Did the LDS Church advocate for adoption of legislation

[frankenstein]

Or you could spin it the other way - was it Constitutional for a minority group to use political pressure to attempt to redifine marriage for all of us?

two separate issues.

[Daniel2]

In related news, this just in from the Los Angeles Times:

Prop. 8 opponents ask California high court to reject federal court's request for ruling

The request involves initiative supporters' right to defend a ballot measure when state officials refuse to do so.

By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times

January 26, 2011

An attorney for same-sex couples hoping to overturn Proposition 8 in federal court urged the California Supreme Court on Tuesday to reject a request that it rule on whether initiative sponsors have authority to defend ballot measures.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the state high court earlier this month whether California law gives initiative proponents the right to defend a ballot measure when state officials refuse to do so.

In federal court, the general rule is that only a party that is directly affected by a trial court ruling has standing or authority to appeal it. State officials have refused to appeal the August ruling against Proposition 8.

In his letter to the state court, Theodore B. Olson, an attorney for two same-sex couples, said that the question of standing in federal court is a federal constitutional issue, not a state one, and that the California Supreme Court would merely prolong the case by agreeing to answer the 9th Circuit's question.

Olson also argued that well-established law in California denies initiative sponsors the right to represent the state in litigation.

"It is clear that California law vests the attorney general

[Daniel2]

Or you could spin it the other way - was it Constitutional for a minority group to use political pressure to attempt to redifine marriage for all of us?

Marriage equality cannot be achieved by pressure from the gay community, alone. And "the right of the will of the people to decide how marriage should be defined" cannot be achieved by pressure from the conservative community, alone.

In either case, the question of the Constitutionality of same-sex civil marriage rights must stand up to the scrutiny of either the courts and/or the legislature.

Darin

[Jason]

Maybe I should narrow the focus of the question a bit. Is it "constitutional" to use the judicial branch of a state's government to prevent the enaction of a constitutional ammendment that followed all the relevent laws in its formation, including a majority vote by the population of the state?

[frankenstein]

Maybe I should narrow the focus of the question a bit. Is it "constitutional" to use the judicial branch of a state's government to prevent the enaction of a constitutional ammendment that followed all the relevent laws in its formation, including a majority vote by the population of the state?

yep.

[Mordecai]

The LDS Church can't support divisive and discriminatory legislation, then step back and say, hey nothing personal, its just politics.

What political issue isn't divisive these days? What kind of a cowardly church doesn't take a stand on moral issues? As far as discrimination, you imply again that your political dogma that there are no relevant differences between a gay union and a real marriage is a True dogma. Double speak. You'll never overtly assert that they are the same in all relevant ways (because that's a stupid thing to assert), but you repeatedly imply it.

[Jaybear]

What kind of a cowardly church doesn't take a stand on moral issues?

I am not criticizing the LDS Church for taking a stand on a political issue. Nor would I (as you do here)criticize a church that stays out of politics.

I was simply pointing out the predictable consequences of a church engaging in politics on a divisive issue.

Btw, your Prophet once said, I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves. I would have assumed that his position was that the Church should stay out of politics. If that is not what he meant, what was his point?

As far as discrimination, you imply again that your political dogma that there are no relevant differences between a gay union and a real marriage is a True dogma. Double speak.

Not at all. My political "dogma" is that its not the role of the Government to declare or treat heterosexual unions to be "better" than gay unions, any more than it be the role of the Government to declare that a catholic union is better than a LDS sealing.

You'll never overtly assert that they are the same in all relevant ways (because that's a stupid thing to assert), but you repeatedly imply it.

Here I will say it: I don't believe that they are the "same". Nor for that matter is your marriage the same as mine. Every marriage is different.

My belief is that, notwithstanding the differences, a gay union is as important to that gay couple as a heterosexual union is to the heterosexual couple. That is all that matters to me.

[Jason]

Btw, your Prophet once said, I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves. I would have assumed that his position was that the Church should stay out of politics. If that is not what he meant, what was his point?

Isn't what our society considers legal and illegal one place where we learn our principles?

Doing what we can to improve our society's laws is a way to teach correct principles to those who are not Church members.

As for staying out of politics, need we remind you that Joseph ran for President?

