tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post6030839890727602397..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Protecting Religious Freedom: LDS Apostle Elder Dallin H. Oaks Calls for Unity, Respect for Constitutional LibertyJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger204125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64960420509974259842012-11-16T11:39:25.172-06:002012-11-16T11:39:25.172-06:00A, As a fellow Christian with an open mind, like y...A, As a fellow Christian with an open mind, like you I'll say I love you in a 'Christian' way. cute comment on the state of cyber weaponry L.O.L.:) B, my comment. Knowing that the Gov. made a declaration of belief in one woman one man marriage, I can't help but to observe the possibility as a President, not wearing his faith hat to agree with gay marriage with a push for Polygamy as a legal form of marriage in at least two states of Utah and Arizona. Unfortunately, with my luck, as a fellow Mormon Sen. Reid would nix the law for political reasons. Alas, and please don't launch the cyber rockets, we'll never know because more people want to put the money in their 401-Ks into 'Robot Stock' and live like humans who today would 'own' robots, not slaves.CKoalaskidhttp://www.twitter.com/CKoalaskidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82646923333565614382011-02-18T14:36:32.987-06:002011-02-18T14:36:32.987-06:00@Pops
You wrote: "In 2008 the California Su...@Pops<br /><br />You wrote: "In 2008 the California Supreme Court struck the language "between a man and a woman", as well as Prop. 22."<br /><br />Yes, but what was the language before Prop 22? If CA law was so abundantly clear back in 2000, then why did the Knight and the LDS Church feel the need to come in and modify it with Prop 22?<br /><br />The answer is that it wasn't clear and that the Church was worried that the lack of clarity would allow gays to marry. So, they encouraged members of the church to do everything the could to pass Prop 22 and change the law such that it defined marriage as man and woman only.<br /><br />You wrote: "The issue of "public accommodation" seems to be the sticky wicket regarding racial discrimination."<br /><br />No doubt. And freedom of religion has to be vigorously defend but not by sacrificing constitutional guarantees of other minorities. That weakens the constitution and hurts us all.<br /><br />You wrote: "The Court asserts that gender-based roles in marriage are irrational."<br /><br />In the legal sense, they are because we have never enforced them and marriages are neither validated nor invalidated based on a couples performance to gender-based roles.<br /><br />You wrote: "The involvement of the Church in Prop. 8 was not to protect religious freedom, but to protect the institution of the family."<br /><br />And how did Prop 8 protect the religious freedom of those, like myself, who firmly believe that God has no problem with gay marriage? And how did it protect the institution of the family? What of the families of gay couples?Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04712904503847137200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39764046837827465702011-02-18T14:21:53.150-06:002011-02-18T14:21:53.150-06:00@Pops
You wrote: "That was my summary, not ...@Pops<br /><br />You wrote: "That was my summary, not a quotation."<br /><br />Well forgive me for not being entirely trusting of your summary given your take on the subject.<br /><br />You wrote: "The state does not have to require couples to act within those gender roles, it only has to demonstrate the advantage accrued to the state as a result of the different gender roles. It has to show the gender requirement to be "rationally related to some legitimate government interest."<br /><br />And that is where my argument that "nobody is trying to prohibit heterosexual marriage" came from. Even if heterosexual marriage was somehow deemed legally superior, there is no effort to take away from heterosexual marriage. Allowing gays to marry in no way diminishes the ability of heterosexuals to marry, nor does it damage their ability to act in specific gender roles.<br /><br />In order for the government to legally ban gay marriage, they would not only have to show that heterosexual marriage is somehow critical to the state but ALSO that heterosexual marriage would be damaged by allowing gay marriage.<br /><br />And, of course, they haven't shown that because it doesn't. And, as I stated, the state doesn't enforce gender roles within marriage so it cannot restrict entry into marriage based on gender.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04712904503847137200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79787376538574037712011-02-18T13:56:32.412-06:002011-02-18T13:56:32.412-06:00you said:
