43 replies to this topic

[treehugger]

wenglund, on 29 July 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

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 by treehugger, 29 July 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Pa Pa]

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

Link please?

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

[Skylla]

treehugger, on 29 July 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

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]

treehugger, on 29 July 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

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]

wenglund, on 29 July 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

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.

[treehugger]

Google can   be your friend, and because I am so friendly, the link provided is to a Google search which provides multitude of references to the statement from the Church. For some of I suggest you click on the top link, which is to the Church newsroom.

Some of might be interested in the second link which is too gaymormonmen which is website dedicated to gay Mormon men serving honorably in the Church and priesthood.

Edited by treehugger, 29 July 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[wenglund]

Libs, on 29 July 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

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.

Sadly, some courts ignore the constitutions (prop 8 actually changed California's constitution) and go with their own personal feeling on the issue--i.e. they step beyonds the bounds of their own limited jurisdiction, and begin to legislate from the bench via judicial fiat. Sometimes, majority rights are unjustly trampled by the courts. Case in point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 29 July 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[Libs]

Yes, I realize that's your opinion.  

It's easy to say "rights have been trampled", when things don't go as you wished.

[CASteinman]

Libs, on 29 July 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Minority rights have always been protected through the courts.

Not true.

[Libs]

Well, you're right that they haven't always been protected...but, ultimately, it seems to have taken the courts to get the ball rolling in the right direction.

[CASteinman]

wenglund, on 29 July 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

prop 8 actually changed California's constitution

Yes, and this makes it rather strange that the State Supreme Court could have any say in the matter. By definition the altered parts of the Constitution are Constitutional.  Yet they have been involved (they upheld it).  Rather strange.

[CASteinman]

Libs, on 29 July 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Well, you're right that they haven't always been protected...but, ultimately, it seems to have taken the courts to get the ball rolling in the right direction.

This is modern propaganda.

[Libs]

Well, I don't think so and a simple assertion doesn't make it so.

[wenglund]

Libs, on 29 July 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

Yes, I realize that's your opinion.  

It's easy to say "rights have been trampled", when things don't go as you wished.

You are correct. This has been the lame hue and cry from gay advocates all along. It has been an arduous task educating them on what really are and aren't rights, and what this issue rationally comes down to--i.e. what is in everyone's best interest. It isn't easy bucking the profound ignorance and inanity of pop culture.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 29 July 2012 - 04:14 PM.

[Libs]

lol Wade....okay, I am excusing myself from this discussion.  I think I need not go there, so soon, again.

Hope you're having a nice Sunday.  

Edited by Libs, 29 July 2012 - 04:15 PM.

[CASteinman]

Libs, on 29 July 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Well, I don't think so and a simple assertion doesn't make it so.

And yet a simple assertion on your side is sufficient?

[Libs]

CASteinman, on 29 July 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

And yet a simple assertion on your side is sufficient?

In a word, no.  It's not sufficient from either of us.  But, as I said, I am going to bow out gracefully (this time).  

[CASteinman]

Libs, on 29 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

In a word, no.  It's not sufficient from either of us.  But, as I said, I am going to bow out gracefully (this time).  

You are right.  The discussion is tending toward the political.  Sorry!

[Libs]

CASteinman, on 29 July 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

You are right.  The discussion is tending toward the political.  Sorry!

Yes, I thought of that, as well.

[wenglund]

Libs, on 29 July 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

lol Wade....okay, I am excusing myself from this discussion.  I think I need not go there, so soon, again.

I am with you there as well. This issue is like a zombie movie: it doesn't matter how many times it is shot dead with the mortal ammo of sound reasoning, it keeps on rising up irrationally in all its decaying stench to haunt us. Time to change the channel and watch something productive..

Quote

Hope you're having a nice Sunday.  

Best to you on this Sabbath day as well. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 29 July 2012 - 04:43 PM.