Not at all. My political "dogma" is that its not the role of the Government to declare or treat heterosexual unions to be "better" than gay unions, any more than it be the role of the Government to declare that a catholic union is better than a LDS sealing.

Is it the role of government to treat a marriage as "better" than a room-mate relationship? Or a business partnership? Those are groups of people acting together in a sort of "union"- according to your view, shouldn't they get the benefits a marriage does?

My belief is that, notwithstanding the differences, a gay union is as important to that gay couple as a heterosexual union is to the heterosexual couple. That is all that matters to me.

But should what is important to individuals also be what is important to government?

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

As JS himself was very active in politics. It was not a call to askew politics at all, but a call to good governance.

[Jaybear]

Is it the role of government to treat a marriage as "better" than a room-mate relationship?

IMO, no. I don't really see that it is any of the Govt.'s business if a couple chooses to live together, rather than to marry.

Likewise, I don't believe its the Govt. business as to whether and if so, how many children a couple has.

Or a business partnership? Those are groups of people acting together in a sort of "union"- according to your view, shouldn't they get the benefits a marriage does?

People can be married, and be business partners. Not sure what your point is.

But should what is important to individuals also be what is important to government?

I believe that Govt exists to serve the interests of the people, and not the other way around.

[Jason]

Likewise, I don't believe its the Govt. business as to whether and if so, how many children a couple has.

Well we agree there.

People can be married, and be business partners. Not sure what your point is.

My point is that you said that the government shouldn't treat one form of relationship as "better" to another. So the two guys that are room-mates should in your view be treated by the government just like the two homosexual guys who are in a sexual relationship, correct?

Or two women who are business partners should receive the same tax benefits as if they are married, correct? Otherwise the government is treating one relationship as "better" than another, and according to you that would be wrong.

Or is it only sexual relationships that you think should all be treated equally?

I believe that Govt exists to serve the interests of the people, and not the other way around.

Are the people's interests best by trying to give everyone exactly what they want?

[Jaybear]

Well we agree there.

You skipped the first part.

Do you believe, philosophically, that the Govt should play a role in discouraging/preventing couples from living together out of wedlock? Or do you believe that such a decision is a private matter, best left to the couple.

My point is that you said that the government shouldn't treat one form of relationship as "better" to another.

No, I didn't. My statement was limited to relationships of a personal intimate nature.

[Jason]

You skipped the first part.

Do you believe, philosophically, that the Govt should play a role in discouraging/preventing couples from living together out of wedlock? Or do you believe that such a decision is a private matter, best left to the couple.

I believe that government should encourage traditional marriage through such benefits as tax breaks, inheritance law, etc. - yes. I believe our society is best served by holding the traditional family structure as an ideal and desireable condition and encouraging its citiznes to partake.

I don't think the government needs to discourage or outright penalize other arrangements, so long as it is encouraging the arrangement that long experience has proven works best and treating it as uniquely valuable.

No, I didn't. My statement was limited to relationships of a personal intimate nature.

Ah, so it is just sexual relationships that you think should all be treated the same. Why would that be then? And what about polyamorous relationships then?

[Jaybear]

Ah, so it is just sexual relationships that you think should all be treated the same. Why would that be then?

Why? Because I respect liberty and personal choice, even if its a choices that I would not make.

And what about polyamorous relationships then?

I think they are an archaic relic of the past, which demean and degrade women. But if consenting adults chose to enter into such relationships, it their life, not mine.

I also think we have done tremendous damage to the children raised in such relationship by treating their parents as criminals.

[Jason]

Why? Because I respect liberty and personal choice, even if its a choices that I would not make.

So why do you think the government should not treat a room-mate situation exactly like a marriage?

I think they are an archaic relic of the past, which demean and degrade women. But if consenting adults chose to enter into such relationships, it their life, not mine.

"Polyamorous" could mean several men and one woman. Or a bunch of men and women together.

Or what if it's just a group of room-mates with no sexual relationship? Should they be treated by the government as if they were married?

I also think we have done tremendous damage to the children raised in such relationship by treating their parents as criminals.

Criminals are locked up or fined. There is a difference between criminals and people who are unpopular with the community because of their choices.

[Jaybear]

So why do you think the government should not treat a room-mate situation exactly like a marriage?