"Okay, so you tell us what lawsuits...you said:<br />"Okay, so you tell us what lawsuits are in the works. I can't read the minds of activists."<br /><br />Are you asking me to list all the lawsuits that people are making? I don't get what you mean here. Oaks was horribly far from the mark in all the examples he provided as each and every one of them was a case of anti-discriminatory laws working against someone that was trying to publicly discriminate. If people are starting to win lawsuits that force religions to perform gay marriage I have yet to see it. It's also humorous that Oaks used such examples as the church has in the past stated that it is against any discrimination of gay people, that they should be treated as equals but just not allowed to call their partnerships a "marriage". Then he goes on to criticize several lawsuits where people sued over being publicly discriminated against. :/<br /><br />you said:<br />"It's destructive to the legal system to change the definition of rights in order to achieve a back-door change to the definition of marriage."<br />As Brett has pointed out to you so many times that it's becoming dizzying, gays are allowed due process and protection under the constitution. I get that you don't think that the ability to have your marriage recognized falls into this category, but plenty of people disagree with you.<br /><br />"Since you missed the point, the rest of your assertion has no merit. But then it wouldn't have had merit anyway because you didn't consider the entire history of marriage in the state of California."<br /><br />Lol. Okay then. I'm assuming that what you mean by this is that gays were never allowed to be married in california even though it was never specifically stated and that it's only in our exceedingly evil times now that we had to re-clarify what, to you, should have been obvious. While I agree that this issue probably wasn't ever a prevalent one in the early 1900s that's a stupid argument to make IMO. Again there is no good reason why two people that are in love and fully capable of making a decision to be monogamously devoted to one another should be viewed any differently then any other couple. The good ole days when this discussion would have never existed are also the good ole days when racism was an institutional part of our nation as well as sexism. Admitting to being gay (not that it was less prevalent back then just dangerously stigmatized) was a good way to get oneself beat to death. Big surprise that people weren't lining up in droves to out themselves and try and get married. :P<br /><br />So we have not rational reason for denying them marriage, no constitutional basis for denying them the ability, and in the state of california we didn't have clear wording prohibiting it. Certain religions come along and push for this ability to be closed off and then act like victims when people start saying, "Well there's really not a good reason for the state to NOT recognize gay marriage."Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15212492449445239402011-02-18T13:42:35.630-06:002011-02-18T13:42:35.630-06:00Again what rational reasons does the state have fo...<i>Again what rational reasons does the state have for needing to cut off the ability for same sex partners to get married in the state of California? </i><br /><br />You're looking at this upside-down. Marriage is a positive action on the part of the state, not a prohibition. That's why it's not a natural right. When a coworker gets a bonus, do you consider it a punishment to everyone else?<br /><br /><i>..but where is your rational justification of this?</i><br /><br />I'm guessing you must be skipping my comments.<br /><br /><i>Why does your interpretation of what is a marriage get to trump theirs? </i><br /><br />You're steering the conversation in a different direction by conflating how I might feel about gay marriage with how I feel about legal mischief. I've never said that my interpretation of marriage ought to trump anyone else's interpretation. I've said it several times already, and I'll say it again: if you would like to change the definition of marriage, please do so by legally-acceptable means.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-7037655959583317642011-02-18T13:33:24.501-06:002011-02-18T13:33:24.501-06:00You're creating this ridiculous argument that ...<i>You're creating this ridiculous argument that we need to deny gays the right to marry because...</i><br /><br />Okay, so you tell us what lawsuits are in the works. I can't read the minds of activists.<br /><br /><i>You can keep making this argument that it's destructive to change the definition of marriage...</i><br /><br />It's destructive to the legal system to change the definition of <b>rights</b> in order to achieve a back-door change to the definition of <b>marriage</b>.<br /><br /><i>... but that's EXACTLY what prop 8 did. It changed the def to be exclusive to heterosexual couples.</i><br /><br />Since you missed the point, the rest of your assertion has no merit. But then it wouldn't have had merit anyway because you didn't consider the entire history of marriage in the state of California.