Did the LDS Church advocate for adoption of legislation

[rodheadlee]

Marriage is a religious ceremony, a civil union is not. It isn't all that difficult. All marriages should be performed by the religion of the participants, all civil unions should be performed by the state. They could even have 1 year contracts. I really don't care what other people do until it cuts into my rights via the state controlling the religion I belong to. If you want to tax churches, then tax them all. The Catholics have the same stance we do, see how your poll goes over with them, just insert their name where Mormon is. How about the Islamic religion? They listen to their prophets/Pope/ leaders the same as we do. Religion is a 24/7 lifestyle (for lack of a better word), marriage is a 24/7 covenant. I'm not going to forget it when I go to the polls. The problem is some SSM people are not satisfied with a civil union they want to be accepted by everyone as a normal way of life and force their lifestyle choices on everyone via the power of the dollar.

[Jeff K.]

The uniqueness is not in question with a belief system that in itself mandates it should be between a man and a woman. To attempt rationalization of the same is to wander into a swamp of contradictory information which also rubs up against agenda driven ideals of personal freedom and how far those personal freedoms should extend.

Should gay couples be allowed to be "couples"? I do not think anyone is arguing against such because we all are committed to the ideal (to varying degrees) of personal freedom. Should such couples have the same rights based on their union? I think civil unions are more than acceptable, as such they already existed in CA.

I draw the line of redefining marriage however. Because it is basically a cover for doing something wrong and making what is morally wrong acceptable.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

I think the uniqueness of the man/woman relationship is centered around the fact that children can be a result. SS couples whatever their own relationship is can not produce children.

Generally speaking our gender roles are determined by sex, but are influenced by culture. Now it is true that is not a hard and fast rule, but the exception(s) of cultural influences do not disprove the rule.

[Jaybear]

The problem is some SSM people are not satisfied with a civil union they want to be accepted by everyone as a normal way of life and force their lifestyle choices on everyone via the power of the dollar.

What's is wrong with wanting to be seen by everyone as normal. Isn't that what the Mormon Church is trying to do with their I'm a Mormon campaign?

BTW, what does it mean to "force their lifestyle choice" on everyone? If gays were allowed to marry in your state, in what way would your life change?

[Jason]

What's is wrong with wanting to be seen by everyone as normal. Isn't that what the Mormon Church is trying to do with their I'm a Mormon campaign?

What is wrong is legally enforcing it by court action or sympathetic government, rather than just persuading people to see your point of view.

[Analytics]

The uniqueness is not in question with a belief system that in itself mandates it should be between a man and a woman. To attempt rationalization of the same is to wander into a swamp of contradictory information which also rubs up against agenda driven ideals of personal freedom and how far those personal freedoms should extend.

Should gay couples be allowed to be "couples"? I do not think anyone is arguing against such because we all are committed to the ideal (to varying degrees) of personal freedom. Should such couples have the same rights based on their union? I think civil unions are more than acceptable, as such they already existed in CA.

I draw the line of redefining marriage however. Because it is basically a cover for doing something wrong and making what is morally wrong acceptable.

What is the "morally wrong" thing you are talking about? Why are civil unions "more than acceptable"? Are you suggesting that granting somebody the rights of a civil union isn't a "cover for doing something wrong", but calling it marriage is such a cover?

[Jaybear]

What is wrong is legally enforcing it by court action or sympathetic government, rather than just persuading people to see your point of view.

By "it" I presume you believe that gays are trying to use the court system to force ordinary God fearing citizens to accept gays as normal.

How exactly would the court go about doing that?

I think you are tad bit overstating what gays hope to achieve in court. I am sure they will settle for a court ruling requiring the Government to treat couples equally regardless of whether they have matching genitalia.

[Jeff K.]

What is the "morally wrong" thing you are talking about? Why are civil unions "more than acceptable"? Are you suggesting that granting somebody the rights of a civil union isn't a "cover for doing something wrong", but calling it marriage is such a cover?

Acceptable in the sense that personal freedom which we adhere to is allowed under our present system, we allow others to choose that lifestyle.

Granting civil union allows for people to do something wrong, but does not damage the institution of marriage. Calling it marriage damages those who know what marriage really should be.

[Daniel2]

Acceptable in the sense that personal freedom which we adhere to is allowed under our present system, we allow others to choose that lifestyle.

Granting civil union allows for people to do something wrong, but does not damage the institution of marriage. Calling it marriage damages those who know what marriage really should be.

