Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Bikeemikey]

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-

Hey Wade.

You are obviously very knowledgable about the constitution from a certain perspective. The constitution is however about interpretation. From the very beginning of US legislative history the initial drafters of the constitution debated many of the meanings of the document that had all just finished.

As a general rule following the constitution will always trend towards equality and a level playing field.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[california boy]

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-

You might want to reread bikeemikey's very thoughtful post on this issue. The clear reason why your pet argument failed in the state and federal court systems time and time again is because they could not prove any real harm to society.

I think Bikeemikey explained it quite well.

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.

I suppose it is only natural to try and blame the system or argue that the federal courts are inappropriately administering their governmental roll rather than have to admit that you may not have a valid argument to prevent ssm. It probably doesn't help you feel better when the judges you are trying to discredit as having some agenda or are ruling under the wrong criteria were appointed to the federal courts by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

[slamarwi]

The topic of this supposed discussion is "Is Ssm Acceptance Inevitable" the answer is two-fold. As to the world, of course it will be accepted. Anyone that believes in prophecy and understands the cycle of righteousness to wickedness knows it will happen. The real question is: will the church and its members accept this perverse practice?

To a certain degree many members already have. This has been made very evident by this discussion board and many other activities such as marches, protests, petitions etc.

Will the church institution ever condone SSM and allow it in the temple? My hope and belief is that it won't (but nothing surprises me anymore). However, if it does, I will re-read my proclamation to the world, take my own advice and my family, and flee into the wilderness.

[Bikeemikey]

The topic of this supposed discussion is "Is Ssm Acceptance Inevitable" the answer is two-fold. As to the world, of course it will be accepted. Anyone that believes in prophecy and understands the cycle of righteousness to wickedness knows it will happen. The real question is: will the church and its members accept this perverse practice?

To a certain degree many members already have. This has been made very evident by this discussion board and many other activities such as marches, protests, petitions etc.

Will the LDS church ever condone SSM and allow it in the temple? My hope and belief is that it won't (but nothing surprises me anymore). However, if it does, I will re-read my proclamation to the world, take my own advice and my family, and flee into the wilderness.

Church members may accept the SSM as a necessary step toward a more just and free society while still being inline with the teachings and message of the gospel. Such an acceptance has nothing to do with the rightness and wrongness of SSM - it is about our beliefs regarding the states right to discriminate between citizens.

If it ever becomes accepted in the church it will be via prophetic mandate and the will of The Lord. Would members leave if the church announced homosexuality was ok with god? Sure they would. And those members who left would be turning their backs on god, however right and entitled they may feel. However, given this is an unlikely hypothetical we don't need to go into it in much detail.

[Zeta-Flux]

The clear reason why your pet argument failed in the state and federal court systems time and time again is because they could not prove any real harm to society.

Why do you keep calling it Wades "pet argument"?

Why do you claim that the pet argument has failed time and time again, when you are aware of the fact it has also succeeded time and time again?

As for harm, I believe you are aware that previous studies used limited, self-selected, unrepresentative samples from the population. More recent studies since (say, the Walker case) have shown highly negative outcomes.

I suppose it is only natural to try and blame the system or argue that the federal courts are inappropriately administering their governmental roll rather than have to admit that you may not have a valid argument to prevent ssm. It probably doesn't help you feel better when the judges you are trying to discredit as having some agenda or are ruling under the wrong criteria were appointed to the federal courts by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

It seems to me that the political party of the person who appoints a judge is not necessarily an indicator of whether said judge "has some agenda" or is "ruling under the wrong criteria." Rather, some indicators may include (1) shenanigans in court, including having to be overruled, multiple times, for proceedings which ignored the law, or (2) lying during proceedings, or (3) breaking one's own sealing order, and again having to be reprimanded by a higher court.

In Walker's case, all three are true. That, and the appellate court's ruling basically ignored his ruling entirely, and ruled on completely different grounds. It is clear to anyone who reads the Walker's ruling, knows the law, and knows the history of the court case and Walkers behavior during and after trial, that Walker had an agenda (part of which he didn't reveal until after he retired from the bench).

Edited November 18, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[wenglund]

Hey Wade.

You are obviously very knowledgable about the constitution from a certain perspective. The constitution is however about interpretation. From the very beginning of US legislative history the initial drafters of the constitution debated many of the meanings of the document that had all just finished.