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67135160639449685192011-02-18T13:28:53.174-06:002011-02-18T13:28:53.174-06:00"When a law creates a classification but neit..."When a law creates a classification but neither targets a suspect class nor burdens a fundamental right, the court presumes the law is valid and will uphold it as long as it is rationally related to some legitimate government interest."<br /><br />Now we already know that you don't consider marriage as a "right" (which I highly doubt you would stick to if your ability to have a state recognizes heterosexual marriage was under fire) so I'll let that rest, but how is prop 8 NOT targeting a 'suspect class'? Am I not understanding the wording here? <br /><br />Again what rational reasons does the state have for needing to cut off the ability for same sex partners to get married in the state of California? From a state position the same sex couples are doing the same stuff the hetero couples are. They're working, paying taxes, buying houses and businesses, and raising children. Now you can say "well they can't raise children as well as straight couples can!" but where is your rational justification of this? You're going off your personal feelings but there are plenty of examples of both good and bad parenting in both same and hetero sex couples. Your beef with homosexual marriage has nothing to do with a rational analysis of what works and is coming from your interpretation of what religion teaches against same sex relationships. While prophets are perfectly free to voice their strong opinions condemning homosexual relationships there are and will continue to be happy monogomous and christian gay couples out there. Why does your interpretation of what is a marriage get to trump theirs? <br /><br />I've said it before but if I could wave a wand the state wouldn't recognize marriage and it would be civil unions all around since people can't seem to deal with the idea that the state isn't there to make everyone else follow what you believe. You'd think the LDS church would get that since it's often been on the other end of this sort of issue (with things like polygamous marriage.)Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43578816779469118302011-02-18T13:12:32.331-06:002011-02-18T13:12:32.331-06:00"Well, there you go - anyone who predicts neg..."Well, there you go - anyone who predicts negative consequences as a result of judicial mischief apparently suffers from some sort of fanaticism. The logic seems be that if none of the things suggested as possible have ever happened, they cannot happen. That's not a rational position."<br /><br />You're creating this ridiculous argument that we need to deny gays the right to marry because otherwise the church will be forced to perform gay marriage. <br /><br />First off those are two COMPLETELY separate issues. How are you assuming they are one and the same? As Brett noted there ARE states where gay marriage is legal and the church has not been forced to perform gay marriage.<br /><br />Secondly we have good evidence to suggest that this will not be the case as this has never been the case in the past. Does that mean things can't change in the future? No. Yet if you want to use that sort of reasoning why not outlaw the use of alcohol for fear that the state will force you to allow drinking in the temple? Freedom to worship as one pleases is one thing. Getting to have the state back up your personal feelings on what is an acceptable marriage is a totally different one. In order for YOUR religion's ideals to be held up it means that the religious viewpoints that are in opposition must be pushed down. For someone arguing on behalf of religious freedom you have a funny way of doing it. <br /><br />I think maybe the primary reason you and I will probably never agree on this subject is that you really can't seem to accept the reality that homosexuals aren't just people that want to trample god's laws and be rebelious. They honestly and truly are the way they are. They really do find the same gender to be attractive in the same way that you are attracted to your wife. They really honestly do get love, companionship and stability from their same gender relationships in the same way I assume you do with your wife. They truely are capable (not all of them but then the same goes for heterosexual parternships) of raising families with strong moral values (even if the values may not be exactly the same as yours on all fronts you'd be surprised how many of them are similar) and ethics. If you were truly able to see that you'd be able to see why telling them that what they have is not allowed to be referred to as a marriage because they're going to try and destroy the fabric of america with their gayness or ruin freedom of religion, is such a ridiculous thing to be saying. <br /><br />So far I'm not seeing any arguments you've made that couldn't have been used against the women's suffrage movement. You can keep making this argument that it's destructive to change the definition of marriage but that's EXACTLY what prop 8 did. It changed the def to be exclusive to heterosexual couples. What this really comes down to has nothing to do with worries that changing legal definitions will destroy america and everything to do with you believing that homosexuality is a sinful behavior and that if it's condoned in any way by the state that the gays are going to start spreading everywhere and destroy morality.