I believe that the decision of a couple to live together or marry is a private matter between the couple, and not something the Govt should spend time legislating. You obviously disagree. That happens.

I do not believe that the govt should treat a "room mate" situation exactly like a marriage.

"Polyamorous" could mean several men and one woman. Or a bunch of men and women together.

Yes, it could.

Or what if it's just a group of room-mates with no sexual relationship? Should they be treated by the government as if they were married?

I thought I told you earlier, the relationships I am referring to, are intimate committed personal relationships. You seem to want to ignore that important fact.

Criminals are locked up or fined. There is a difference between criminals and people who are unpopular with the community because of their choices.

Polygamy is a crime. Polygamist are criminals. Royston Potter lost his job as a police officer because he was a criminal. Polygamist lawyers can be disbarred. Polygamist judges can be removed from the bench. Polygamist teachers can be fired. Polygamist will lose their child in a custody battle. They are also unpopular with the community.

[Jaybear]

Back to the topic, it appears that those advocating against gay marriage are losing the war. Why do you think that is the case?

According to the recent polls, gay marriage has now reached majority support in 17 states.

But in 2010, 17 states turned the corner, including Delaware (50%), Nevada (50%), Maryland (51%), Pennsylvania (51%), Oregon (52%), Colorado (52%), Washington (54%), Hawaii (54%), Maine (55%), New Jersey (55%), New Hampshire (55%), California (56%), Connecticut (57%), New York (58%), Vermont (59%) and Rhode Island (60%).

Not surprisingly, the highest majority (62%) was found in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize the institution in 2005.

Mixed blessing from Utah.

Utah scored the lowest out of the 50 states, with only 22 percent in favor of gay marriage. However, that's an increase of 10% over 16 years.

Support for gay marriage has more than doubled in Utah. Cool.

For those who purport to oppose gay marriage for secular reasons, how do you explain the popularity in Mass, where it been legal the longest. How is it that the people living there don't realize the horrific damage that gay marriage is doing to the institution marriage in that state?

[Jason]

I do not believe that the govt should treat a "room mate" situation exactly like a marriage.

Then what allowances should the government make, and why should the two relationships be treated differntly?

Polygamy is a crime. Polygamist are criminals. Royston Potter lost his job as a police officer because he was a criminal. Polygamist lawyers can be disbarred. Polygamist judges can be removed from the bench. Polygamist teachers can be fired. Polygamist will lose their child in a custody battle. They are also unpopular with the community.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to homosexual relationships.

Do you think polygamy should be de-criminalized then? That would of course require a constitutional ammendment in Utah.

[Jason]

Back to the topic, it appears that those advocating against gay marriage are losing the war. Why do you think that is the case?

According to the recent polls, gay marriage has now reached majority support in 17 states.

You have a strange definition for "losing the war".

According to wikipedia (yeah, I know - it was readliy available):

6 states have legalized same sex marriage.

31 states have voted down same-sex marriage (out of 31 public votes).

41 states restrict marriage legally to being between one man and one woman.

19 states have explicitely banned any legal relationship that is equivelent to a marriage.

30 states have ammended their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage.

I think actual public votes probably trump polls in determining how the nation really feels.

Support for gay marriage has more than doubled in Utah. Cool.

No, not really.

For those who purport to oppose gay marriage for secular reasons, how do you explain the popularity in Mass, where it been legal the longest. How is it that the people living there don't realize the horrific damage that gay marriage is doing to the institution marriage in that state?

Because the damage is not immediately obvious. It might take generations to realize.

[Jaybear]

You have a strange definition for "losing the war".

According to wikipedia (yeah, I know - it was readliy available):

6 states have legalized same sex marriage.

31 states have voted down same-sex marriage (out of 31 public votes).

41 states restrict marriage legally to being between one man and one woman.

Granted. Your side won a lot of the early battles, but you are losing the battle for the hearts and mind of those under 35. For that reason, you are losing the war.

Why do you think young people are so unreceptive to your side's advocacy?

Three state legislatures will be considering gay marriage this year. I expect gay marriage to be legal in two of them.

I think actual public votes probably trump polls in determining how the nation really feels.

No, not really. Votes reflect the will of those who voted. People over 50 vote in far greater number than those under 35.

