Prop 8, The Play

[frankenstein]

As was decided by the Washington state supreme court, and others - LGBT has never been found to be an "immutable" condition and in spite of increasing political influence does not suffer from absence of protections afforded by the law.

Equal protection for marriage only applies to those who qualify to be married - ie. age. We do not allow a father to marry his daughter nor do we allow a woman to marry a parrot.

such comparisons have been addressed numerous times, and such comparisons fail.

To attempt to equate the LGBT political tantrum to the centuries of struggle endured by "real" minorities is childish, insulting, and embarrassing.

such as Elder D. H. Oaks comparing LDS to the "real" minorities of the Civil Rights Era?

[Daniel2]

For those interested in following the issue of whether or not the judge who ruled that "Prop 8 was unconstitional" was fit to rule on the matter (based on his own long-term same-sex relationship), it was back in the news, today.

From the L.A. Times:

Arguments in gay marriage legal battle presented to appeals court

November 2, 2011 | 9:22 am

A federal judge’s failure to disclose whether he intended to marry his long-term, same-sex partner before presiding over the Proposition 8 case amounts to misconduct that requires the removal of his ruling against the 2008 ballot measure, lawyers opposed to gay marriage told a federal appeals court.

In written arguments to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, both sides in the gay marriage legal dispute debated whether the sexual orientation of retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker might have affected the case.

The 9th Circuit, considering the arguments filed over the last few weeks, has put Walker’s ruling on hold pending a decision on whether to uphold or overturn it.

Minority judges have long been permitted to preside over civil rights cases affecting their race or ethnicity, and the dispute over Walker’s sexual orientation is likely to clarify the legal rules for gay and lesbian jurists. Walker is openly gay and his sexual orientation was widely known in San Francisco’s legal community. But he did not publicly discuss it until after retiring from the bench in February.

Walker should have disclosed any interest he may have had in marrying his partner of 10 years or stepped aside when he was randomly chosen to preside over the case, the opponents of gay marriage said.

“Although a judge may choose to avoid disclosure by recusing himself without explanation, he cannot both remain silent and sit in judgment of a case in which a reasonable observer, with knowledge of all of the relevant facts (disclosed or not) would conclude the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” ProtectMarriage argued.

Gay rights lawyers countered that judges must disqualify, or recuse, themselves from hearing cases only when they have a “substantial and individualized interest in the case, particularly a financial interest, that gives rise to actual bias,” the lawyers for Proposition 8’s challengers said.

“A recusal rule that turns on a minority judge’s subjective desire to enjoy his basic civil rights would effectively disqualify all minority judges,” Proposition 8’s challengers said.

Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

The argument goes both ways. If the judge had ruled it was constitutional there would be cries of bias.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

The argument goes both ways. If the judge had ruled it was constitutional there would be cries of bias.

Interesting thought, SS. Just to clarify--you're saying that if there had been a different judge who was in an opposite-sex relationship, who then ruled Prop 8 was constitutional, that those that support civil marriage rights for same-sex couples would be crying "bias"...?

Either way, I think it's clearly obvious that it's a good thing (at least, in terms of decreasing chances of "cries of bias") that the case will be ruled upon by many different judges as it works it's way through the appelate courts, as well (recall that one of the three appelate judges currently assigned to review Walker's ruling is LDS and a BYU graduate--which I think is very positive for the case).

It certainly seems this will eventually be an issue that's decided at the Federal Supreme Court level--again, a positive thing, given that it won't be the sole decision of any one judge.

Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

Such is the nature of our legal system. I think a little more good will on both sides would better resolve the issue than a appeal to the legal system.

As I've said many times before. As long as it doesn't involve threats to life or limb I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. What I do object to is the arbitrary redefintion of long established words. IE; A tomato is a berry that has been redefined as a vegetable by act of Congress.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

Such is the nature of our legal system. I think a little more good will on both sides would better resolve the issue than a appeal to the legal system.