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3693717571865982222011-02-18T13:08:30.833-06:002011-02-18T13:08:30.833-06:00Where is that? It's a rather lengthy document,...<i>Where is that? It's a rather lengthy document, could you provide us with a page number so we can get the full context?</i><br /><br />That was my summary, not a quotation. <br /><br /><i>Has anyone suggested prohibiting heterosexual marriage?</i><br /><br />The point I was making is that a heterosexual marriage is, in fact, superior to a homosexual marriage due to the synergy of complementary partners. I'm not sure where "prohibiting heterosexual marriage" came from...<br /><br /><i>That would only be true IF the state required those entering marriage to act within those specific gender roles. It clearly does not.</i><br /><br />The state does not have to require couples to act within those gender roles, it only has to demonstrate the advantage accrued to the state as a result of the different gender roles. It has to show the gender requirement to be "rationally related to some legitimate government interest."Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46342694272895417952011-02-18T12:53:21.724-06:002011-02-18T12:53:21.724-06:00But it didn't.
There are many aspects of marr...<i>But it didn't.</i><br /><br />There are many aspects of marriage not explicit in the law. In the District Court ruling, for example, one finding of fact was "When California became a state in 1850, marriage was understood to require a husband and a wife...". Subsequent findings relate that in the 1970s several homosexual couples sought marriage on the basis of changes to the age-of-consent wording. At this point in time the California legislature responded by clarifying what was meant by marriage, e.g. "one man and one woman". In 2008 the California Supreme Court struck the language "between a man and a woman", as well as Prop. 22. So the only access to marriage for homosexual couples was provided by judges who changed the law, not by anything inherent in the law as understood and practiced prior to that ruling.<br /><br /><i>Well, that didn't happen with respect to civil rights for blacks when we kept them out of the priesthood and the temple.</i><br /><br />It isn't clear that it could not have happened. Try opening a restaurant that caters only to whites and see how it takes before you land in court. The issue of "public accommodation" seems to be the sticky wicket regarding racial discrimination.<br /><br /><i>The LDS Church and you seem to justify the voting away of constitutional guarantees of homosexuals as a means of protecting our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.</i><br /><br />No. As stated by the United States District Court for the District of Northern California (sorry about the Ninth Circuit reference), "When a law creates a classification but neither targets a suspect class nor burdens a fundamental right, the court presumes the law is valid and will uphold it as long as it is rationally related to some legitimate government interest."<br /><br />The Court asserts that gender-based roles in marriage are irrational. The Church claims that gender-based roles are both rational and essential. The involvement of the Church in Prop. 8 was not to protect religious freedom, but to protect the institution of the family.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49413731992482102052011-02-18T09:27:07.570-06:002011-02-18T09:27:07.570-06:00@Pops
You wrote: "The decision overturning ...@Pops<br /><br />You wrote: "The decision overturning Prop. 8 stated explicitly that the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses - the justifications for the decision - do not apply if it is true that:"<br /><br />Where is that? It's a rather lengthy document, could you provide us with a page number so we can get the full context?<br /><br />You wrote: "In other words, if these two assertions are true, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court is in error..."<br /><br />The Ninth Circuit hasn't ruled on the Prop 8 case yet.<br /><br />You wrote: "Among many things ignored by the court is the reality that heterosexual marriage is the union of two complementary human beings, resulting in a synergy that is not possible from the combination of two like parts."<br /><br />Has anyone suggested prohibiting heterosexual marriage?<br /><br />You wrote: "That this synergy arises specifically from gender differences makes it legally and constitutionally proper for the state to restrict marriage to "one man and one woman."<br /><br />That would only be true IF the state required those entering marriage to act within those specific gender roles. It clearly does not.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04712904503847137200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42422713835502928992011-02-18T09:22:24.415-06:002011-02-18T09:22:24.415-06:00@Pops
