are currently allowing, don’t be surprised if one day we wake up to find ourselves in the modern Sodam and Gomorrah.

Anotehr thing, I find it extremely ammusing (i.e. frustrating) that those who have a tendency to scream for tolerance for their own behavior, never seem willing to allow it for others with different view points? Why is that?

Finally, and this could possibly be the most important question, when did the U.S. Constitution become moot? Saying that, aren’t you in effect saying that it, and the protections that it offers, is no longer important? I don’t know if this qualifies as a strawman argument or not, but I am asking questions based off of what you said.”

Ugh. This was surely a heartfelt statement, but it’s reading a bit much into my argument, or perhaps I was unclear. Sometimes I get so succinct, I lose meaning. What I meant was the following:

Discussion of the U.S. Constitution is moot when discussing the CA Supreme Court decision that preventing homosexuals from marrying is unconstitutional under the California constitution.

The CA Supreme Court decision was not based on the U.S. Constitution, rather the CA constitution. So my discussion about constitutionality was directed to California, not the U.S. If the U.S. Supreme Court said it was a violation of a federal right to prohibit homosexuals from marrying, we’d have to pass a national amendment to overturn it.

“I asked who is the one that decides what is just and unjust?”

I thought this was a rhetorical question. But if you want an answer, here’s my best shot.

The legislature passes laws, and in CA the voters pass referenda to put laws on the books. In this sense, the “People” and the “States” decide what is unjust discrimination, either by 51% of the vote or by legislation. The courts then decide whether those laws are constitutional. Hypothetically, the court will not consider what is “fair” or “just”; rather it will decide what is allowed by the constitution. But the courts are made of humans, so often times they decide what is just or unjust, and then justify their decisions with wording from the constitution. If the courts decide a law is not allowed by the constitution, it is struck down.

Then, if the people disagree with the court, they can amend the constitution, usually by 2/3 vote of the people and legislature, or a similar standard. In this sense, 2/3 of the People and legislature decide what is just and unjust.

You also expressed concern that this argument (unjust discrimination) could be used to push for allowing marriages/sex with minors. Perhaps that is true, but as I said in my previous post, I believe it is just/fair/good discrimination. However, we live in a country where, if the justices in a court believe it is unconsitutional to prosecute an adult for having sex with minors and 1/3 of the people agree, then that is the law. That’s just how our system is set up.

You said: “Lee Wyatt: “Is this not an example of “unjust” discrimination?”

I don’t think so; do you? I believe it is “just” or good discrimination, since, among other reasons, it protects youth from making life-altering decisions before they are emotionally and mentally mature enough to make them. The ban against gay marriage has no such benefit.”

While this is part of an answer, it is not the complete one to the question that I asked. I asked who is the one that decides what is just and unjust?

I also said that I thought that those who would propose such a change in law (lowering the age so drastically) had some problems. I never said that I supported them, in fact I do not. What I am saying is that this is an example that some people are using today, not to mention a similar one that was made by gay rights proponents. At one time the argument for legalizing homosexual behavior (twenty to thirty years ago I beleive) was something along the lines of “discrimination is unjust when it prevents people from acting as others would in their daily lives.”

This is an interesting argument, because people say that this is only fair and right. That is what they said before, and that is what they will say again. It does not matter what you think is right and just (as you say it does not matter what I may think is right or just in this case) when, in a few years there are people who are going to advocate in a more active manner that it is ok to have just this type of relationship with those under the current age of consent. Heck it already is beginning to some extent in the media right now. An example of this is that Jamie Lynn Spears (CURRENT age 16) just had a baby, from a boyfriend who was over the age of 22 I think. That means that she was at least 15 when they began having intercourse. Is that person currently being prosecuted for statutory rape? No, all that the media is doing is saying “Congratulations!”

I have heard people say before, well that won’t happen. Guess what – it is. Right now, in the media it is being advocated, maybe not actively but certainly tacitly. All that it takes is someone to appeal to the “fairness” and “equality” that everyone is entitled to, and eventually it is going to change the minds of everyone in the nation. Again, I say that it has happend in the past, it will happen again in the future. After all, like you said:

“Even if I feel a ban on gay marriage is unjust discrimination, the people have a right to amend the constituion to allow unjust discrimination.”

What is to stop someone in the future saying the same thing about the situation I have outlined above? (And, by the way saying it simply won’t happen isn’t an answer. People have said that in the past about other things, and it has still happened.)

It is interesting that you can say that the discussion of the U.S. Constitution is moot, when that is the supreme law of the land, and if you agree that the people have spoken (as you said) then is that not correct as according to the U.S. Constitution?