As I've said many times before. As long as it doesn't involve threats to life or limb I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. What I do object to is the arbitrary redefintion of long established words. IE; A tomato is a berry that has been redefined as a vegetable by act of Congress.

Though I certainly agree that more "good will" is always a good idea, I don't see good will on either part as solving the crux of the matter.

I understand that those that believe that "the people" should be able to vote on the matter, or those that espouse the view that "the definition of the word 'marriage' shouldn't be changed," won't agree with "appeals to the legal system" to solve the matter of the civil (or religious) use of the term "marriage" by LGBT couples.

While I think a willingness to allow consensual adults the ability to make their own choices about what they do "in the privacy of their own bedroom" is certainly a commendable viewpoint (and is one that I share with you), I don't believe "what goes on in the bedroom" is really related to this issue. The courts settled the privacy aspect of consensual sexual behaviors already.

Many LGBT couples, however, aren't content any more with relegating/confining our relationships to the bedroom, nor in defining our relationships merely by "private bedroom behavior." I don't think most heterosexual couples define their relationships as or by such, and would not be content to be told by their government that they should be content to legal recognition of their relationships by saying "you're free to do whatever you want to, in your bedrooms--but don't expect us to recognize your relatioinships as 'marriage' in the public square." Without meaning to sound arrogant about it, I think many (if not most) LGBT couples now expect to simply--and similarly--be treated on publically equal civil terms by extensions of government, business, schools, etc. In that sense, I think we can empathize with some of Rosa Park's feelings of no longer being content to sit on the back of the (in our case) proverbial "bus."

The isssue now isn't what's acceptable "in the privacy of one's own bedroom," but rather whether or not there's a civil right to publically designate LGBT unions as "married."

Unfortunately, even if both sides were brimming over with good will, I have a hard time seeing room for middle ground on the issue.

It would appear that either:

a) one believes that the term "marriage" should legally apply to opposite-sex couples and shouldn't legally apply to same-sex couples;

or

b) one believes that same-sex couples share the same right to the legal designation just as their straight counterparts do.

Having said that, and to conclude on a positive note... I'm all for "good will" towards one-another.

Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

I'm more in favor of a representative democrary, and wouldn't especially like a direct one. There is nothing intrinsic in public acceptance of an idea that makes it correct or even a good idea. Quite frankly "the people" have been wrong in the past and there is no reason to assume they'll be any better at it in the future. Given the history of idiotic decisions by the Supreme Court. Barring some convincing argument, or a Civil War I'm not sure that even an appeal to them is the best idea to long established social norms, and mores.

As to the LGBT community. I feel as though California had the best response in recognizing homosexuality relationships as the legal functional equivalent of marriage, as having the exact same rights, responsibilities, priviledges, and duties as a recognized heterosexual marriage. As far as care you can call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, as long as it looks, feels, and tastes just like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It is a distinction without a difference.

As this is a LDS MB. I believe the Church already has agreed with many of the proposals of the LGBT community, including such things as nondiscrimination in housing, employment, emergency notification, and survivors benefits. Further it treats its homosexual memebers no different than its heterosexual members. Both are required to follow the exact same standards of sexual conduct. Absolute chastity before marriage, and absolute fidelity after. The homeosexual member who abides by the rules can partake of every blessing the Church has to offer its heterosexual members.

[Log]

The isssue now isn't what's acceptable "in the privacy of one's own bedroom," but rather whether or not there's a civil right [on the part of homosexualists] to [compel non-homosexualists by force of arms to recognize] LGBT unions as "married."

Fixed. A little more honesty and forthrightness on the part of the homosexualists would be welcome. Maybe you could show them the way, Daniel.

[Daniel2]

...whether or not there's a civil right [on the part of homosexualists] to [compel non-homosexualists by force of arms to recognize] LGBT unions as "married."

Fixed. A little more honesty and forthrightness on the part of the homosexualists would be welcome. Maybe you could show them the way, Daniel.

