Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[wenglund]

I don't know whether your pet argument has been used to sway legislatures through emotions to vote against gay marriage or not. I haven't read any of the legal briefs you mentioned. But I do know that if your emotionally charged argument was used, it has failed in each of the 7 cases before the Supreme Court. If it was only Judge Walkers decision that you like to vilify, then you might have a case. But it is not just Judge Walkers ruling that has rejected your argument. Even though the 9th circuit took a different aspect of the case to base their ruling, they still ruled against prop 8 and against your argument as has every other state and federal court that have heard these 7 cases.

All of these cases are currently before the Supreme Court. They have yet to make a decision on which cases they will hear. That decision will be made on December 3rd. IF however they choose to not hear these cases, then the Federal Court rulings against DOMA will stand and DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional.. The same applies to prop 8 case. If the Supreme Court decides to not take it up, gay marriage will become legal again in California by mid December.

Second, the 9th circuit didn't rule against my argument because it wasn't relevant--as I intimated in my last post.

Third, from what I can tell from what you quoted of the Windsor case, it

Sorry to hear your Google is broken. Here is a link to the cases that are currently before the Supreme Court. Of particular interest to you might be the Windsor v. U.S.case.

As you can see, these are not flaming liberal judges that are deciding these cases. These are conservative judges that have completely rejected your emotionally charged argument that was used to sway legislatures. Courts of law are an entirely different playing field. There you have to rely on facts not emotions to win.

You evidently have a penchant for jumping to false conclusion. For one, the argument that you previously pretended didn't exist, even though it did, and are now referring to as "emotional" and "emotionally charged," even though it isn't emotional or emotionally charged in the slightest, has been consistently referred to by the courts as a "rational basis," and this not because it is emotive, but because it is RATIONAL.

Second, from what I can tell given the quote you cited from the Windsor case, it didn't reject my pet rational argument as you claimed. Rather, the court determined that stricter scrutiny was required, which is a different test than "rational basis" (which is the test where my argument would have had bearing). This means that, if the rulings in the other cases were similar in reasoning to the Windsor case, then you are as wrong about the other 7 cases rejecting my argument as you were about Windsor and about the 9th Circuit rulings.

Third, my Google wasn't broken. In fact, I had used it to check the SCOTUS web site to see if the cases you mentioned were listed on the docket. They weren't, and so that is why I requested the CFR.

Fourth, a link to a no-name reporter on an obscure website doesn't satisfy the specific CFR I requested any more than all the other conjectural opinions throughout the web that are all over the map about what MAY or may not be "before" the Supreme Court. Truth is, we don't know what all the cases that will be considered or not. This was my point.

Feel free, though, to continue to projectively flail away over things about which you are evidently mistaken.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 15, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Seems to me that the people pro ssm are those who are relying on emotions to win, with emotional pleas based on letting people do whatever they want to do.

Falsely accusing one's opponent of the very thing one is doing has been a common propaganda tactic used more than ever by pop culturalists during this last election. What has surprised me most about this is, as with Californiaboy, they use this tactic on things that are often documented and relatively easily checked out as false on the net. It takes considerable chutzpah--either that, or they are banking on the hope that no one will critically analyze or check up on their false claims.

Even more amazing, is when they are clearly busted (which has occurred several times now with Californiaboy on this thread), they proceed as if nothing has happened and/or as if what they have said is still correct and/or jump immediately on to purporting the next falsehood.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 15, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

Seems to me that the people pro ssm are those who are relying on emotions to win, with emotional pleas based on letting people do whatever they want to do.

Judging between good and evil would be a much better way, and there is nothing good about ssm in itself.

While both sides of the question are very emotional about this issue, there is only one side whose arguments are winning in a court of law. Let me explain something that seems to have missed your grasp. When the legislature passes a law they can do so based solely on emotion. No evidence of the truthfulness of the argument is required. The courts operate on a basis of evidence. If a statement is made, evidence is required to back up that statement. You can’t simply make up arguments without any factual proof and expect to win a court case. And that my friend is why those that support ssm are winning in court after court in this country.