You wrote: "Marriage as defined by th...@Pops<br /><br />You wrote: "Marriage as defined by the state stipulates "one man and one woman". Those who wish to change it should do so by the means provided."<br /><br />But it didn't. At least not in California and a number of other states. It didn't say that in federal law either. Those who are against marriage equality decided to change the definition to exclude gays. And yes, they did it with a ballot initiative. But do you not see the problem with that? As populations and attitudes change we can arbitrarily go back and forth regarding which marriages are valid. There are already groups preparing to put new initiatives on the ballot in CA to legalize gay marriage and attitudes have changed enough that they will likely be successful. It's a ridiculous thing to put to a vote.<br /><br />You quoted Oaks: "All of this shows an alarming trajectory of events pointing toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by forcing it to give way to the ‘rights’ of those offended by such speech"<br /><br />And we all agree that freedom of religious speech should not, must not be constrained. There is no right to NOT be offended. But there are constitutional guarantees to due process and equal protection and those require that we extend marriage to gay couples.<br /><br />You wrote: "A Church that teaches against homosexual behavior stands to lose its standing as a legitimate religion."<br /><br />Well, that didn't happen with respect to civil rights for blacks when we kept them out of the priesthood and the temple. Nor did it happen after interracial marriage bans were removed by SCOTUS. It hasn't happened with equal rights for women. And it hasn't happened in the states where gay marriage is legal. But, as you said, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. And I agree that we have to vigorously defend freedom of religion. But, I don't agree that taking away the constitutional guarantees of others will somehow help protect ours.<br /><br />The LDS Church and you seem to justify the voting away of constitutional guarantees of homosexuals as a means of protecting our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.<br /><br />That's a dangerous route to take.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04712904503847137200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46493145219515622732011-02-18T08:22:45.092-06:002011-02-18T08:22:45.092-06:00The decision overturning Prop. 8 stated explicitly...The decision overturning Prop. 8 stated explicitly that the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses - the justifications for the decision - do not apply if it is true that:<br /><br />1. There are gender-based differences in human beings, and <br /><br />2. Those gender-based differences produce a better outcome in marriage from the perspective of the state.<br /><br />In other words, if these two assertions are true, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court is in error and the state is justified in enforcing gender requirements in marriage.<br /><br />The first is quite obviously true. Physical and psychological differences between the genders are well-known and well-documented. I don't know that the court addressed this one - I assume it felt the need to eliminate only one of the two and apparently felt the second was the easiest target.<br /><br />But even though the second is clearly true also, the court rejected the notion of gender-based roles on the basis of anecdotal evidence, the observation that gays and lesbians will "feel bad" if denied the "right" to marriage, and a handful of academic studies.<br /><br />Among many things ignored by the court is the reality that heterosexual marriage is the union of two complementary human beings, resulting in a synergy that is not possible from the combination of two like parts. That this synergy arises specifically from gender differences makes it legally and constitutionally proper for the state to restrict marriage to "one man and one woman."Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85717539959417032732011-02-18T07:45:49.772-06:002011-02-18T07:45:49.772-06:00Well, there you go - anyone who predicts negative ...Well, there you go - anyone who predicts negative consequences as a result of judicial mischief apparently suffers from some sort of fanaticism. The logic seems be that if none of the things suggested as possible have ever happened, they cannot happen. That's not a rational position.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13594436255008957672011-02-18T00:00:33.299-06:002011-02-18T00:00:33.299-06:00"A Church that teaches against homosexual beh..."A Church that teaches against homosexual behavior stands to lose its standing as a legitimate religion."