Plantiff Files Prop 8 Brief For Supreme Court

[rockpond]

I'm grateful to be counting down the months until Prop 8 & DOMA are finally put to rest.

And, I humbly & prayerfully hope for a day when our homosexual brothers & sisters can marry those they love and still sit next to my family on the pew, partaking of the sacrament with us.

[california boy]

They have had that right in California for years by way of civil unions. Again, this isn't what the Prop 8 controversy was about. As previously indicated, the issue wasn't about civil rights, but about legal definitions. The gays weren't satisfied with having all the rights. They wanted to bastardize the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and Prop 8 prevented that from happening,. The California Supreme Court couldn't legitimately over turn it (since Prop * amended the state's constitution), and so gay advocates took it to the federal courts where it has been twice over-turned for differing reasons, and is now on appeal to the SCOTUS.

I realize that you may have been told differently, but this is the demonstrable truth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am sorry but you are completely mischaracterizing the issue to suit your own justification for what you personally want to have happen. I will be glad when this kind of ranting will be in the dust bin of history.

[EllenMaksoud]

Yes...some people think the government in general, and the courts in particular, are the solution to their problem (emotional, social, and otherwise). Given enough time, they may come to learn differently. However, by then it may be too late. We, as a society, seem far more concerned with people's feeling rather than doing what is right and what works best for one and all. What can you do?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A few, or several, um actually many years ago, my how time flies, in a history course, the prof was saying how most empires only last a certain amount of time. Hmmm, we see the pride cycle at work in the BoM constantly. It wears me out. I am thinking that we are approaching a civil war. Like the last one, I had families on both sides. I wonder if I will be that way?

[cdowis]

Proposition 8 in California set marriage to be strictly between one man / one woman. The California supreme court had previously created a "right" for people to marry someone of the same sex,

Courts do not create rights. They only recognize rights that are already in the constitution or in law. They gave an opinion, and this interpretation was appealed to a higher court.

[Damien the Leper]

Thankfully religious standards and ethics aren't the actual standard. We have grown up quite a bit since then.

[wenglund]

I am sorry but you are completely mischaracterizing the issue to suit your own justification for what you personally want to have happen.

False...and you know it. You can stop pretending. Yous side has effectively won. The propaganda worked. Feel free to celebrate the normalizing of perversion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

you are out of the thread for inflammatory language

[california boy]

False...and you know it. You can stop pretending. Yous side has effectively won. The propaganda worked. Feel free to celebrate the normalizing of perversion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your attitude is the same as anti-Mormons who demand that they know what Mormons belief and insist that Mormons are lying or covering up their "real" beliefs. I have about as much distain for straight men who think they know what the "gay community" actually believes, professes or practices as I do for anti-Mormons who know what Mormons actually believe, profess or practice. You are that guy, doing the same exact thing.

[TAO]

Your attitude is the same as anti-Mormons who demand that they know what Mormons belief and insist that Mormons are lying or covering up their "real" beliefs. I have about as much distain for straight men who think they know what the "gay community" actually believes, professes or practices as I do for anti-Mormons who know what Mormons actually believe, profess or practice. You are that guy, doing the same exact thing.

California Boy, I think it's possible for an anti-Mormon to know what a Mormon practices and believe, they just dislike it or look at it differently than we do. Similarly, I'm sure it's quite possible to know what a homosexual practices or believes, but to dislike it or look at it differently than they do.

[Zeta-Flux]

I've followed this case very closely, ever since the first trial ruled over by Walker. The one thing I've been very surprised at is how it seems like the briefs filed by the plaintiffs get certain things so wrong. Just one example

The only substantive question in this case is whether the State is entitled to exclude gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage and deprive their relationships-their love-of the respect, and dignity and social acceptance, that heterosexual marriages enjoy. Proponents have not once set forth any justification for discriminating against gay men and lesbians by depriving them of this fundamental civil right.

As has been pointed out, gay men and lesbians are not excluded from the institution of marriage. That is simply a falsehood. They are not deprived of this "fundamental civil right". But the brief pulls off this bait-and-switch very well, by mixing in some truth. Their relationships are being denied the respect, dignity, and social acceptance that marriage enjoys. This sounds terrible, until one realizes the two types are relationships serve very different societal purposes, many of which are listed in the proponents' briefs.