It is interesting that you decide that those who support ssm are supporting something that is evil while those that are against it are supporting something that is good.

When did discrimination against a group of people become good and supporting the elimination of discrimination evil. Because that is exactly what the cases are about that are before the Supreme Court. In each one of these cases, discrimination was found through proof, not through emotional rhetoric. If these same legal marriages had been straight marriages, this discrimination would not have happened.

Why is it somehow good to want people to cohabitant outside the bonds of matrimony? Isn't sex outside of marriage whether gay or straight just as wrong?

How is breaking up a legally married family and forcing the deportation of one of the heads of that family not a very evil thing? And it is only legally gay married couples that are being broken up.

Perhaps you have been drinking the Cool-Aid a little too long to not see the evil that is being perpetuated in the name of God. Something He has not consented to btw as discussed earlier in this thread.

[california boy]

You evidently have a penchant for jumping to false conclusion. For one, the argument that you previously pretended didn't exist, even though it did, and are now referring to as "emotional" and "emotionally charged," even though it isn't emotional or emotionally charged in the slightest, has been consistently referred to by the courts as a "rational basis," and this not because it is emotive, but because it is RATIONAL.

Second, from what I can tell given the quote you cited from the Windsor case, it didn't reject my pet rational argument as you claimed. Rather, the court determined that stricter scrutiny was required, which is a different test than "rational basis" (which is the test where my argument would have had bearing). This means that, if the rulings in the other cases were similar in reasoning to the Windsor case, then you are as wrong about the other 7 cases rejecting my argument as you were about Windsor and about the 9th Circuit rulings.

Third, my Google wasn't broken. In fact, I had used it to check the SCOTUS web site to see if the cases you mentioned were listed on the docket. They weren't, and so that is why I requested the CFR.

Fourth, a link to a no-name reporter on an obscure website doesn't satisfy the specific CFR I requested any more than all the other conjectural opinions throughout the web that are all over the map about what MAY or may not be "before" the Supreme Court. Truth is, we don't know what all the cases that will be considered or not. This was my point.

Feel free, though, to continue to projectively flail away over things about which you are evidently mistaken.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So are you actually trying to make the case that your pet argument was actually supported in ANY of these cases? If you are, I will need a CFR on that. If not, then your argument just sounds like a desperate attempt to cling to an idea that has no legal standing in any of the cases before the Supreme Court.

I tell you what. I will be glad to do more Google search on each of these cases to give you where they stand in the legal system. If I show you further proof that they are all up for review by the Supreme Court, will you admit that your pet argument has no legal standing in any of these cases before the Supreme Court?

[wenglund]

So are you actually trying to make the case that your pet argument was actually supported in ANY of these cases?

No. I am saying that I haven't read the court rulings on those cases (except for Perry v. Brown), but that if what you quoted from Windsor is any indication, then my argument wasn't "rejected" as you had claimed. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 15, 2012 by wenglund

[Walden]

Seems to me that the people pro ssm are those who are relying on emotions to win, with emotional pleas based on letting people do whatever they want to do.

Judging between good and evil would be a much better way, and there is nothing good about ssm in itself.

Wait, you are telling me that you would deny rights to Americans that are enumerated in the Constitution (5th & 14th Amendments), based on your religious worldview that homosexuality is impure or immoral, and we SSM supporters are the one's relying exclusively on "emotional pleas."

That's rich.

[Ahab]

Wait, you are telling me that you would deny rights to Americans that are enumerated in the Constitution (5th & 14th Amendments), based on your religious worldview that homosexuality is impure or immoral, and we SSM supporters are the one's relying exclusively on "emotional pleas."

That's rich.