As a general rule following the constitution will always trend towards equality and a level playing field.

I haven't denied that the Constitution is subject to interpretation. It is.

What I have suggested is that certain extra-Constitutional methods of judicial review have affectively in some cases supplanted interpretation with legislating from the bench. Lack of judicial restraint at times has crossed the Constitutional lines of separation of powers, though with no means of checking and balancing it. There is no separate branch of government that can legitimately declaring certain judicial rulings un-Constitutional, even though they may very well be.

And, it is more than a bit naive to think that following the Constitution will always, let alone most of the time, trend towards equality--and this not only because equality in many ways is an impractical and implausible ideal, but also because the Constitution is designed to provide the fundamental framework for a republican democracy rather than egalitarianism. The objectives of the Constitution are outlined in the Preamble. Note that it says nothing about equality or trending towards equality:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,^{[note 1]} promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (See HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You might want to reread bikeemikey's very thoughtful post on this issue. The clear reason why your pet argument failed in the state and federal court systems time and time again is because they could not prove any real harm to society.

I am not familiar with the "no real harm" standard of judicial review. Could either you or Bikemikey please point me to some authoritative material where it is described and defines how it is supposed to work in determining the constitutionality of laws? And, could you also point to where allegedly, time after time, in the court rulings the laws in question were deemed unConstitutional based on the "no real harm" test?

I suspect that the two of you are quite mistaken, but I want to give you the opportunity to prove my suspicions incorrect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

I haven't denied that the Constitution is subject to interpretation. It is.

What I have suggested is that certain extra-Constitutional methods of judicial review have affectively in some cases supplanted interpretation with legislating from the bench. Lack of judicial restraint at times has crossed the Constitutional lines of separation of powers, though with no means of checking and balancing it. There is no separate branch of government that can legitimately declaring certain judicial rulings un-Constitutional, even though they may very well be.

And, it is more than a bit naive to think that following the Constitution will always, let alone most of the time, trend towards equality--and this not only because equality in many ways is an impractical and implausible ideal, but also because the Constitution is designed to provide the fundamental framework for a republican democracy rather than egalitarianism. The objectives of the Constitution are outlined in the Preamble. Note that it says nothing about equality or trending towards equality:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My reference to equality was not about egalitarianism, it was about being treated equally by the state. Following the constitution may not lead to egalitarian equality, it will almost always lead to equal treatment from the govt.

That was my point.

[wenglund]

My reference to equality was not about egalitarianism, it was about being treated equally by the state. Following the constitution may not lead to egalitarian equality, it will almost always lead to equal treatment from the govt.

That was my point.

Fortunately, even in that regard following the Constitution doesn't invariably lead to equal treatment from the government, nor for practical purposes should it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a graduated income tax or tax incentives that apply to some people but not others or enterprise zones that give certain governmental privileges and incentives to certain people in certain areas and not to others. We wouldn't have age restrictions for marriage and auto licenses, voting, governmental/military offices and employment, or for alcohol and tobacco consumption. We wouldn't have different speed limits for people driving cars as distinguished from people driving trucks. We wouldn't have zoning laws that don't allow people to equally use certain areas of land however they wish. We wouldn't give deference to mothers over fathers in custody and child support issues due to divorce. We wouldn't have government contracts or radio and TV frequency bands awarded to certain people and not others. We wouldn't have some people and not others authorized by the government to police and judge and execute laws and governmental business. I could go on and on pointing out all the logical and rational inequalities in the ways that our government treats its people, including and especially via the methods of judicial review under discussion (different classes of people are treated differently in terms of the level of scrutiny applied in equal protection and due process cases), but hopefully this will suffice in demonstrating that you are mistaken. In many cases, following the Constitution sensibly demands unequal treatment.

This is not to say that the Constitution doesn't attempt some semblance of equality. It does, though in ways that make sense and are in everyone's best interest.

The point being, our society has become somewhat obsessed with the notion of equality without really thinking things through critically. To me, those obsessed with equality oft fail to understand that equality ought to be a limited means to an end, and not an end in itself, and they seem to be swept up mindlessly and tossed to a fro by pop culture.