But I don't expect to convince anyone, which is perhaps why I've not delved more deeply into the briefs this time around. I've found message boards a good place to clarify my own ideas, but not to convince others. Just one example: the whole question of whether California really did grant a right to same-sex marriage at some point hinges on whom one views as the ultimate arbiter of what the constitution means. Does that power rest in a single judge, the California supreme court, or the people of the state? I don't think anyone would argue that if a single judge had authorized gay-marriage, and the surpreme court had returned a verdict that the judge had interpreted the constitution incorrectly, then the surpreme court had "removed" a fundamental civil right. The question then becomes, if the supreme court rules that such a right exists, and the people reject that interpretation of the judges and enact a constitutional ammendment to clarify the issue, have they now removed a fundamental right, or simply overridden the (apparently incorrect) decision of the state supreme court. We could argue the merits of this ad naseum, but it is ultimately pointless.

We have made the case (as have the briefs) that restricting marriage to its historical roots of opposite gendered couples makes rational sense. You reject those reasons. Why do we continue to have a million threads on the subject? If someone really wants to dig in and discuss those reasons thoroughly, I'd be happy to do so on the "Focused discussion" part of this board. But it just doesn't interest me to have a conversation where I come back a few hours later, and there have been 3 pages of rehashed insulting posts. And, ultimately, this has little to do with anything Mormon.

[california boy]

California Boy, I think it's possible for an anti-Mormon to know what a Mormon practices and believe, they just dislike it or look at it differently than we do. Similarly, I'm sure it's quite possible to know what a homosexual practices or believes, but to dislike it or look at it differently than they do.

Have you ever told someone something about the church and they tell you that you are lying, and then proceed to tell you what the church "truly believes"? No matter how long you have been in the church, they are sure that their opinion is the right one and whatever you believe is wrong. It is the same when people who only know about being gay starts telling someone who is actually gay what being gay really means. The approach is the same. They have never lived in the gay community. They approach homosexuality with their own prejudices. Is all they know about being gay is what they read off the internet. They think that having a "gay friend" makes them an expert on what gays believe, practice, what their motives are, how they view marriage and what their "real agenda" is. And then they call someone who is actually gay a "liar" for disputing what they have decided must be true. I hear this all the time on this board as well as in person. "The only reason gays want to marry is because they feel guilty about their homosexual behavior. The only reason why they want marriage is because they want societies approval. All gays are terribly depressed and unhappy with their lives because they know that what they are doing is wrong. They just choose to be gay." Blah Blah Blah.

This is so similar to someone who is anti-Mormon. They approach Mormonism with their own prejudices. What they know about Mormonism is what they have read about on the internet. They may have a "Mormon friend". So therefore they feel they can tell a Mormon what they believe and accuse them of trying to hide the truth from the world. "Mormons worship Joseph Smith. Mormons believe it is ok to "lie for God" Blah Blah Blah. Sound familiar?

Wade's post is a perfect example of that kind of guy. It is the same.

[california boy]

As has been pointed out, gay men and lesbians are not excluded from the institution of marriage. That is simply a falsehood. They are not deprived of this "fundamental civil right". But the brief pulls off this bait-and-switch very well, by mixing in some truth. Their relationships are being denied the respect, dignity, and social acceptance that marriage enjoys. This sounds terrible, until one realizes the two types are relationships serve very different societal purposes, many of which are listed in the proponents' briefs.

I actually haven't started many threads about Prop 8 for the same reasons you express. The reason why I started this thread is because we now have actual briefs that are the actual legal arguments that will be used when this goes before the Supreme Court. Most of the arguments used on discussion boards have absolutely no basis in law or what would actually be presented in a court of law. The arguments are good for fireing up those that want to believe strongly that they are on the right side of the law. My intent in starting this thread is to actually talk about what legal arguments will be used and what counter arguments the opposing sides actually rebute those arguments with.

So my question to you is the same I asked cdowis

This seems to be a popular view of many that are against gay marriage. Oddily enough, it was not an argument used in the defenses brief they presented to the court. Do you have an opinion why they left this concept out of their arguments?

[TAO]

Have you ever told someone something about the church and they tell you that you are lying, and then proceed to tell you what the church "truly believes"?

Not personally. I've heard of people who have done this though. They can believe what they want, even if I think it's wrong though.

More commonly though, I come up with people who have different interpretations on things.