I'm saying that the purpose of law should be to differentiate between what is good and what is evil (or not good). We want people to do good things, not things that aren't good, which is why we have penalities when people break a law to do something that isn't good.

Stealing, for example, isn't a good thing, so we have a law against that particular action.

SSM, for another example, is also not good... simply because there is nothing good about ssm, in itself.

That doesn't mean people who steal or do ssm acts don't do something else which is good. They could do a lot of other good things, but those particular acts are not good, so if we need to make that clear we should establish a law to differentiate what is good and what isn't good regarding stealing or ssm.

Notice I'm simply using logic and good reasoning here. Something that isn't good should not be condoned by a law. The way the world is now, though, a lot of evil things are legal, and this is simply another evil act that is now being sanctioned by law... a law of a socieity out of harmony with a law of God.

At some point the laws of God will be reconciled against the laws we come up with, and those that aren't good will be overruled.

[wenglund]

Wait, you are telling me that you would deny rights to Americans that are enumerated in the Constitution (5th & 14th Amendments), based on your religious worldview that homosexuality is impure or immoral, and we SSM supporters are the one's relying exclusively on "emotional pleas."

That's rich.

During the civil rights movement, the 5th and 14th Amendments were employed for good purposes by the courts, though interpreted in ways that far exceeded the original intent of the amendments. I, personally, believe there were better ways of achieving the same civil rights objectives for blacks without doing such violence to the intent of the amendments, in large part because doing so has opened up those amendments to further abuse by other far less worthy and even perhaps deleterious causes. But, given the good that has been accomplished with black civil rights, the violence done to these amendments is forgivable.

However, with SSM, these amendments are being put to no good (mangling a perfectly good traditional word and right and perverting a fundamental institution) and have been interpreted in ways that beggar belief. The Due Process clause of both amendments was intended to "prohibit state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or [personal] property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness." (see HERE and HERE). In other words, this clause is supposed to prevent the state and local governments from taking away peoples' private property without due process. Whereas, with SSM, particularly the most recent cases, this clause has been warped in its interpretation to mean that benefits offered by the state to heterosexual couples through legalized marriage must also be given to homosexual couples even though the purpose behind the state giving the benefits to married heterosexual couples is pretty much irrelevant to homosexual couples. With recent SSM cases, the intent of the Due Process clauses has been turned upside-down and inside-out and in ways that defy reason.

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn't fare much better with SSM. It was originally intended to require "each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction." (ibid.) The key word here is "protection." Whereas, again, with SSM, particularly the most recent cases, this clause has been warped in its interpretation to mean that benefits offered by the state to heterosexual couples vial legalized marriage must also be given equally to homosexual couples even thought the purpose behind the state giving the benefits to married heterosexual couples is pretty much irrelevant to homosexual couples. The intent of the Equal Protection clause has likewise been turned upside-down and inside-out with recent SSM cases.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 15, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

No. I am saying that I haven't read the court rulings on those cases (except for Perry v. Brown), but that if what you quoted from Windsor is any indication, then my argument wasn't "rejected" as you had claimed. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You do however realize that in all 7 cases that are before the Supreme Court, your side of the argument no matter what argument they tried to use to strike down gay marriage laws LOST. How could the loosing side actually win the case by presenting your argument. Or do you think that your argument may not have even been used to argue against these ssm laws?

[california boy]

During the civil rights movement, the 5th and 14th Amendments were employed for good purposes by the courts, though interpreted in ways that far exceeded the original intent of the amendments. I, personally, believe there were better ways of achieving the same civil rights objectives for blacks without doing such violence to the intent of the amendments, in large part because doing so has opened up those amendments to further abuse by other far less worthy and even perhaps deleterious causes. But, given the good that has been accomplished with black civil rights, the violence done to these amendments is forgivable.