This doesn't make sense to me. The fact that our government currently recognizes straight marriage doesn't mean that I am robbed of personal freedom to reject the morality of any specific straight marriage I object to. I don't have to agree with the morality of a 95-year-old man marrying a 20-something young woman. I don't have to agree with the morality of a Vegas-bound "Chapel of Love" elopment. I don't have to agree with the morality of an inter-racial marriage. I don't have to agree with the morality of an LDS sealing ceremony.

How is "the institution of marriage" "damaged" by legally recognizing the civil marriages of other couples--who's morality you personally do not, cannot, and would not condone or agree with?

I know conservatives love to use the phrase, but in all honestly, what is this "damage" you speak of?

Darin

[Jason]

By "it" I presume you believe that gays are trying to use the court system to force ordinary God fearing citizens to accept gays as normal.

Basically yes, although I would use the words "homosexual activity" and/or "the homosexual lifestyle" rather than "gays", and "morally acceptable" instead of "normal".

How exactly would the court go about doing that?

By legally co-opting marriage.

I think you are tad bit overstating what gays hope to achieve in court.

On the contrary, I think I am spot on in saying what gays hope to acheive - broader societal acceptance of their chosen lifestyle. Whether winning a court battle would actually give that to them is a different issue, of course.

[Daniel2]

And my answer is basically "gender, even aside from procreation, is much more important to relationships than you seem to think it is."

Saying "other than gender..." with regards to marriage is like saying "other than the number of sides, what's the difference between a square and a triangle?"

In other words, you're arguement isn't really about any measurable, quantifiable (or even describle) meaning or special significance that dual genders inherently/universally have or bring to a civil dual-gendered marital relationship.

Rather, your argument is simply an appeal to definition.

"Marriage, by definition, must consist of two genders. Therefore two individuals with the same gender cannot be married, because that's what what 'marriage' means. Two genders are required because marriage means two genders."

I don't believe an appeal to definition will withstand ongoing scrutiny, but you're obviously free to continue to preach it.

I just wanted to understand whether or not you had any point that two genders had some kind of significance beyond the fact that there's two genders present. It sounds like you don't.

Darin

[Zeta-Flux]

In other words, you're arguement isn't really about any measurable, quantifiable (or even describle) meaning or special significance that dual genders inherently/universally have or bring to a civil dual-gendered marital relationship.

If you want that, you can check out http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155 It was posted previously, and if I remember correctly the discussion degenerated as do most threads on the subject. Once the mods make them available, I could start a dedicated thread on the subject and we could discuss the merits of the paper (and I could block those who tried to steer it away from the topic).

[Jeff K.]

This doesn't make sense to me. The fact that our government currently recognizes straight marriage doesn't mean that I am robbed of personal freedom to reject the morality of any specific straight marriage I object to. I don't have to agree with the morality of a 95-year-old man marrying a 20-something young woman. I don't have to agree with the morality of a Vegas-bound "Chapel of Love" elopment. I don't have to agree with the morality of an inter-racial marriage. I don't have to agree with the morality of an LDS sealing ceremony.

How is "the institution of marriage" "damaged" by legally recognizing the civil marriages of other couples--who's morality you personally do not, cannot, and would not condone or agree with?

I know conservatives love to use the phrase, but in all honestly, what is this "damage" you speak of?

Darin

You presume homosexuality coupling and heterosexual marriage are the same when in fact they are very different. By undermining the meaning of marriage to mean just about anything, it is hard to believe the ideal of marriage is not hurt. When one makes any meaning vague and without form it soon disappears. A civil union is not marriage, anymore than robbery is a one sided loan. Though if you change the meaning of loan and make it vague enough I suppose a carjacking would really just be a loan. And how would making carjacking a loan undermine the meaning of a loan as we understand it today? Would loaning be damaged by it?

I think so.

[Daniel2]

You presume homosexuality coupling and heterosexual marriage are the same when in fact they are very different.

Actually, I've never said that homosexual coupling and heterosexual marriage are "the same," nor do I believe that to be true.

In fact, my position is just the opposite: in several key factors, unmarried couplings are definitely not "the same" as married couplings.

I have also consistently said is that every couple will have inherent differences from other couples, but so far as the civil marriage is concerned, I don't believe the government is capable of legally distinguising between a married straight-couple vs. a married same-sex couple (especially if the field in some form where "gender" is specifically identified is blocked out or incomplete). In other words, so far as gender and civil marriage is concerned, our government would do well to continue to strive for the adage: "justice is (and should be) blind."

Darin

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

Justice MAY be blind, but it doesn't have to be ignorant as well. There are reasonable exclusions of marriage to SS couples that still preserving their right of association.