Indeed, to paraphrase a Primary Song, "So I say to myself, remember this: [Honesty] begins with me!" I certainly agree we'd all do well to strive for that.

All the more reason to find your example of "honest" "fixing" of my words puzzling, Log. Though I've seen a few Latter-day Saints publically suggest the need for a literal civil war over the issue of the government granting the use of the word "marriage" for civilly-united same-sex couples (see here), I haven't seen any "homosexualists" suggesting "the force of arms" to "compel" anyone to do anything. I'd be curious to see examples of that--would you mind posting them?

Hopefully your "correction" was simply a mistake. There's no need to falsely accuse or mischaracterize anyone's actions as something they haven't honestly done.

Daniel2

[Log]

I haven't seen any "homosexualists" suggesting "the force of arms" to "compel" anyone to do anything.

Governmental actions, such as laws, are executed

A) by unicorns and rainbows and butterflies.

B) by force of arms.

I await your enhanced honesty with bated breath.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

I'm more in favor of a representative democrary, and wouldn't especially like a direct one. There is nothing intrinsic in public acceptance of an idea that makes it correct or even a good idea. Quite frankly "the people" have been wrong in the past and there is no reason to assume they'll be any better at it in the future. Given the history of idiotic decisions by the Supreme Court. Barring some convincing argument, or a Civil War I'm not sure that even an appeal to them is the best idea to long established social norms, and mores.

As to the LGBT community. I feel as though California had the best response in recognizing homosexuality relationships as the legal functional equivalent of marriage, as having the exact same rights, responsibilities, priviledges, and duties as a recognized heterosexual marriage. As far as care you can call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, as long as it looks, feels, and tastes just like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It is a distinction without a difference.

As this is a LDS MB. I believe the Church already has agreed with many of the proposals of the LGBT community, including such things as nondiscrimination in housing, employment, emergency notification, and survivors benefits. Further it treats its homosexual memebers no different than its heterosexual members. Both are required to follow the exact same standards of sexual conduct. Absolute chastity before marriage, and absolute fidelity after. The homeosexual member who abides by the rules can partake of every blessing the Church has to offer its heterosexual members.

I always appreciate the civil discourse with you, SS, even when we disagree.

In my own discussions with my two brothers that are LDS bishops, we agreed long ago the best compromise (albeit an imperfect one that isn't completely satisfying to either they, or I) to the "equal representation" dilemma on the marriage issue woujd be for the government to simply issue "civil unions" for all couples, and leave it up to couples what word they use to refer to their relationship. However, we also agreed that such a compromise was far from perfect and virtually impossible to ever impliment.

I struggle with believing that anyone could truly believe that California's compromise was "a distinction without a difference." Were that truly the case, why fight to refuse to allow same-sex couples the ability to use the same term, thereby "distinguishing" the two types of civil unions, at all?

I appreciate that many Latter-day Saints take comfort in their ernest belief that the same LDS standards apply to both heterosexual members and homosexual members. On that point, I tend to agree with Elder Marlin K. Jensen that the church does ask "something more" of it's heterosexual members than it does of it's homosexual members, and very much appreciate his candor on his view about that point:

"And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we're not asking more of them than we're asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they're going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn't have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing."

[the context and his full comments, which are well worth reading, are here].

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Governmental actions, such as laws, are executed

A) by unicorns and rainbows and butterflies.

B) by force of arms.

I await your enhanced honesty with bated breath.

I think it's definitely helpful to clarify whether we're using the same terms in the same way, Log. To that end:

Am I understanding you correctly in saying that by your use of the phrase "by the force of arms," you aren't actually referring to "the literal use of firearms to force anyone," but merely mean "any government action"?

In other words, you could insert any law (however mundane or seemingly insignificant) that's enacted by any branch of the government as one carried out "by the force of arms"...?

Daniel2

[Log]

In other words, you could insert any law (however small) that's enacted by any branch of the government as one carried out "by the [literal use of firearms to force compliance]"...?