Finally, and this could possibly be the most important question, when did the U.S. Constitution become moot? Saying that, aren’t you in effect saying that it, and the protections that it offers, is no longer important? I don’t know if this qualifies as a strawman argument or not, but I am asking questions based off of what you said.

I don’t think so; do you? I believe it is “just” or good discrimination, since, among other reasons, it protects youth from making life-altering decisions before they are emotionally and mentally mature enough to make them. The ban against gay marriage has no such benefit.

“I believe that in this case (what is going on in CA) the States AND People have both spoken.”

I don’t disagree that the People have spoken, but I think they may have passed an unconsitutional law. Under our system of government, the courts decide what is constitutional, which is what the CA court did. The only way the people can change the constitution is by amendment. Even if I feel a ban on gay marriage is unjust discrimination, the people have a right to amend the constituion to allow unjust discrimination.

“The line has already been drawn by the Constitution…”

Discussion of the U.S. Constitution is moot, since the CA Supreme Court was interpreting the CA state constitution.

Now come Dr. Neilsen and others who want it two ways. They want prophets when they like what they say and don’t want them as prophets when they don’t like what they say. Thus they saw the prophet in two like Isaiah. Great are the words of Isaiah except when we differ with him.

*Hebrews 11:37 (King James Version) They were stoned, they were sawn asunder

I hope that I am understanding this, and if I am not, then would you please help me to. You say here that discrimination is the “unjust” treatment of individuals.

Who defines unjust?

“I’ll let democracy decide. In Texas, you can marry at 16 with parental consent right now. I don’t think I would like marriages to be allowed any younger than that.”

Is this not an example of “unjust” discrimination? Are you not saying to a group of people (disregard the age for a moment) what they can and can’t do? There are some individuals out there (and granted, I personally think that they are some of the most disturbing people out there) who would like to have a marital relationship with “people” as young as 5. One could (and some have) make the argument that they are being “unjustly” persecuted against. The same used to be said about other types of behavior, and relationships that are now considered the norm.

“We draw the line at the constitution (state/federal, whichever applies). If discrimination isn’t allowed in the constitution and we want to discriminate, we have to amend the constitution.”

In the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Ammendments to the Constitution) it says this:
“X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I believe that in this case (what is going on in CA) the States AND People have both spoken. Why drag out the argument some more? The line has already been drawn by the Constitution, but it looks like once again there are those who want to erase that line, and redraw it somewhere else.

Interesting and lively discussions here and mostly respectful after Nick got off his high horse.

From a personal stand point, I believe what sames sex couples are demanding are not so much the rights of marriage (a properly drawn domestic partnership law could provide those all those rights except for unforeseeable common law issues) but they desire to force society and individuals to officially sanction and honor homosexual companionships. That is a tall order indeed.

For me the political is also personal with this issue.
I have acknowledged my brother’s homosexual companionship with a very kind man. I love my brother and like his companion and I will not honor their relationship anymore than I would honor an adulterous relationship of another family member. That is very frustrating for my brother so much so that he has worked hard to made me an outcast with other family members because I found occasion to absent myself from his commitment ceremony.

My personal experience is not so different from what is playing out in California.

By the way, I will support Proposition 9 with my funds and all the persuasive effort of which I am capable.

Unjust discrimination is not dependent upon whether it was ever allowed. It’s just treating one group unjustly relative to other groups: in this case, homosexuals relative to heterosexuals.

“there is a part of the Bill of Rights that says specifically that those rights not assigned to the federal government are reserved for the state. I think that this means the issue should be left up to the individual states as has been going along so far.”

This has been true so far. I think it will eventually go Federal, and the Supr. Ct. will decide it. I prefer that states decide the issue, though.

“If the people of the state of California approve of a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then that is their right (and Constitutional privilege).”

True and yet not. It is the right of the people of CA to approve a statute, but it is not their right to enact an unconsitutional statute. In that case, it is their right to amend the constitution (which is what they are trying to do now), since amendments to a constitution cannot be unconsitutional (they are the constitution).

“Does that mean you believe that the United States has been practicing a form of religious and matrimonial discrimination for the past 118 years?”

Yes.

“If so, then why have you not spoken up before about this (if you have, and I have missed it please forgive me).”

I don’t care much about polygamy. I have decided not to care about everything, and this is one of the things I don’t care about.

“If you have not, then is that not a little unfair on your part?”

Unfair against whom, myself? My Church? FLDS? I feel no obligation to care about everything, just the most important things. I don’t think polygamy is important (my ancestors had a different perspective, of course).