[Jason]

In other words, you're arguement isn't really about any measurable, quantifiable (or even describle) meaning or special significance that dual genders inherently/universally have or bring to a civil dual-gendered marital relationship.

Yes it is about measurable, quantifiable differences. It's just that those differences are pretty much self-evident, so I don't really need to go into any further detail then saying "there are two genders in a marriage".

[Jeff K.]

Actually, I've never said that homosexual coupling and heterosexual marriage are "the same," nor do I believe that to be true.

In fact, my position is just the opposite: in several key factors, unmarried couplings are definitely not "the same" as married couplings.

I have also consistently said is that every couple will have inherent differences from other couples, but so far as the civil marriage is concerned, I don't believe the government is capable of legally distinguising between a married straight-couple vs. a married same-sex couple (especially if the field in some form where "gender" is specifically identified is blocked out or incomplete). In other words, so far as gender and civil marriage is concerned, our government would do well to continue to strive for the adage: "justice is (and should be) blind."

Darin

I think you make the mistake in a government being incapable of telling the difference. As a democracy it represents the will of the people and the people themselves do indeed know the difference and act upon that difference and have acted upon it. Ensuring that homosexuals obtain partner rights even when they disagree with the lifestyle and see it as committing a morally wrong action. The question of individual freedom in America is reflected in the accomodation. However to undermine and hurt the definition of marriage and what it means can and has been rejected by the government through democratic means while foisted upon the people through "other" means in which the key attempt is to make homosexual coupling indivisible with heterosexual marriage. The main thrust of the argument is to confuse the two, not bring clarity.

[Jaybear]

As a democracy it represents the will of the people and the people themselves do indeed know the difference and act upon that difference and have acted upon it. Ensuring that homosexuals obtain partner rights even when they disagree with the lifestyle and see it as committing a morally wrong action. The question of individual freedom in America is reflected in the accomodation. However to undermine and hurt the definition of marriage and what it means can and has been rejected by the government through democratic means while foisted upon the people through "other" means in which the key attempt is to make homosexual coupling indivisible with heterosexual marriage.

Democracy is overrated.

There is a reason why the founders of this country did not establish a democracy.

There is reason why founders saw fit to include a bill of rights.

If we lived in a pure democracy, with no constitutional protections from the tyranny of the majority, we would have blasphemy laws, slavery would have existed through the 1900s, gays would be locked up, Jews, blacks and Hispanics would be denied housing and dining accommodations, interracial marriage and abortions would still be outlawed in some states. I would also suspect that Mormon would not be allowed to proselytize.

Oh, and Al Gore would have been the President.

So do you really think you hit a nerve when you throw out democracy, when discussing a civil rights issue.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Democracy MAY be overrated, but barring the Return of The King it is better than any other type of government.

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

[Jeff K.]

Imagined constitutional rights, invented constitutional rights are not rights, but manifestations of people with more time on their hands than they need.

To you democracy is overrated because it doesn't suit your elitist view that people should think as you do. To me it is an expression of personal freedom in which the people have greater control than they would have under someone who believes democracy is overrated.

Your simplistic view of the constitution and "what if" games do not really mean much. The people worked through the constitutional process in CA, they chose, and the right to change the definition of marriage was invented by an individual who chose to circumvent the constitution. Or did you forget that San Francisco did indeed break the law, and found just the "right" judge for a ruling and then the people chose the constitutional method in which to rectify the actions of what many view as a wayward judge. They worked within the constitution. Short term memory eh?

I would say that you condemn the constitution more than you do democracy (which by the way my literalist little friend is contextually viewed as part and parcel of a republic by most who post here today).

[Jaybear]

Imagined constitutional rights, invented constitutional rights are not rights, but manifestations of people with more time on their hands than they need.

That is a good reason why we rely on our a judicial system, not a message board to decide and define our rights.

To you democracy is overrated because it doesn't suit your elitist view that people should think as you do. To me it is an expression of personal freedom in which the people have greater control than they would have under someone who believes democracy is overrated.

I am in good company, as the founding fathers were by your standard elitists. In our consitution, we have no public referendums, a bill of rights was established. Senators were appointed by the state, not voters, and the electoral college was put in place. Amendments to the contitution require 3/4th of the states to ratify, not a bare majority of voters.

The US is not a democracy.

Your simplistic view of the constitution and "what if" games do not really mean much.

My "simplistic" view is supported by a law degree.

The people worked through the constitutional process in CA, they chose, and the right to change the definition of marriage was invented by an individual who chose to circumvent the constitution.

CA is a classic examples of the dangers of the referendum. Constitutional rights of the minorities should not be put to a bare majority vote.