Fixed. And thus the issue is quite simple. I can well understand why this reality is inconvenient for the homosexualists, and why you would want to avoid it in your rhetoric.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

I do try to be civil especially when we disagree. It's easy to be civil when we agree.

I can agree that the state should get out of the marriage business, and recognize all such unions as "Civil Unions", and let the couple decide what to call it. As long as the legal requirements were met, and no person/group outside of governmental agencies were required to recognize such unions. I don't have any big exceptions that I can think of.

[Daniel2]

Fixed. And thus the issue is quite simple. I can well understand why this reality is inconvenient for the homosexualists, and why you would want to avoid it in your rhetoric.

"Fixing" someone else's comments while simultaneously refusing to answer the clarifying questions they're asking, while claiming to be encouraging "honest" communication, is incongruous, in my opinion.

You characterize the issue that "any law (however small) that's enacted by any branch of the government as one carried out "by the [literal use of firearms to force compliance]," and accuse "homosexualists to compel non-homosexualists by force of arms to recognize LGBT unions as "married."

The flip-side of your view, of course, means that "heterosexualists," "by force of arms," are "prohibiting non-homosexualists to recognizing LGBT unions as 'married.'"

My "enhanced-honest" view is that the concept that either of the above descriptions, or that "any law enacted by branches of government=literal use of firearms to force compliance," are so grossly mischaracterizing the issue that I would label them as absurd.

Daniel2

[Damien the Leper]

"Tradition" is a conditioned human response to societal norms. Whatever we may consider to be 'traditional' isn't really traditional. Tradition by its defintion doesn't mean much to me other than it is somewhat oppressive and demanding.

[Ares]

Fixed. And thus the issue is quite simple. I can well understand why this reality is inconvenient for the homosexualists, and why you would want to avoid it in your rhetoric.

We don't allow the altering of others quotes. Please don't.

[Calm]

“A recusal rule that turns on a minority judge’s subjective desire to enjoy his basic civil rights would effectively disqualify all minority judges,” Proposition 8’s challengers said

I thought the original issue being decided was whether or not it was a civil right....this sounds circular or something.

[frankenstein]

I thought the original issue being decided was whether or not it was a civil right....this sounds circular or something.

I would chalk this up as the nature of debating. Each side tells the mediator what the mediator should believe. And each side will make statements that are not necessarily true or false, as no one of authority has determined whether the statement is true or false.

[Log]

We don't allow the altering of others quotes. Please don't.

I flag my alterations quite clearly within brackets, which is standard practice.

[Log]

The flip-side of your view, of course, means that "heterosexualists," "by force of arms," are "prohibiting non-homosexualists to recognizing LGBT unions as 'married.'"

Really? Are you sure that is the flip side? To be perfectly blunt, if I felt so moved, I could refer to LGBT unions as "married", and there is no law to prevent that; not even Prop 8. So, it appears your relationship with the truth is a little strained.

[Ares]

I flag my alterations quite clearly within brackets, which is standard practice.

We don't allow it here even if you do it correctly. Too many people have played games with the practice. Sorry.

(is it just me or is it talk back to the moderator night?)

[Log]

(is it just me or is it talk back to the moderator night?)

Sorry!!!

[Daniel2]

Really? Are you sure that is the flip side? To be perfectly blunt, if I felt so moved, I could refer to LGBT unions as "married", and there is no law to prevent that; not even Prop 8. So, it appears your relationship with the truth is a little strained.

Yes, I'm sure that is the flip side. To be perfectly blunt with you, in return: prior to the NY Legislation's legalization of full marriage equality, charges were filed in 2004 against ministers from my own Faith (Unitarian Universalism) in NY for marrying same-sex couples. From The Washington Post and The Boston Globe:

2 ministers charged in gay marriages

Legal action is first against clergy in fight over same-sex unions

By Alan Cooperman, Washington Post | March 16, 2004

A New York district attorney filed criminal charges yesterday against two Unitarian Universalist ministers for performing same-sex weddings, the first attempted prosecution in the United States of clergy for marrying gay couples.