No matter how long you have been in the church, they are sure that their opinion is the right one and whatever you believe is wrong.

This is pretty much everyone. Me included =p.

It is the same when people who only know about being gay starts telling someone who is actually gay what being gay really means. The approach is the same. They have never lived in the gay community.

Yeah, they haven't experienced the same things that those who are have. But that doesn't make their opinions wrong necessarily. It is quite possible for someone who has not had the experiences to understand a small degree of the experiences. Not the full thing of course. But to some degree, I'd say so.

They approach homosexuality with their own prejudices.

Don't we all though? With our own biases, we are all perspectivized?

Is all they know about being gay is what they read off the internet. They think that having a "gay friend" makes them an expert on what gays believe, practice, what their motives are, how they view marriage and what their "real agenda" is.

That's a bit of a straw man. Not all people who oppose homosexuality do this. Some do though, probably.

And then they call someone who is actually gay a "liar" for disputing what they have decided must be true. I hear this all the time on this board as well as in person. "The only reason gays want to marry is because they feel guilty about their homosexual behavior.

Well you aren't the only one who disagrees with the last statement. I don't think guilt is a motive in most cases.

The only reason why they want marriage is because they want societies approval.

Now this statement is a bit more reasonable. I'd say this is embedded in the reason to some degree most of the time.

All gays are terribly depressed and unhappy with their lives because they know that what they are doing is wrong.

I honestly have never heard this one =p.

They just choose to be gay." Blah Blah Blah.

Wouldn't this be partially correct though? After all, we do choose our own self-identities. It's quite possible to fight who you 'are' and turn yourself into something else. It's just rather difficult.

I'd agree that they don't choose the inclinations though.

This is so similar to someone who is anti-Mormon. They approach Mormonism with their own prejudices. What they know about Mormonism is what they have read about on the internet. They may have a "Mormon friend". So therefore they feel they can tell a Mormon what they believe and accuse them of trying to hide the truth from the world. "Mormons worship Joseph Smith. Mormons believe it is ok to "lie for God" Blah Blah Blah. Sound familiar?

Just because someone is anti-mormon doesn't make them not understand mormons. They think with their own baises, as do we. They think we are deceived, and that's their choice. I have long since gotten over making a big deal over it. They have a different interpretation of things.

Wade's post is a perfect example of that kind of guy. It is the same.

Can you show me where Wade said 'they do this because they feel guilty' or 'they are terribly depressed because they know it's wrong'?

[wenglund]

[delete dup]

[wenglund]

Your attitude is the same as anti-Mormons who demand that they know what Mormons belief and insist that Mormons are lying or covering up their "real" beliefs. I have about as much distain for straight men who think they know what the "gay community" actually believes, professes or practices as I do for anti-Mormons who know what Mormons actually believe, profess or practice. You are that guy, doing the same exact thing.

Fine...since you seem intent on perpetuating the farce and falsely projecting it on to me (please note that I have yet to use the "l" word) though yet more absurd comparisons, in the next couple of days I will provided quotes from gay activists, in addition to the quote I cited earlier in the thread, that clearly map out the intent I suggested and more, and then I will provide evidence that Prop 8 wasn't about civil rights. It likely won't do any good since people these days seem less interested in facts and reason and simply prefer to emotively ride along wherever pop culture takes them. So, against all the evidence, you can continue pretending things aren't as I suggest, and people will still believe you. This is the upside-down world we now live in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TAO]

Wade, I think it would simplify things here if you clarified your statement with along the lines of 'some of them weren't doing it for civil rights' and such. I doubt you could make a universal statement that 'all of them weren't doing it for civil rights', and all.

[Zeta-Flux]

California Boy,

As I said, I'm not interested in posting on this topic in a thread where there will be three pages of new posts the next time I check it. But if you want to have a dedicated discussion between just us two, I'm up for that. Go ahead and post it in the focused topics forum.

[rameumptom]

The scholar Harold Bloom noted that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality, but because they became 'Inhospitable." IOW, they tried to push their lifestyle down the throats of others, forcing others to accept that lifestyle as legitimate and normal. Perhaps we are seeing the same thing play out in the USA right now?