Now, I don't have a real problem with this mindless obsession as long good comes of it and it elevates us as a people--as with, for the most part, the civil rights movement. What I object to is when the well intended precept of equality is abused in such a way as to profane the sacred and diminish fundamental institutions of society and to compel people to not only countenance but condone perverse behaviors. Worse even still is when the principle of equality is used by people who ought to know better, to irrationally give themselves a false sense of moral superiority when profaning the sacred.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 19, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Assuming that certain parties on this thread may be correct in predicting that SSM is inevitable for the U.S. as a whole, I was reminded today of what is stated in Helaman 5:2:

"For as their laws and their governments were established by the ^avoice of the people, and they who ^bchose evil were ^cmore numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ^dripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted."

In light of recent events, I am thinking of using this passage as my signature line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 19, 2012 by wenglund

[Zeta-Flux]

Wade,

It is spelled "Helaman". :-)

[wenglund]

Wade, It is spelled "Helaman". :-)

What's wrong with the plural spelling? LOL

I appreciate the correction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

Why do you keep calling it Wades "pet argument"?

Why do you claim that the pet argument has failed time and time again, when you are aware of the fact it has also succeeded time and time again?

As for harm, I believe you are aware that previous studies used limited, self-selected, unrepresentative samples from the population. More recent studies since (say, the Walker case) have shown highly negative outcomes.

It seems to me that the political party of the person who appoints a judge is not necessarily an indicator of whether said judge "has some agenda" or is "ruling under the wrong criteria." Rather, some indicators may include (1) shenanigans in court, including having to be overruled, multiple times, for proceedings which ignored the law, or (2) lying during proceedings, or (3) breaking one's own sealing order, and again having to be reprimanded by a higher court.

In Walker's case, all three are true. That, and the appellate court's ruling basically ignored his ruling entirely, and ruled on completely different grounds. It is clear to anyone who reads the Walker's ruling, knows the law, and knows the history of the court case and Walkers behavior during and after trial, that Walker had an agenda (part of which he didn't reveal until after he retired from the bench).

Wade's pet argument that he brings up time and again is that the government involvement in marriage to produce children. I simply pointed out that there are 7 ssm cases before the supreme court. In all 7 cases, his argument has either not been brought up or been rejected by both 7 state judges and 7 federal judge panels. That is a fact. And as far as I know, there are the only ssm cases before the supreme court. If you know of any cases before the supreme court that agree with his argument, I would love to have you pass it on to all of us.

Often on this site, if a judge rules in favor of ssm, then the first thing that people come back with is he ruled in favor of ssm becasue he is a liberal judge. I was just pointing out that conservative judges were also ruling in favor of ssm rights. Someone that disagrees with a ruling can always pull apart things they did not like about one ruling, but it is much more difficult to pull apart arguments of all of these judges, both liberal and conservative judges. At some point, people have to come to the conclusion that equal justice is an issue when it comes to denying gay marriage rights, however painful that is to admit.

[california boy]

Assuming that certain parties on this thread may be correct in predicting that SSM is inevitable for the U.S. as a whole, I was reminded today of what is stated in Helaman 5:2:

"For as their laws and their governments were established by the ^avoice of the people, and they who ^bchose evil were ^cmore numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ^dripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted."

In light of recent events, I am thinking of using this passage as my signature line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The trouble with the verse you quote is both sides would agree with this statement. Those that support gay marriage think that denying a group of citizens equality before the law is an evil principle voted on by the voice of the people. What you are implying is that any law becomes evil if it is not the same as your religious point of view. And that form of government is a completely different form of government than what we are living under. This verse could have been used throughout the history of the church as government decides any laws not in line with Mormon doctrine.

[Nathair/|\]

What's wrong with the plural spelling? LOL

I appreciate the correction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If Helaman is the leader, couldn't Helamen refer to the Stripling Warriors?

[Tacenda]

The topic of this supposed discussion is "Is Ssm Acceptance Inevitable" the answer is two-fold. As to the world, of course it will be accepted. Anyone that believes in prophecy and understands the cycle of righteousness to wickedness knows it will happen. The real question is: will the church and its members accept this perverse practice?

To a certain degree many members already have. This has been made very evident by this discussion board and many other activities such as marches, protests, petitions etc.

