Will Of The People, The Law, And The Church.

[treehugger]

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

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

Edited July 29, 2012 by treehugger

[wenglund]

Like I said, the courts need to rule according to what is constitutional, not according to how people feel about an issue. Minority rights have always been protected through the courts.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 29, 2012 by wenglund

[Libs]

Yes, I realize that's your opinion.

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

[CASteinman]

Minority rights have always been protected through the courts.

Not true.

[Libs]

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

[CASteinman]

prop 8 actually changed California's constitution

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

[CASteinman]

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

This is modern propaganda.

[Libs]

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

[wenglund]

Yes, I realize that's your opinion.

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

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 29, 2012 by wenglund

[Libs]

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

Hope you're having a nice Sunday.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Libs

[CASteinman]

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

And yet a simple assertion on your side is sufficient?

[Libs]

And yet a simple assertion on your side is sufficient?

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

[CASteinman]

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

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

[Libs]

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

Yes, I thought of that, as well.

[wenglund]

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

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

Hope you're having a nice Sunday.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 29, 2012 by wenglund

[jwhitlock]

thanks for the heads up, here is the correction

My position is - as I have stated - that the statement from the Church simply addresses a specific situation. Attempts to read more or less into it are simply unfounded speculation.

[jwhitlock]

Like I said, the courts need to rule according to what is constitutional, not according to how people feel about an issue. Minority rights have always been protected through the courts.

Not really. As the Dred Scott decision of 1857 shows, along with many other decisions, the so-called protection of minority rights is only incidental to decisions they make. The justices have their own agendas, which differ widely. Their declarations of what is constitutional have been reversed or modified by subsequent courts so many times that it's clearly evident that they can't be relied on as a realistic indicator of what the constitution really means - or whether a particular group has been truly "wronged" in any instance.

The state supreme courts aren't any better, and as the Church rightfully has noted, the court has no particular business overturning the express will of the people in this particular case. There is really no evidence that any particular wrong was perpetuated by Prop 8.

[treehugger]

My position is - as I have stated - that the statement from the Church simply addresses a specific situation. Attempts to read more or less into it are simply unfounded speculation.

So for this specific situation the Church is will of the people trumps all?

[treehugger]

This answers the question.

...

The state supreme courts aren't any better, and as the Church rightfully has noted, the court has no particular business overturning the express will of the people in this particular case. There is really no evidence that any particular wrong was perpetuated by Prop 8.