If the US Constitution were patterned after CA, in '67, after Lovings, we would have had a referendum vote whether to modify the constitution to allow the ban on interracial marriages. After Brown, we would have had a referendum on segregation. After Roe, we would have had a referendum on abortion rights.

Or did you forget that San Francisco did indeed break the law, and found just the "right" judge for a ruling and then the people chose the constitutional method in which to rectify the actions of what many view as a wayward judge. They worked within the constitution. Short term memory eh?

The US constitution is beautiful thing.

I would say that you condemn the constitution more than you do democracy (which by the way my literalist little friend is contextually viewed as part and parcel of a republic by most who post here today).

I would say you haven't paid attention what I wrote.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 08 February 2011 - 11:28 AM, said:

Imagined constitutional rights, invented constitutional rights are not rights, but manifestations of people with more time on their hands than they need.

That is a good reason why we rely on our a judicial system, not a message board to decide and define our rights.

Are you stating the judicial system is never wrong? Or do you fail to realize that the 9th circuit court has the embarrassing reputation of being the most reversed circuit court in the US?

Quote

Your simplistic view of the constitution and "what if" games do not really mean much.

My "simplistic" view is supported by a law degree.

Doesn't mean much to me, especially since anyone can claim anything. I will put that up there with most other unsubstantiated claims and ignore it as another unsubstantiated claim/charge

Quote

The people worked through the constitutional process in CA, they chose, and the right to change the definition of marriage was invented by an individual who chose to circumvent the constitution.

CA is a classic examples of the dangers of the referendum. Constitutional rights of the minorities should not be put to a bare majority vote.

If the US Constitution were patterned after CA, in '67, after Lovings, we would have had a referendum vote whether to modify the constitution to allow the ban on interracial marriages. After Brown, we would have had a referendum on segregation. After Roe, we would have had a referendum on abortion rights.

So when things go your way they are "constitutional" but when they go against you they classic examples of dangerous things.

This is what they teach in law school?

I suggest some refresher courses in whatever law school you may claim to have gone to which by itself does nothing to add credibility to your ability to ignore the constitution on one end and then suddenly adore it on the other. Frankly it is a good reason why you are such a poor advocate to redefining and reducing the meaning of marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Technically true. We are not a true democracy. However we are not a true republic either. As we vote for our representatives. We are most accurately described variously as a Western Democracy, a Constitutional Republic, a Constitutional Democracy.

[Jaybear]

Are you stating the judicial system is never wrong?

Did I say the judicial system is never wrong? All I said was that it was better than a message board.

Or do you fail to realize that the 9th circuit court has the embarrassing reputation of being the most reversed circuit court in the US?

The ninth circuit should be the most reversed, as it encompasses, by far, the most populous circuit. Last I heard, almost .1% of the opinions issued from the 9th were reversed. Shocking. Perhaps they should close up shop.

Doesn't mean much to me, especially since anyone can claim anything. I will put that up there with most other unsubstantiated claims and ignore it as another unsubstantiated claim/charge

You do that.

So when things go your way they are "constitutional" but when they go against you they classic examples of dangerous things.

Again, I never said that.

I suggest some refresher courses in whatever law school you may claim to have gone to which by itself does nothing to add credibility to your ability to ignore the constitution on one end and then suddenly adore it on the other.

Much of your criticism is the result of your blatant characterization of what I wrote. So I really don't know if you are being sincere here in your criticism.

The only position that I have advocated here is that the constitutional rights should not be put to a popular vote, as is the case in pure democracy, and as was the case in CA.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Or do you fail to realize that the 9th circuit court has the embarrassing reputation of being the most reversed circuit court in the US?

The ninth circuit should be the most reversed, as it encompasses, by far, the most populous circuit. Last I heard, almost .1% of the opinions issued from the 9th were reversed. Shocking. Perhaps they should close up shop.

Sorry but that makes no sense. Being wrong on constitutional questions has nothing to do with the size of the district, it does however have something to do with the knoweldge of the judges.

I think you are more than a bit disengenuous in your play with numbers.

The 9th Circuit also has a long-running streak as the most overturned, which went unbroken this year. The Supreme Court reviewed 22 cases from the 9th Circuit last term, and it reversed or vacated 19 times. By comparison, the Supreme Court reviewed only five cases, vacating or reversing four, from the next-busiest court of appeals, the 5th Circuit based in New Orleans.

In other words, although the 9th Circuit decided only one-third more appeals on the merits than the 5th Circuit, it was reversed nearly five times more often.

LA Times