43 replies to this topic

[treehugger]

Quote

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.

[calmoriah]

Link please?

[jwhitlock]

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

[treehugger]

jwhitlock, on 28 July 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

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

What is being suggested in your opinion?

[volgadon]

treehugger, on 28 July 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

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]

volgadon, on 28 July 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

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 by treehugger, 28 July 2012 - 10:09 PM.

[volgadon]

treehugger, on 28 July 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

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]

treehugger, on 28 July 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

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]

treehugger, on 28 July 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

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]

calmoriah, on 28 July 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

Link please?

Ditto.

[CV75]

treehugger, on 28 July 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

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 by CV75, 29 July 2012 - 07:00 AM.

[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 by Libs, 29 July 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[treehugger]

calmoriah, on 28 July 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

Link please?

jwhitlock, on 29 July 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

Ditto.

Google can be your friend

[treehugger]

jwhitlock, on 29 July 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

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 by treehugger, 29 July 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[jwhitlock]

treehugger, on 29 July 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

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]

Libs, on 29 July 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

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).

CV75, on 29 July 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

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 by treehugger, 29 July 2012 - 01:22 PM.

[treehugger]

jwhitlock, on 29 July 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

Your statement doesn't make any sense.

thanks for the heads up, here is the correction

treehugger, on 29 July 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

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]

treehugger, on 28 July 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

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]

treehugger, on 29 July 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

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 by CV75, 29 July 2012 - 01:37 PM.