However, with SSM, these amendments are being put to no good (mangling a perfectly good traditional word and right and perverting a fundamental institution) and have been interpreted in ways that beggar belief. The Due Process clause of both amendments was intended to "prohibit state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or [personal] property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness." (see HERE and HERE). In other words, this clause is supposed to prevent the state and local governments from taking away peoples' private property without due process. Whereas, with SSM, particularly the most recent cases, this clause has been warped in its interpretation to mean that benefits offered by the state to heterosexual couples through legalized marriage must also be given to homosexual couples even though the purpose behind the state giving the benefits to married heterosexual couples is pretty much irrelevant to homosexual couples. With recent SSM cases, the intent of the Due Process clauses has been turned upside-down and inside-out and in ways that defy reason.

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn't fare much better with SSM. It was originally intended to require "each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction." (ibid.) The key word here is "protection." Whereas, again, with SSM, particularly the most recent cases, this clause has been warped in its interpretation to mean that benefits offered by the state to heterosexual couples vial legalized marriage must also be given equally to homosexual couples even thought the purpose behind the state giving the benefits to married heterosexual couples is pretty much irrelevant to homosexual couples. The intent of the Equal Protection clause has likewise been turned upside-down and inside-out with recent SSM cases.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you trying to make the case that the "Wade Englund" interpretation of the constitution is more correct than 7 state judges and 7 panels of Federal judges as well as the Supreme Court's rulings of civil rights laws for blacks?

[Walden]

During the civil rights movement, the 5th and 14th Amendments were employed for good purposes by the courts, though interpreted in ways that far exceeded the original intent of the amendments. I, personally, believe there were better ways of achieving the same civil rights objectives for blacks without doing such violence to the intent of the amendments, in large part because doing so has opened up those amendments to further abuse by other far less worthy and even perhaps deleterious causes. But, given the good that has been accomplished with black civil rights, the violence done to these amendments is forgivable.

However, with SSM, these amendments are being put to no good (mangling a perfectly good traditional word and right and perverting a fundamental institution) and have been interpreted in ways that beggar belief. The Due Process clause of both amendments was intended to "prohibit state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or [personal] property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness." (see HERE and HERE). In other words, this clause is supposed to prevent the state and local governments from taking away peoples' private property without due process. Whereas, with SSM, particularly the most recent cases, this clause has been warped in its interpretation to mean that benefits offered by the state to heterosexual couples through legalized marriage must also be given to homosexual couples even though the purpose behind the state giving the benefits to married heterosexual couples is pretty much irrelevant to homosexual couples. With recent SSM cases, the intent of the Due Process clauses has been turned upside-down and inside-out and in ways that defy reason.

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn't fare much better with SSM. It was originally intended to require "each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction." (ibid.) The key word here is "protection." Whereas, again, with SSM, particularly the most recent cases, this clause has been warped in its interpretation to mean that benefits offered by the state to heterosexual couples vial legalized marriage must also be given equally to homosexual couples even thought the purpose behind the state giving the benefits to married heterosexual couples is pretty much irrelevant to homosexual couples. The intent of the Equal Protection clause has likewise been turned upside-down and inside-out with recent SSM cases.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm with California Boy on this one....the fact that you seem to believe that you have a better grasp of US Constitutional law than state judges, federal judges and the US Supreme Court is another example that, to me, is evidence that it is the anti-SSM crowd that is appealing to emotion rather than reason, rather than the pro-SSM crowd, as Ahab had previously argued. Most telling is your continual distinction between the terms "benefits" and "protections", which you appear to limit to "property" without taking into consideration the other part mentioned in the 14th amendment, which is "liberty." The 14th amendment is not exclusive to property rights.

Anyway, the anti-SSM crowd can howl all they like about constitutional activism vs. construction-ism (and ironically, many of them would support an amendment solely to exclude rights to a certain segment of society), but the fact remains voters are now approving gay marriages (as evidenced in this previous election), judges are ruling in favor of gay marriage rights, and society will continue to function as it did before gay marriage became accepted, and, as McConkie stated, though a few barking dogs snap at the caravan, it will continue to move on.