And as for comparing gay marriage to the Civil Rights movement, I think that is a bunch of hyperbole. Gays have the same rights in California as heterosexuals. They can vote, sit in the same bus, have relationships that are protected under the law, etc. To compare the two is like calling Democrats fascist or Republicans Nazis - neither of which is true, but gets the dumb masses on either side of the discussion revved up for war.

[rockpond]

The scholar Harold Bloom noted that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality, but because they became 'Inhospitable." IOW, they tried to push their lifestyle down the throats of others, forcing others to accept that lifestyle as legitimate and normal. Perhaps we are seeing the same thing play out in the USA right now?

Whew! Good thing heterosexuals aren't trying to force others to accept our lifestyle as legitimate and normal.

Oh, wait...

[Glenn101]

The scholar Harold Bloom noted that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality, but because they became 'Inhospitable." IOW, they tried to push their lifestyle down the throats of others, forcing others to accept that lifestyle as legitimate and normal. Perhaps we are seeing the same thing play out in the USA right now?

And as for comparing gay marriage to the Civil Rights movement, I think that is a bunch of hyperbole. Gays have the same rights in California as heterosexuals. They can vote, sit in the same bus, have relationships that are protected under the law, etc. To compare the two is like calling Democrats fascist or Republicans Nazis - neither of which is true, but gets the dumb masses on either side of the discussion revved up for war.

Not to be argumentive but Bloom seemingly is not telling all of the story about Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe their sins were not all about homosexuality, but Genesis 19:5 shows us at least one kind of inhospitality that God had in mind: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

Ezekial 16: 49 is probably one of the places where Bloom got his ideas.

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

But Ezekial 16:50 adds this to the information. "And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

And Jude adds his little bit, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

I don't think that the traditional viewpoint is all that far off.

Glenn

[rockpond]

Not to be argumentive but Bloom seemingly is not telling all of the story about Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe their sins were not all about homosexuality, but Genesis 19:5 shows us at least one kind of inhospitality that God had in mind: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

Ezekial 16: 49 is probably one of the places where Bloom got his ideas.

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

But Ezekial 16:50 adds this to the information. "And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

And Jude adds his little bit, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

I don't think that the traditional viewpoint is all that far off.

Glenn

Joseph Smith taught that Sodom was destroyed for rejecting the prophets (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 271-272).

But if you are going to read Genesis 19:5 and the euphemistic sexual interpretation of "know" as the reason Sodom was destroyed, then it seems more appropriate to conclude that the city incurred God's wrath as a result of their desire to rape visitors to the city.

Then again, that type of reading of chapter 19 also seems to require an explanation of why Lot offered up with daughters to an upset mob of sexual predators.

Personally, my belief leans toward Joseph Smith's more general conclusion of rejecting the prophets. Reading too specifically (i.e. God destroyed Sodom for homosexuality) strikes me as an anachronistic view.

[california boy]

The scholar Harold Bloom noted that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality, but because they became 'Inhospitable." IOW, they tried to push their lifestyle down the throats of others, forcing others to accept that lifestyle as legitimate and normal. Perhaps we are seeing the same thing play out in the USA right now?

And as for comparing gay marriage to the Civil Rights movement, I think that is a bunch of hyperbole. Gays have the same rights in California as heterosexuals. They can vote, sit in the same bus, have relationships that are protected under the law, etc. To compare the two is like calling Democrats fascist or Republicans Nazis - neither of which is true, but gets the dumb masses on either side of the discussion revved up for war.

Well fortunately for the entire United States, gays are not forcing their lifestyle on to anyone. Getting rid of Prop 8 will not force you to marry any gays. Your lifestyle is safe. You can continue to be married to your wife. In fact, when prop 8 is dismissed, then hetersexuals will no longer be able to force their lifestyle onto gays by forcing them to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want their marriages to be recognized by the State. Whew. Crisis averted.

And as far as this being a civil rights issue, over half of the citizens in this country disagree with you as well as the district and federal courts. You may have that opinion, but most do not.

[TAO]

Well fortunately for the entire United States, gays are not forcing their lifestyle on to anyone.

Mmm.... I'm not so sure about that.

http://en.wikipedia....R_Education_Act

I'd suspect both sides are forcing their lifestyle on one another quite a bit.

Getting rid of Prop 8 will not force you to marry any gays. Your lifestyle is safe. You can continue to be married to your wife. In fact, when prop 8 is dismissed, then hetersexuals will no longer be able to force their lifestyle onto gays by forcing them to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want their marriages to be recognized by the State. Whew. Crisis averted.

