Will Of The People, The Law, And The Church.

[treehugger]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.

Should a person seek redress through the courts even if that person holds an unpopular position. The statement from the Church seems to suggest that because the people have spoken, the one who felt wronged should not appeal to the law.

[Calm]

Link please?

[jwhitlock]

It suggests nothing of the sort. It's a specific response to a specific issue.

[treehugger]

It suggests nothing of the sort. It's a specific response to a specific issue.

What is being suggested in your opinion?

[volgadon]

What is being suggested in your opinion?

It never says that one shouldn't appeal to the law. It is asking the courts to uphold the majority results of two major votes on the same issue.

[treehugger]

It never says that one shouldn't appeal to the law. It is asking the courts to uphold the majority results of two major votes on the same issue.

I think that is what jwhitlock was getting at too. If what you suggest is true (I agree with your assessment), does it suggest that even if an individual has been wronged, the Courts should not find in favor of the individual who filed the suit, because the will of the people is too wrong that individual.

Edited July 29, 2012 by treehugger

[volgadon]

I think that is what jwhitlock was getting at too. If what you suggest is true (I agree with your assessment), does it suggest that even if an individual has been wronged, the Courts should not find in favor of the individual who filed the suit, because the will of the people is too wrong that individual.

If ifs and ands were pots and pans...

[ERayR]

I think that is what jwhitlock was getting at too. If what you suggest is true (I agree with your assessment), does it suggest that even if an individual has been wronged, the Courts should not find in favor of the individual who filed the suit, because the will of the people is too wrong that individual.

You appear to be either obtuse or digging a gotcha hole.

[jwhitlock]

What is being suggested in your opinion?

There's nothing being suggested. I don't see anything in the Church response other than a statement on a particular issue.

[jwhitlock]

Link please?

Ditto.

[CV75]

Should a person seek redress through the courts even if that person holds an unpopular position. The statement from the Church seems to suggest that because the people have spoken, the one who felt wronged should not appeal to the law.

I think it is only saying that in the USA's system of checks and balances, it is not the courts' role to redefine societal norms (definition of marriage) but to only judge the conformance the society's laws with the defined norms.

Edited July 29, 2012 by CV75

[blackstrap]

Is it possible for the Supreme court to declare a part of the constitution,say the 14th amendment, unconstitutional?

[Libs]

People always have the right to petition the court, if they believe their rights are being violated. Constitutional rights can be violated, even by a majority vote. The courts have a duty to examine the complaint and make a ruling as they see fit (according to constitutional standards).

Edited July 29, 2012 by Libs

[treehugger]

Link please?

Ditto.

Google can be your friend

[treehugger]

There's nothing being suggested. I don't see anything in the Church response other than a statement on a particular issue.

is it your position then the Church did not say that Courts should not rule on a matter that has been voted on twice. Edited July 29, 2012 by treehugger

[jwhitlock]

is it your position then the Church did not say that Church should rule on a matter that has been voted on twice.

Your statement doesn't make any sense.

[treehugger]

People always have the right to petition the court, if they believe their rights are being violated. Constitutional rights can be violated, even by a majority vote. The courts have a duty to examine the complaint and make a ruling as they see fit (according to constitutional standards).

I think it is only saying that in the USA's system of checks and balances, it is not the courts' role to redefine societal norms (definition of marriage) but to only judge the conformance the society's laws with the defined norms.

A norm of society is due process and equal protection under the law. I think the statement from the Church is unfortunate in only the part which gives the impression that Courts should not in favor a individual when society is against that individual. Edited July 29, 2012 by treehugger

[treehugger]

Your statement doesn't make any sense.

thanks for the heads up, here is the correction

is it your position then the Church did not say that Courts should not rule on a matter that has been voted on twice.

[wenglund]

Should a person seek redress through the courts even if that person holds an unpopular position. The statement from the Church seems to suggest that because the people have spoken, the one who felt wronged should not appeal to the law.

The statement from the Church was silent about whether a person can/should or can't/shouldn't seek redress through the courts. It simply indicated its own position and how it believes the court should rule in the case of those supposedly seeking redress in this instance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

A norm of society is due process and equal protection under the law. I think the statement from the Church is unfortunate in only the part which gives the impression that Courts should not in favor a individual when society is against that individual.

It says, "Courts should not alter that definition [of marriage]", which reflects a correct understanding of the judiciary branch's role.

It also says, "especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject," which says the voice of the people (the society) has acted and passed a law based on society's definition.

I think it is difficult to interpret from that an "impression that Courts should not [it isn't clear what, insert verb here] in favor a individual when society is against that individual.

Edited July 29, 2012 by CV75

[treehugger]

The statement from the Church was silent about whether a person can/should or can't/shouldn't seek redress through the courts. It simply indicated its own position and how it believes the court should rule in the case of those supposedly seeking redress in this instance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you for the well stated response. Does the statement suggest that the Court should rule a certain way regardless of facts as they pertain to the person seeking redress.

Edited July 29, 2012 by treehugger

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Link please?

That would be great...I am not sure what this is about.

[Skylla]

Google can be your friend

Telling others to google something is not a reference. You need to provide a link to back up your statement.

Skylla

[wenglund]

Thank you for the well stated response. Does the statement suggest that the Court should rule a certain way regardless of facts as they pertain to the person seeking redress.

No. Not regardless of facts, but because of the facts as they have already been considered.

Essentially, the Church is advising against the courts overstepping their bounds via judicial fiat.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

The statement from the Church was silent about whether a person can/should or can't/shouldn't seek redress through the courts. It simply indicated its own position and how it believes the court should rule in the case of those supposedly seeking redress in this instance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Like I said, the courts need to rule according to what is constitutional, not according to how people feel about an issue. Minority rights have always been protected through the courts.