Ulster County District Attorney Donald A. Williams brought the charges against the Rev. Kay Greenleaf and the Rev. Dawn Sangrey, who performed 13 same-sex marriages in a scenic field in New Paltz, N.Y., two weekends ago. Williams previously filed identical charges against New Paltz Mayor Jason West.

Dozens of rabbis and ministers across New York state responded to the charges by pledging to continue performing same-sex religious ceremonies, even at the risk of arrest.

As of yesterday afternoon, 83 ordained clergy had signed the pledge, which began with 20 signers last Thursday, according to Rabbi Ayelet Cohen of New York City's Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, the world's largest gay Jewish congregation.

"We absolutely are prepared to be arrested for this, because it's a matter of justice," Cohen said.

Clearly anticipating controversy, Williams issued a lengthy statement explaining his rationale for the charges. "This office fully understands, appreciates, and supports the significance of separation of church and state," the prosecutor said, adding that "it is not our intention to interfere with anyone's right to express their religious beliefs, including the right of members of the clergy to perform ceremonies where couples are united solely in the eyes of the church or any other faith."

However, he continued, the March 6 ceremonies performed by Greenleaf and Sangrey are "drastically different" because they had "proclaimed their intent to perform civil marriages under the authority vested in them by New York state law, rather than performing purely religious ceremonies."

An attorney for the two ministers, Robert C. Gottlieb, said they will plead not guilty and demand a jury trial on the misdemeanor charges, which carry a possible penalty of a year in prison and $500 in fines on each count.

"We will let the good people of New Paltz decide whether these two ministers are really criminals," he said. "They did not violate the law. Their only intention was to uphold the law, the Constitution, and the right to be free from discrimination."

Several US religious groups -- including the Reform and Reconstructionist branches of Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and some Episcopal clergy -- routinely bless same-sex couples and favor allowing gay civil marriage. Many other denominations ban such ceremonies and vigorously oppose changing marriage laws.

National religious leaders' reaction to yesterday's news generally followed those fault lines. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, issued a statement saying that even if the New Paltz weddings technically violated New York law, "we respect the ministers' actions as a form of civil disobedience."

The Rev. Richard Land, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said that if Greenleaf and Sangrey violated laws, it is not a violation of the separation of church and state to prosecute them.

In Oregon, Multnomah County commissioners decided yesterday that they will continue to issue gay marriage licenses despite legal objections from the state. About 2,000 gay couples from around the nation have flocked to Portland to be married since a March 3 county review of state law concluded that denying such applications would be unconstitutional.

Were the same-sex couples able to "call" their marriage whatever they wished? Allegedly, yes... However, the government's stance created an unequal protection of some religions' martial practices, while forbidding--and even attempting to prosecute--other religions' marital practices. The same problem that occured when the U.S. unjustly prosecuted early LDS leaders and congregants for their own private, "religious" plural marriages.

The historical account of the clashes of LDS polygamy with US governments, and the article above, illustrate the complexities of the situation when some religions' version of "marriage" is civilly permitted/recognized, while other religions' versions of marriage are prohibited by law (or, to use your term, Log, "by the force of arms.")

The good news, of course, is that thankfully, the prosecution's attempts were unsuccessful. I believe that this incident is one reason that the NY legislature acted judiciously and, as of this past year, now recognizes and supports the religious liberties of all religions and clergy to either marry or abstain from marrying same-sex couples according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Daniel2

[LeSellers]

you could insert any law (however mundane or seemingly insignificant) that's enacted by any branch of the government as one carried out "by the force of arms"...?

Absolutely.

Any time anyone says, "There ought to be a law," he's saying "The government should (at least threaten to) kill people who do not act as I think they should act." It's as simple as that.

Because, no matter what the law, the only way government can enforce compliance is by using force, and, ultimately, any governmental force is lethal. If one resists long enough, an overdue book fine at the library is a death sentence.

Lehi