<br /><br />Right because we've obviously seen that this is the case with the plethora of things the church sees as sinful and evil, yet are perfectly legal. It's illegal to tell a woman she can't be hired for a position due to her gender, yet the church is still seen as a "legitimate" religion and has very defined gender roles with women not allowed to hold the priesthood no matter how much the petition it.<br /><br />You're building a fanatical threat of a dystopia that is not grounded in reality here. That society may look down on the LDS church for it's views may be likely, but then again there's already plenty of fuel for that as it is. If the state wants to start forcing the LDS church to add gay marriage to it's temple ceremonies, or forcing women to be allowed the priesthood or forcing the church to admit those that would otherwise be "unworthy" into getting temple admittance, then I will gladly defend it's freedoms. As of yet, none of those things have happened.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31797863194929580612011-02-17T23:49:34.081-06:002011-02-17T23:49:34.081-06:00When a belief is viewed by the courts as legally r...When a belief is viewed by the courts as legally repugnant, legal action is justified against those who act on the basis of said belief. For example, the refusal of the LDS Church to perform gay marriages in their temples becomes actionable. A Church that teaches against homosexual behavior stands to lose its standing as a legitimate religion.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-7392537898278421792011-02-17T23:44:50.575-06:002011-02-17T23:44:50.575-06:00Brett:
Then you said you can't change the con...Brett:<br /><br /><i>Then you said you can't change the contract.</i><br /><br />Pops - 9:26 AM, February 13, 2011:<br /><br /><i>Marriage as defined by the state stipulates "one man and one woman". Those who wish to change it should do so by the means provided.</i><br /><br />Brett:<br /><br /><i>Actually, the point Oaks was trying to make is that constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion appear to be threatened.</i><br /><br />From the original post:<br /><br /><i>"All of this shows an alarming trajectory of events pointing toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by forcing it to give way to the ‘rights’ of those offended by such speech,” Elder Oaks said.</i> [Note 'rights' in quotes - meaning they are fabricated rights, rights according to a new definition of the term.]Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43776963402530443032011-02-17T22:55:59.044-06:002011-02-17T22:55:59.044-06:00@Pops
You wrote: "The subject was changing ...@Pops<br /><br />You wrote: "The subject was changing the definition of rights, not the definition of marriage."<br /><br />I apologize... I guess in the chain of messages I got confused.<br /><br />But, I thought for the sake of argument we had dismissed marriage as a right. You said, it's a contract. I said, okay, let's discuss it as a contract. Then you said you can't change the contract.<br /><br />My argument from my last two posts still stands and you have not refuted it. I'll continue to discuss marriage as a contract (even though the Supreme Court said it was a right four decades ago). And it is a contract that happens to come with a long list of legal benefits. Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection require that we allow gay couples as well as straight couples to enter into marriage.<br /><br />I haven't discussed changing the definition of "right". That's a straw man that you continue to insert.<br /><br />You wrote: "When willy-nilly substitutions are made in order to achieve in the courts what cannot otherwise be achieved is legal mischief that will have far-reaching legal consequences."<br /><br />No "willy-nilly" substitutions have been made.<br /><br />How is it NOT legal mischief for the majority to try and vote away constitutional guarantees from a minority?<br /><br />And you still have not told us what legal consequences could possibly result.<br /><br />You wrote: "Once again (sigh), that was the point Elder Oaks was trying to make."<br /><br />Actually, the point Oaks was trying to make is that constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion appear to be threatened. That is a concern to me. It is one of the reasons that I think overturning Prop 8 is so vital: We cannot allow a majority vote to remove constitutional guarantees from anyone. Allowing Prop 8 to stand sets a very dangerous precedent... the very danger that Oaks fears.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04712904503847137200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-337350067535927442011-02-17T19:25:39.790-06:002011-02-17T19:25:39.790-06:00Wow, this is much harder than I thought it should ...Wow, this is much harder than I thought it should be.<br /><br /><i>No, you cannot change the definition of standard deviation...</i><br /><br /><i>Marriage, on the other hand...</i><br /><br />The subject was changing the definition of <b>rights</b>, not the definition of marriage.<br /><br />A lot of jurisprudence depends on a specific definition - or definitions - of the term <b>rights</b>. When willy-nilly substitutions are made in order to achieve in the courts what cannot otherwise be achieved is legal mischief that will have far-reaching legal consequences. Once again (sigh), that was the point Elder Oaks was trying to make.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40916564484370332162011-02-17T12:24:03.152-06:002011-02-17T12:24:03.152-06:00@pops,