Will the church institution ever condone SSM and allow it in the temple? My hope and belief is that it won't (but nothing surprises me anymore). However, if it does, I will re-read my proclamation to the world, take my own advice and my family, and flee into the wilderness.

As did many who left the church when blacks could hold the priesthood finally.

This is the second time you have derailed a thread with undocumented statements that amount to race baiting. You are suspended.

[guerreiro9]

it is about our beliefs regarding the states right to discriminate between citizens.

I am entering this argument discussion late, but would like to comment on Bikeemikey's statement. There is a very large and fundamental difference between discriminating against behaviors and discriminating against citizens. A successful government will and should discriminate against behaviors that are harmful to the populace. It should also give preferential treatment and encourage behaviors that are beneficial to the populace. Any society that does not do this will fail.

This is not the same thing as discriminating against citizens of a particular group. Discriminating against citizens of a particular group would involve allowing certain segments of the populace to engage is specific behaviors while denying other segments the privilege of engaging in the identical behavior. In my opinion this is not what is occurring with same sex marriage within individual states. If it was occurring you would see certain segments of the populace being allowed to engage in same sex marriage, while other segments were disallowed. This is not the case, to my knowledge every segment of the populace is being held to the same standards, and discrimination of citizens is not occurring.

What is occurring is a debate about whether same sex marriage as a behavior should be allowed in our society with numerous proponents and opponents. Whatever your beliefs about same sex marriage, you better hope that the government under which you reside retains its ability to incentivize beneficial behaviors while discouraging unbeneficial ones, even if proponents of unbeneficial behaviors feel they are being discriminated against.

[Kemara]

Those that support gay marriage think that denying a group of citizens equality before the law is an evil principle voted on by the voice of the people.

Those that support homosexual marriage think they are being denied equality with "who" before the law? With "whom" are they not equal and on what terms?

[Bikeemikey]

I am entering this argument discussion late, but would like to comment on Bikeemikey's statement. There is a very large and fundamental difference between discriminating against behaviors and discriminating against citizens. A successful government will and should discriminate against behaviors that are harmful to the populace. It should also give preferential treatment and encourage behaviors that are beneficial to the populace. Any society that does not do this will fail.

This is not the same thing as discriminating against citizens of a particular group. Discriminating against citizens of a particular group would involve allowing certain segments of the populace to engage is specific behaviors while denying other segments the privilege of engaging in the identical behavior. In my opinion this is not what is occurring with same sex marriage within individual states. If it was occurring you would see certain segments of the populace being allowed to engage in same sex marriage, while other segments were disallowed. This is not the case, to my knowledge every segment of the populace is being held to the same standards, and discrimination of citizens is not occurring.

What is occurring is a debate about whether same sex marriage as a behavior should be allowed in our society with numerous proponents and opponents. Whatever your beliefs about same sex marriage, you better hope that the government under which you reside retains its ability to incentivize beneficial behaviors while discouraging unbeneficial ones, even if proponents of unbeneficial behaviors feel they are being discriminated against.

I really like your post... Haven't figured out how to give rep points from my iphone - sorry.

I agree with almost everything you have said.

As I have noted earlier I support the states right to both discriminate and preference. Even when such behavior leads to unequal treatment.

However, such action must be limited to the states restriction to operate in the narrow moral field if harm, not the broader religious moral field.

I am asking what is the states arguments for harm associated with SSM. The recent arguments before the courts on this have all stated harm is not clearly evident from SSM.

If we can not demonstrate a (narrow) example of harm SSM will be accepted by the Supreme Court.

[Bikeemikey]

Those that support homosexual marriage think they are being denied equality with "who" before the law? With "whom" are they not equal and on what terms?

Hey there kemara,

As a fellow kiwi who has been living in the US for a little over five years I can assure you homosexual couples are not afforded the same legal entitlements heterosexual married couples are, and civil unions do not resolve this issue as they are state by state and have no absolute federal acceptance.

In New Zealand married partners are on equal footing with civil union partners, in fact the govt said if you live together for three years (I think that is the number) you enter into the same legally recognized form of relationship as if you were married or civil unioned.

There are many states in the US where a same sex partnership are not granted health insurance, hospital access, end of life decision making, claims for support if the relationship breaks up, and of course the tax considerations.

Marriage or not, tax equality or not, all of these other issues need to be resolved in the US.