[Nathair/|\]

Are you trying to make the case that the "Wade Englund" interpretation of the constitution is more correct than 7 state judges and 7 panels of Federal judges as well as the Supreme Court's rulings of civil rights laws for blacks?

You're arguing from authority. I'm not taking a position on who is right in this post, but it doesn't matter how many people make the argument or what their credentials are. What matters is the quality of the argument.

[Ahab]

You're arguing from authority. I'm not taking a position on who is right in this post, but it doesn't matter how many people make the argument or what their credentials are. What matters is the quality of the argument.

What matters more than that is what side of the argument we are on as far as what we do or do not support.

On one side we have people essentially saying ssm is not good and should not be condoned.

On the other side we have people essentiallly saying ssm is good and should be condoned.

What side of the argument do you think our Father is on? He isn't on both sides, because it's either good or it isn't good, and he will condone only what is good.

That's what it all comes down to, and regardless of what any state or federal judge says, I want to be on the side our Father is on.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm saying that the purpose of law should be to differentiate between what is good and what is evil (or not good). We want people to do good things, not things that aren't good, which is why we have penalities when people break a law to do something that isn't good.

Stealing, for example, isn't a good thing, so we have a law against that particular action.

SSM, for another example, is also not good... simply because there is nothing good about ssm, in itself.

That doesn't mean people who steal or do ssm acts don't do something else which is good. They could do a lot of other good things, but those particular acts are not good, so if we need to make that clear we should establish a law to differentiate what is good and what isn't good regarding stealing or ssm.

Notice I'm simply using logic and good reasoning here. Something that isn't good should not be condoned by a law. The way the world is now, though, a lot of evil things are legal, and this is simply another evil act that is now being sanctioned by law... a law of a socieity out of harmony with a law of God.

At some point the laws of God will be reconciled against the laws we come up with, and those that aren't good will be overruled.

I am fundamentally opposed to govt making laws based on broad moral assessments of what is right and wrong... That is the role of private conscience and religion.

I am completely in favor if the govt. making and enforcing laws based on harm. This is a very narrow realm of moral judgement and avoids the issues of discrimination very easily.

Prove that homosexuality or homosexual marriage produces harm to others and you will win in court and in popular support. The problem is you can't.

I'm and active LDS member. I believe in gods moral laws and rules. I also fundamentally oppose any attempt to increase the govts power and influence over private citizens by asking the govt. to begin to legally administer private moral religious beliefs.

I don't think you know the Pandora's box you would be opening if you successfully got the US legal system to enforce law around Mormon moral theology. Such moral decision making must always be privately informed, never a result of state enforcement.

Also, your position is far to simple to even be considered on grounds of rational merit or reason. There is far to much you have not engaged in that is central to this debate. You need a much more rigorous position before you can claim you are simply following good logic.

Right now you are effectively saying, "I have only ever seen blue skies, therefore, the sky must always be blue". This is neither logical, rational or reasonable. In fact it is a fallacy.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[TAO]

Bikemikey, either decision opens a pandora's box. Enforcing moral behavior means other behavior considered moral can be enforced, regardless of whether we like it or not. Not enforcing moral behavior means some rather repulsive behavior could be exposed to our children as more things are passed based on precedent of the court decision.

[DavidB]

Ahab,

To many Worshipping God = good

To many worshipping the Mormons Gods = evil

Who gets to decide what is good and what is evil, essentially what your propose is analogous to Shiar Law.

[Bikeemikey]

Bikemikey, either decision opens a pandora's box. Enforcing moral behavior means other behavior considered moral can be enforced, regardless of whether we like it or not. Not enforcing moral behavior means some rather repulsive behavior could be exposed to our children as more things are passed based on precedent of the court decision.

If the courts consistently enforce the legal system around the principle of harm then people's property and personhood will be protected. Contracts and agreements made between free and consenting parties will also have legal protection.