"which is true but not particularly ...@pops,<br /> "which is true but not particularly useful in exploring the consequence of changing what has worked for millennia. "<br /><br />Wow... really? You do realize how wonderfully this sentence would fit into a KKK rally, right? Majority groups will ALWAYS use this excuse when a minority group starts gaining any sort of ground.<br /><br />Homosexuals aren't just suddenly springing out of the ground due to a wicked society, despite what some wish to believe. They've always been there, and in the past their "condition" has been so publicly hated that they tended to keep a lot quieter and try to ignore what they were usually to pretty bad results. As America has become more and more a land of the "free" as time has gone on fringe groups of minorities have become more brave in speaking up for themselves. <br /><br />That Gays in the past have not been allowed to have a publicly accepted form to show their commitment and love for each other is, as I see it, an injustice, and has no logical basis other then, "ewww gross! Gay people are nasty and I don't want anything that reminds me of the horrible things that they engage in!" Many people in the US right now have no issue at all with changing state laws to prohibit such marriages but then somehow justify their decisions by saying that this is how it HAS to be. Also by pretending that what the federal government recognizes as a marriage MUST fall in line with what their personal religion teaches on the matter. Yet you don't see glaring issues with this? You can't see how that in itself is where the real danger to freedom of religion springs from? <br /><br />Living in a free and just nation means you're going to be surrounded by new and different things. You're welcome to have personal beliefs as to the righteousness of such decisions, but if you're advocating privilege be withheld from certain groups because they make you uncomfortable then it's something I wholeheartedly would fight against.<br /><br />"The position of the LDS Church on Prop 8 is that society will in fact suffer harm if gender roles are erased from the family, and that it is in the best interest of the state to preserve the historical definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman."<br /><br />Do you have any idea how many straight marriages are ending in divorce? There are TONS of kids that are not growing up with traditional gender roles or a "nuclear" family set up and I meet tons of them every day. Know what? They aren't bad people. They're well adjusted, successful, and most of them have healthy attitudes towards their own marriages and families. While the upbringing of others may be WAY different then what the LDS philosophies promote this is not a horrible thing in fact in some cases this dogmatic adherence to how a family is SUPPOSED to be causes a lot of problems for people. They have these expectations about how life is supposed to be if they are righteous and they follow all the rules and then get a completely different outcome and feel horrible about themselves. Thankfully the church is very aware of this and GA talk quite often about the importance and variety of living a good life even if you are never able to have a family. Long story short the idea that the "gays" are going to erode society is just as logical as the one that stated that inter-racial marriage would erode the fabric of society (and the exact same accusations were being made during that point in history as well.)Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50255287847157293332011-02-17T10:55:43.251-06:002011-02-17T10:55:43.251-06:00@Pops
You wrote: "It went beyond that, to t...@Pops<br /><br />You wrote: "It went beyond that, to the point of saying that one set of beliefs is legally repugnant."<br /><br />To those of us who see this as a constitutional issue of equality, equivalent to the Loving v. Virginia case, it is legally repugnant. I support anyone's rights to believe that marriage is whatever their religious beliefs profess it to be. But, that shouldn't be enforced on the rest of the population in a constitutional republic.<br /><br />You wrote: "This is where you hold the advantage of saying, "That's just your opinion of what might happen", which is true but not particularly useful in exploring the consequence of changing what has worked for millennia."<br /><br />Predicting future change is definitely going to be a game of opinion. But, I don't think that you have yet to venture an opinion as to what the consequences will be. And, if you are going to say "what has worked for millenia" then you must also reinstate polygamy and wives as property. Why was it okay to change marriage to eliminate those concepts?