“Would you also support those individuals that would like to revisit the issue of polygamous marriages?”

Yes. We should either pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw both adultery and polygamy or we should allow them both under the present constitution.

“How about lowering the age of consent for people to enter into a marital relationship?”

I’ll let democracy decide. In Texas, you can marry at 16 with parental consent right now. I don’t think I would like marriages to be allowed any younger than that.

“In all honesty, where does one draw the line? If you could please help me understand, I would appreciate it greatly.”

We draw the line at the constitution (state/federal, whichever applies). If discrimination isn’t allowed in the constitution and we want to discriminate, we have to amend the constitution.

I hope that helped.

“Curt,
You are right that everyone’s belief system may be considered when we draft laws. But we should also consider, as the CA justices believe they did, what the constitution allows. If the consitution does not allow discrimination against a particular group, it is irrelevant whether the LDS belief system allows such discrimination. It is irrelevant whether God allows such discrimination. If the constitution doesn’t allow it, the law is struck down.

“it would be discriminatory to not also give the same rights to the belief system of those that are LDS”

This is true. It would be unjustly discriminatory to prevent LDS from marrying.”

Please correct me if I am wrong. But how can it be considered discriminatory if it never allowed it to begin with? I know and understand that this may seem a rather weak argument, but I really think that it helps to keep in mind that this could be considered one of those Constitutional arguments that have never been settled.

By this I mean that there is a part of the Bill of Rights that says specifically that those rights not assigned to the federal government are reserved for the state. I think that this means the issue should be left up to the individual states as has been going along so far. If the people of the state of California approve of a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then that is their right (and Constitutional privilege).

You say that you also think that it would be unjustly discriminatory to prevent LDS from marrying. Does that mean you believe that the United States has been practicing a form of religious and matrimonial discrimination for the past 118 years? If so, then why have you not spoken up before about this (if you have, and I have missed it please forgive me). If you have not, then is that not a little unfair on your part?

Would you also support those individuals that would like to revisit the issue of polygamous marriages? How about lowering the age of consent for people to enter into a marital relationship? In all honesty, where does one draw the line? If you could please help me understand, I would appreciate it greatly.

Thank you for your consideration and help.

Lee Wyatt

In fact, I wish the state had more power to decide which marriage it will or will not sanction as there are several types of people whom I believe should be prevented from marrying.

lcs

The only difference is, I don’t think anyone ELSE has a right to state recognition of their marriages either.

Civil Unions should be all ANYONE is entitled to under our system. The state absolutely needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. It has no business being there to begin with.

Your question is a good one. If I lived in California, I would wrestle with God regarding the recent pronouncement, and do what I felt he wanted me to. In this instance, I wouldn’t follow the Prophet’s counsel without getting my own confirmation first.

But a second answer to your question is that since Lance purposely framed the debate in secular and legal terms, we’ve been discussing the issue in secular and (somewhat) legal terms.

Curt,
You are right that everyone’s belief system may be considered when we draft laws. But we should also consider, as the CA justices believe they did, what the constitution allows. If the consitution does not allow discrimination against a particular group, it is irrelevant whether the LDS belief system allows such discrimination. It is irrelevant whether God allows such discrimination. If the constitution doesn’t allow it, the law is struck down.

“it would be discriminatory to not also give the same rights to the belief system of those that are LDS”

This is true. It would be unjustly discriminatory to prevent LDS from marrying.

Fair enough. Our point of disagreement isn’t here, but whether denying gays the right to marry is rational, since allowing gay marriage would not decrease baby-making among heterosexuals.

Lance: “You seem to think that refusing to sanction same sex marriage acts as an encouragement for heterosexual procreation. If that is your argument, then I find it silly in the extreme.”

I agree. I find it pretty silly as well. But that’s how I see your argument, because no one was ever arguing to take away heterosexual marriage, rather to prohibit (and now take away) gay marriage. So we were not granting marriage to heteros to promote child-making (they already had it), rather we were prohibiting gay marriage to promote child-making among heteros.

Lance said: “However, even if you were correct, that would not make the decision “irrational”, it would simply make it “ineffective”, and that is a policy decision which courts have no business second guessing.”

I see your point, but don’t agree with the conclusion(surprise). The test a court would look at is whether prohibiting gay marriage is a rational means to promote population growth. (You will probably argue that the test is whether granting marriage to only those who can make children is a rational means to promote population growth.) I haven’t brought myself to read the CA Supr Ct decision, so I don’t know if this is the test they applied.

NOYDMB said: I say unto thee: “Stop trying to impinge on my free speech.”

lol. Okay, I didn’t really lol, but I did chuckle in my heart.