Repulsive behavior may be present in society, but it would be, by definition, harmless to us. Seeing something we are religiously, morally or by conscience opposed Is not harm, unless we are forced to be witness to it.

Also, the tolerance of diversity and allowance and respect for individual agency is also itself a moral good. We must also remember this as we look for a reasonable balance. I am currently inclined to suggest that as we increase societal tolerance toward homosexuality and seek for equal protection and treatment through law an govt for all, we actually become a more moral society, not less moral, even though I personally do not understand or accept homosexuality as an acceptable private moral practice.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[cdowis]

Wait, you are telling me that you would deny rights to Americans that are enumerated in the Constitution (5th & 14th Amendments), based on your religious worldview that homosexuality is impure or immoral, and we SSM supporters are the one's relying exclusively on "emotional pleas."

That's rich.

Just curious. Do you think that a state should issue a driver's license to someone who is blind? Or is that discrimination, and unconstitutional.

Do you understand the difference between a "right" and a "license" issue by a state? In the case of a blind person, is the driver's license a right or a license where the state can regulate its issuance.

In the case of SSM, it would be constitutional to allow anyone to apply for such a license, but the state has a right to refuse such a license if it does not follow certain rules -- the blind man cannot see and where the couple is same sex. Nothing to do with the "right" to apply for that license, but the granting of the license.

[webbles]

If the courts consistently enforce the legal system around the principle of harm then people's property and personhood will be protected. Contracts and agreements made between free and consenting parties will also have legal protection.

Repulsive behavior may be present in society, but it would be, by definition, harmless to us. Seeing something we are religiously, morally or by conscience opposed Is not harm, unless we are forced to be witness to it.

Also, the tolerance of diversity and allowance and respect for individual agency is also itself a moral good. We must also remember this as we look for a reasonable balance. I am currently inclined to suggest that as we increase societal tolerance toward homosexuality and seek for equal protection and treatment through law an govt for all, we actually become a more moral society, not less moral, even though I personally do not understand or accept homosexuality as an acceptable private moral practice.

Defining what harms a person is not clear cut. Take smoking, it harms the person. It also harms people around by second hand smoking. And it apparently harms people who weren't even near by with third hand smoking (though this I believe is still under study). So it should be illegal, correct?

What about the damage of divorce to children? Shouldn't divorce be illegal?

And what about emotional harm? Some studies are showing that ads can negatively affect the self esteem of woman. Should these ads be illegal?

And what about situations where studies show it is harmful and other studies show it is harmless? Which ones do you go with?

[Bikeemikey]

Just curious. Do you think that a state should issue a driver's license to someone who is blind? Or is that discrimination, and unconstitutional.

Do you understand the difference between a "right" and a "license" issue by a state? In the case of a blind person, is the driver's license a right or a license where the state can regulate its issuance.

In the case of SSM, it would be constitutional to allow anyone to apply for such a license, but the state has a right to refuse such a license if it does not follow certain rules -- the blind man cannot see and where the couple is same sex. Nothing to do with the "right" to apply for that license, but the granting of the license.

I totally agree!!

And when we are giving the govt. this power to make such judgements we also require the govt. to be fundamentally transparent as to the reasoning behind why some are included and some are not. Moreover, when the state fails to provide reasonable grounds for the difference in license issuance activities we the people then have a right and duty to stand up and the demand the govt. change their practices.

That is what is happening.

The govt has said we selectively issue these licenses. They have failed to provide good reasons as to why such selectivity is being used. Different States have lost a number of different cases trying to defend their selective practices. Now the Supreme Court will likely decide whether govt. has reasonable grounds to exercise selective practice on this issue.

As you can see: this is all part of the process of democracy working correctly. The US as a. functioning democracy will soon have a final statement issues (likely by the Supreme Court) which will likely find that current state practices regarding selectivity of marriage license issuance is not based on legitimate principles and the issue will be legislatively settled.