Because the damage is not immediately obvious. It might take generations to realize.

Sounds like one has to have faith that gay marriage is damaging.

[Jason]

Granted. Your side won a lot of the early battles, but you are losing the battle for the hearts and mind of those under 35. For that reason, you are losing the war.

Why do you think young people are so unreceptive to your side's advocacy?

Becuase young people are inexperienced. Fortunately, time tends to cure them of that problem.

No, not really. Votes reflect the will of those who voted.

And polls only contain the opinion of the kind of people who respond to poll workers.

People can respond very differently to polls than when the chips are down and they actually vote.

Sounds like one has to have faith that gay marriage is damaging.

When it isn't even around in the vast majority of states, and where it is around it hasn't been there for long, yeah, it's kind of hard to see the damage it's causing first-hand.

[Jaybear]

Becuase young people are inexperienced. Fortunately, time tends to cure them of that problem.

Actually, I am sure that young people (under 35) have more quality experience with people who are openly gay than old people (over 50).

When it isn't even around in the vast majority of states, and where it is around it hasn't been there for long, yeah, it's kind of hard to see the damage it's causing first-hand.

Its hard to explain the damage. Its hard to see the damage.

By contrast, each gay wedding bring money and visitors to the local community. Beyond the economic benefits, read what these parents had to say about their daughter's wedding.

Tony and Sylvia DeLuca will go to the State House to testify in support of the bill legalizing gay marriage in Rhode Island. They will offer personal rebuttal to the empty, indefensible position that gay marriage somehow threatens heterosexual marriage.

[DH]

I think the Church made it very clear it was not only educating people, but also advocating for Proposition 8. Though I disagree with the position the Church took in this matter, it did have the legal right to do so. It's not a partisan matter, and they didn't back any particular candidate, so the Church did not run afoul of tax laws. It's wrongheaded (IMHO), but not illegal.

[Mordecai]

Not at all. My political "dogma" is that its not the role of the Government to declare or treat heterosexual unions to be "better" than gay unions, any more than it be the role of the Government to declare that a catholic union is better than a LDS sealing.

First of all, to call a gay union by a different name is not a declaration that it is inferior. How insecure are gay people? Pretty insecure to try to pretend to be something they're not, i.e. married.

That said, how false an analogy is that? Very false. The gov't already has made a call on the value of biological parenthood by screening adoptive parents but not doing the same to biological parents. If you continue on that logic (not opinion or dogma), then you must accept that real marriage, having an inextricable connection to natural, biological reproduction, can be treated differently than other types of unions.

Besides, it's a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The people have values and opinions and in a representative democracy, the people can absolutely have the gov't exercise laws that reflect their values. I know the extremist Left despises democracy, but it's the system we live in.

Here I will say it: I don't believe that they are the "same". Nor for that matter is your marriage the same as mine. Every marriage is different.

Equivocation. We're not talking about marriages, as in Jim's and Marry's marriage versus Bob's and Joanne's. We're talking about marriage, the abstract concept. So "every marriage is different" is just a word game and not addressing the issue.

My belief is that, notwithstanding the differences, a gay union is as important to that gay couple as a heterosexual union is to the heterosexual couple. That is all that matters to me.

Sounds like all you care about then is opinion and not fact. That's why we'll never agree.

As a side note, Joseph Smith was never suggesting that Mormons not participate in Democracy. The whole point of supporting prop. 8 was to teach people a correct principle and then let them govern themselves by voting in a Democratic election. It's absurd that you can't see that "governing themselves" and "participating in Democracy" are synonymous as are "teaching correct principles" and our promotion of prop. 8. Hello! Joseph Smith would absolutely have advocated for real marriage instead of a homosexual impostor.

[Jason]

Actually, I am sure that young people (under 35) have more quality experience with people who are openly gay than old people (over 50).

Why would that be? Are you saying that people over 50 don't get out as much?

Or are you saying there are more gay people than there used to be? Wouldn't that be an indication that if society begins to accept behavior there will be more of it, a point I argued earlier (perhaps on another thread - I forget)?

How is it again, that their daughter's happiness is destructive to society?

Because it undermines a fundamental instution of society. If any random relationship can be a marriage then traditional marriages become neither special nor desirable.