But the law will be used to justify other laws which may not be so kind, nah? This is reason to worry a bit. While you may not think that resulting laws justify preventing this law, I'm sure you recognize that it is a valid concern.

And as far as this being a civil rights issue, over half of the citizens in this country disagree with you as well as the district and federal courts. You may have that opinion, but most do not.

Indeed, that is an opinion.

[california boy]

But the law will be used to justify other laws which may not be so kind, nah? This is reason to worry a bit. While you may not think that resulting laws justify preventing this law, I'm sure you recognize that it is a valid concern.

When in doubt, go for the slippery slope argument.

[california boy]

75+ Prominent Republicans Sign Brief Urging Supreme Court to Strike Down Proposition 8

Among those signing the brief, according to organizers, are former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, former U.S. Deputy Atty General Jim Comey, Mary Cheney, Senior Romney Adviser in Iowa Dave Kochel, Reps Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Richard Hanna (R-NY), and Bush National Security Advisor Steven Hadley.

Many of those who signed it have never before made public their support of marriage equality.

The brief argues that "there is no legitimate, fact-based justification for different legal treatment of committed relationships between same-sex couples," arguing that marriage equality promotes conservative values:

Amici start from the premise—recognized by this Court on at least fourteen occasions—that marriage is both a fundamental right protected by our Constitution and a venerable institution that confers countless benefits, both to those who marry and to society at large. … It is precisely because marriage is so important in producing and protecting strong and stable family structures that amici do not agree that the government can rationally promote the goal of strengthening families by denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

It also argues that there is no credible social science behind the arguments pushed by Prop 8's proponents:

Deinstitutionalization. No credible evidence supports the deinstitutionalization theory. … Petitioners fail to explain how extending civil marriage to same-sex couples will dilute or undermine the benefits of that institution for opposite-sex couples … or for society at large. It will instead do the opposite. Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples is a clear endorsement of the multiple benefits of marriage—stability, lifetime commitment, financial support during crisis and old age, etc.—and a reaffirmation of the social value of this institution.

Biology. There is also no biological justification for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. Allowing same-sex couples to marry in no way undermines the importance of marriage for opposite-sex couples who enter into marriage to provide a stable family structure for their children.

Child Welfare. If there were persuasive evidence that same-sex marriage was detrimental to children, amici would give that evidence great weight. But there is not. Social scientists have resoundingly rejected the claim that children fare better when raised by opposite-sex parents than they would with same-sex parents.

And although the law is consonant with firmly held beliefs, it does not sustain its Constitutionality:

Although amici firmly believe that society should proceed cautiously before adopting significant changes to beneficial institutions, we do not believe that society must remain indifferent to facts. This Court has not hesitated to reconsider a law’s outmoded justifications and, where appropriate, to deem them insufficient to survive an equal protection challenge. The bases on which the proponents of laws like Proposition 8 rely are the products of similar thinking that can no longer pass muster when the evidence as it now stands is viewed rationally, not through the lens of belief though sincerely held.

Finally, the brief encourages court to protect the fundamental right to marry by offering it to same-sex couples:

Choosing to marry is also a paradigmatic exercise of human liberty. Marriage is thus central to government’s goal of promoting the liberty of individuals and a free society. For those who choose to marry, legal recognition of that marriage serves as a bulwark against unwarranted government intervention into deeply personal concerns such as the way in which children will be raised and in medical decisions.

Amici recognize that a signal and admirable characteristic of our judiciary is the exercise of restraint. Nonetheless, this Court’s “deference in matters of policy cannot … become abdication of matters of law.” The right to marry indisputably falls within the narrow band of specially protected liberties that this Court ensures are protected from unwarranted curtailment. Proposition 8 ran afoul of our constitutional order by submitting to popular referendum a fundamental right that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason to deny to same-sex couples. This case accordingly presents one of the rare but inescapable instances in which this Court must intervene to redress overreaching by the electorate.

[rockpond]

When in doubt, go for the slippery slope argument.

I think it's worse than a slippery slope argument. It's essentially saying that we should preemptively try to prevent marriage rights for others in case they might possibly, in the future, attempt to somehow limit our rights.

As I've noted before, it strikes me as antithetical to D&C 134.