It will likely never be morally settled - which I think is absolutely acceptable.

Back to the blind man analogy: a blind man on the road produces clear and present harm. What harm does a homosexual married couple produce.

We should very rarely allow the govt to exercise its ability to discriminate. There just be absolute categorical harm or avoidance if harm for citizens to permit govt to exercise this power. Homosexual marriage does joy meet this threshold and i am confident the US Supreme Court will make a ruling to this effect in the near future.

[Bikeemikey]

Defining what harms a person is not clear cut. Take smoking, it harms the person. It also harms people around by second hand smoking. And it apparently harms people who weren't even near by with third hand smoking (though this I believe is still under study). So it should be illegal, correct?

What about the damage of divorce to children? Shouldn't divorce be illegal?

And what about emotional harm? Some studies are showing that ads can negatively affect the self esteem of woman. Should these ads be illegal?

And what about situations where studies show it is harmful and other studies show it is harmless? Which ones do you go with?

The purpose of the law and the practice of law is an attempt to answer your question.

Harm is not easy to define, nor is it consistently defined. Your examples are all considerations that have been before the courts numerous times.

There is no perfect answer or solution to your questions. There will always be a balancing act between individuals beliefs, rights and agency, the beliefs, right and agency of others, and the needs and protections of broader community. One of the defining characteristics of modern democratic society is how we strike a balance between these competing interests.

However, despite this tension some basic tenants of our society seem to dictate the following:

We should always limit the govts exercise of discriminatory issuance of rights and licenses to instances where harm is extremely clear and where such discriminatory practices by the govt. would definitively avoid such harm.

We should try to restrict the inclusion of a single religious moral code from being enshrined or protected in legislation.

We should always err on the side of protecting private citizens right to exercise there beliefs, conscience and moral disposition through action when harm to others is unlikely, even when harm to the individual is a possibility.

To me it is clear that in the absence of any clearly defined harm being produced the US legal system will find the current discriminatory practice of restricted access to marriage violates our constitution and our principles of freedom, even if homosexuality it self is immoral.

If we want to change our legal system in the US to some Christian variation of Islamic law currently practiced in the Middle East we could likely create a legal system that would uphold the present govt. practice. However, such a change to our legal system would be a much graver threat to our freedom and liberty than the tolerance and acceptance of same sex marriage could ever be.

[wenglund]

You do however realize that in all 7 cases that are before the Supreme Court, your side of the argument no matter what argument they tried to use to strike down gay marriage laws LOST. How could the loosing side actually win the case by presenting your argument. Or do you think that your argument may not have even been used to argue against these ssm laws?

My side lost in those cases because, for the most part, a different judicial review test was used than all the cases where my side had won. They used tests other than rational basis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Are you trying to make the case that the "Wade Englund" interpretation of the constitution is more correct than 7 state judges and 7 panels of Federal judges as well as the Supreme Court's rulings of civil rights laws for blacks?

My case is that the courts have created methods of judicial review that aren't anywhere mentioned in the Constitution. And, the courts have employed those extra-Constitutional methods in gradually expanding ways to where what may have once been reasonable and for laudable intents, those methods have become less about Constitutional interpretation and more about pop cultural-influenced judicial activism--these extra-Constitutional methods have eventually moved the courts rulings well away from the original intent of the Constitution and its amendments and to the point where what was intended to protect its citizens from governmental harm is now being used to force the government to pollute the fundamental institution of society.

The problem is, there is no check and balance in the constitution to prevent this kind of judicial abuse. The only way to prevent it is judicial restraint--as evinced in the latest SSM case in Hawaii as contrasted in the extreme by the California Supreme Court ruling on Prop 22 and Walker's Federal District Court ruling on Prop 22. That, or Constitutional amendments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TAO]

Repulsive behavior may be present in society, but it would be, by definition, harmless to us. Seeing something we are religiously, morally or by conscience opposed Is not harm, unless we are forced to be witness to it.