<br /><br />You asked: "Where is the case that nothing bad will come from the change? Where is the case that anything good will come from the change? Why change?"<br /><br />I'm not suggesting a change. Prop 22 is what changed (temporarily) CA law. Prop 8 sought to change the CA constitution. Federal DOMA legislation was passed in order to prevent gays from marrying. Eliminating all of those enables marriage equality because marriage wasn't legally defined as man & woman.<br /><br />But, if it wasn't that way and if there are jurisdictions where marriage is defined as exclusively heterosexual unions then I would say that those who are making the case for NOT allowing equality have the burden of proof.<br /><br />The good that would come from getting the government out of the way and allowing gays to marry is that we would eliminate the labeling of a minority as second-class citizens. It might also help with acceptance and reducing the number of gay teens that kill themselves. It would likely reduce the number of homosexuals shamed into heterosexual marriages only to find out, several kids down the road, that they can't hold together such a union (if you really care about the protection of children, you ought to do some research on that topic). It would uphold the church doctrine in D&C 134 and Article of Faith 11. It would show that we live Christ's command to love our neighbor as ourselves.<br /><br />And yes, those are just my opinions.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04712904503847137200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61220478264760517842011-02-17T10:07:52.210-06:002011-02-17T10:07:52.210-06:00@Pops
You wrote: "So, you don't think th...@Pops<br /><br />You wrote: "So, you don't think that changing the definition of "standard deviation" would have any effect on the field of statistics."<br /><br />No, you cannot change the definition of standard deviation. It is what it is, and like you said, at a minimum it would create mass confusion.<br /><br />But, the analogy is incorrect. Standard deviation is a formula to calculate a known value.<br /><br />Marriage, on the other hand, is a legal construct. You fought vigorously to defend it as nothing more than a contract. While it provides (and will continue to provide) great benefits in terms of raising children - we have never required that it be used as such.<br /><br />The idea that marriage should be defined as only a man & woman is rooted in religious and societal norms. As the judge wrote, those societal norms have changed. And as Oaks argues and D&C 134 supports, one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should never be forced on anyone else.<br /><br />So, your "standard deviation definition" analogy doesn't hold. Standard deviation is not based on societal norms nor religious beliefs.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04712904503847137200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3051310835963353072011-02-17T08:26:54.557-06:002011-02-17T08:26:54.557-06:00The judge isn't stating that religious or pers...<i>The judge isn't stating that religious or personal beliefs have to change with regard to gender roles in marriage. Just that they are not uniform across society.</i><br /><br />It went beyond that, to the point of saying that one set of beliefs is legally repugnant.<br /><br /><i>But you haven't made a case as to what that harm would be.</i><br /><br />This is where you hold the advantage of saying, "That's just your opinion of what might happen", which is true but not particularly useful in exploring the consequence of changing what has worked for millennia. Where is the case that nothing bad will come from the change? Where is the case that anything good will come from the change? Why change?Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79421543745323275172011-02-17T08:18:03.497-06:002011-02-17T08:18:03.497-06:00I understand the case you are trying to make but I...<i>I understand the case you are trying to make but I'm not buying it.</i><br /><br />So, you don't think that changing the definition of "standard deviation" would have any effect on the field of statistics. Curious.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13423261586109715252011-02-17T07:52:58.047-06:002011-02-17T07:52:58.047-06:00@Pops
You wrote: "I might add that the &quo...@Pops<br /><br />You wrote: "I might add that the "That time has passed" assertion was a necessary premise for both the due process and equal protection conclusions. Without it, the ruling wouldn't hold water."<br /><br />The judge isn't stating that religious or personal beliefs have to change with regard to gender roles in marriage. Just that they are not uniform across society. Our own scripture (D&C 134) requires that we support such a conclusion by not dictating forms of worship (and marriage is a form a worship) for those outside of the church.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04712904503847137200noreply@blogger.com