So seeing nude people walk around in the street (like in San Francisco) is harmless to us. I'm a bit skpetical of this. It's not like you can 'unsee' a nude person who you accidentally glimpsed upon. There is a very real effect to exposure. I'm not saying exposure is a bad thing; but saying it has no effect is a bit like saying that the sun has no effect on plants. It has a very real effect, and sometimes, it is viewed as harmful.

Also, the tolerance of diversity and allowance and respect for individual agency is also itself a moral good.

Says whom? Says you. Different people have different ideas about this sort of thing. Different people like different ideas of diversity, and different respsects of agency. I am guessing you don't like extreme libertarians. But they are the most 'freedom loving' group of us all. And at the same time, I am guessing you don't like extreme authoritarians, on the other side of the spectrum.

Very few here in the states believes that respect for individual agency is always a moral good. Rather they believe it's situational.

We must also remember this as we look for a reasonable balance. I am currently inclined to suggest that as we increase societal tolerance toward homosexuality and seek for equal protection and treatment through law an govt for all, we actually become a more moral society, not less moral, even though I personally do not understand or accept homosexuality as an acceptable private moral practice.

Was society more moral or less moral ten years ago? I tend to think it was more moral then. I have a feeling it won't be going in the opposite direction any time soon. Then again, that's just my opinion.

[wenglund]

I'm with California Boy on this one....the fact that you seem to believe that you have a better grasp of US Constitutional law than state judges, federal judges and the US Supreme Court is another example that, to me, is evidence that it is the anti-SSM crowd that is appealing to emotion rather than reason, rather than the pro-SSM crowd, as Ahab had previously argued.

First of all, I haven't claimed to know more about Constitutional law than the parties you mentioned. So, you are indeed with Californiaboy in terms of leveling false accusations. See my post above where I corrected your misunderstanding about what I was arguing.

Second, even if I were claiming to know more (I didn't), it would in no rational sense be evidence, in and of itself, of an appeal to emotion. For it to be an appeal to emotion would necessitate that the claim be a function of emotion, and not reason. Whereas, my claim (when correctly understood) were reasoned-based.

So, you are wrong on two accounts. Congratulations.

Most telling is your continual distinction between the terms "benefits" and "protections", which you appear to limit to "property" without taking into consideration the other part mentioned in the 14th amendment, which is "liberty." The 14th amendment is not exclusive to property rights.

Not surprising, you jumped yet again to a fallacious conclusion. The fact that I only mentioned property and didn't mention liberty or life or privileges of immunity or a variety of other things stated in the 4 other lengthy sections of the 14th Amendment, doesn't mean I was restricting the amendment to property. It simply means that, for practical purposes, I focused my comments on a single and most relevant aspect of the amendment to illustrate my point. I could have used liberty as well, and if you would like me to, I will.

Anyway, the anti-SSM crowd can howl all they like about constitutional activism vs. construction-ism (and ironically, many of them would support an amendment solely to exclude rights to a certain segment of society), but the fact remains voters are now approving gay marriages (as evidenced in this previous election), judges are ruling in favor of gay marriage rights, and society will continue to function as it did before gay marriage became accepted, and, as McConkie stated, though a few barking dogs snap at the caravan, it will continue to move on.

I get that there is a bandwagon effect, just as I get that the bandwagon effect is a fallacy of logical argumentation. Far be it from me, though, to claim that there can't be popular movements that are deleterious to society. After all, I came of age during the so-called "sexual revolution" where the bandwagon effect was o denigrate and dismiss fundamental institutions of society and promote instead "free love," which gave rise to an explosion of venereal disease, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, single parents, etc., and which in turn eventually expanded crime, poverty, and the welfare rolls--i.e. real causes for celebrations and things we can be as proud as Charlie Sheen for "WINNING!".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 17, 2012 by wenglund