[Kemara]

Hey there kemara,

As a fellow kiwi who has been living in the US for a little over five years I can assure you homosexual couples are not afforded the same legal entitlements heterosexual married couples are, and civil unions do not resolve this issue as they are state by state and have no absolute federal acceptance.

In New Zealand married partners are on equal footing with civil union partners, in fact the govt said if you live together for three years (I think that is the number) you enter into the same legally recognized form of relationship as if you were married or civil unioned.

There are many states in the US where a same sex partnership are not granted health insurance, hospital access, end of life decision making, claims for support if the relationship breaks up, and of course the tax considerations.

Marriage or not, tax equality or not, all of these other issues need to be resolved in the US.

So its not really a marriage issue in the US then. All of the legal entitlements you mention can be resolved without having homosexual marriage.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Kemara

[california boy]

I am entering this argument discussion late, but would like to comment on Bikeemikey's statement. There is a very large and fundamental difference between discriminating against behaviors and discriminating against citizens. A successful government will and should discriminate against behaviors that are harmful to the populace. It should also give preferential treatment and encourage behaviors that are beneficial to the populace. Any society that does not do this will fail.

This is not the same thing as discriminating against citizens of a particular group. Discriminating against citizens of a particular group would involve allowing certain segments of the populace to engage is specific behaviors while denying other segments the privilege of engaging in the identical behavior. In my opinion this is not what is occurring with same sex marriage within individual states. If it was occurring you would see certain segments of the populace being allowed to engage in same sex marriage, while other segments were disallowed. This is not the case, to my knowledge every segment of the populace is being held to the same standards, and discrimination of citizens is not occurring.

What is occurring is a debate about whether same sex marriage as a behavior should be allowed in our society with numerous proponents and opponents. Whatever your beliefs about same sex marriage, you better hope that the government under which you reside retains its ability to incentivize beneficial behaviors while discouraging unbeneficial ones, even if proponents of unbeneficial behaviors feel they are being discriminated against.

I also agree with your position. Government should be able to pass laws that will be a positive benefit to society. Much of the court cases that are currently before the supreme court argued this very point. But in each and every one of these cases, those that made the legal argument that ssm would be bad for society as a whole could not come up with a compelling argument that would be recognized by the laws of this country. And that is the reason why they all ruled in support of ssm couples.

[california boy]

So its not really a marriage issue in the US then. All of the legal entitlements you mention can be resolved without having homosexual marriage.

You actually are somewhat correct.. There are over 1200 federal laws that apply to a couple when they are legally married. Some of those laws are related to benefits but not all of them. Perhaps you are right. All 1200 laws could be repealed, modified and changed through extensive legislature and/or court process. Can you imagine how much distraction rectifying the unequal treatment to gay citizens? Can you imagine how many legal cases would have to be brought before the Supreme Court if legislatures failed to pass all 1200 issues? It took this country decades to repeal DADT over this one issue. The congress has yet to pass ENDA, which would simply end many discrimination practices in regards to employment. Did you know that there is still no legal protection for a legally married spouse to visit his partner in a hospital in many states in this country? Yet it is an issue that seems to be supported by a large majority of people. If there was a single law that would wipe out all of these inequities, perhaps that would be an option. In reality there is such a law, ssm, and that is the one that is before the supreme court.

Edited November 19, 2012 by california boy

[wenglund]

The trouble with the verse you quote is both sides would agree with this statement. Those that support gay marriage think that denying a group of citizens equality before the law is an evil principle voted on by the voice of the people. What you are implying is that any law becomes evil if it is not the same as your religious point of view. And that form of government is a completely different form of government than what we are living under. This verse could have been used throughout the history of the church as government decides any laws not in line with Mormon doctrine.

Incorrect on a number of levels. First, while it is true that both sides may agree with the statement, one side may agree because they rightly consider good as good and evil as evil, while the other side, in their upside-down way of thinking, might agree because they wrongly consider good as evil and evil as good (and I am not just talking here about religious "good" and "evil"--see below).

Second, as explained multiple time, equality is what has existed all along (with the exception for a time of inter-racial couples). Both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have had the fundamental civil right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Whereas, what is being advocated now is inequality--i.e. not only via the inane mangling of the traditional definition of marriage and the invention of a new right, but the newly invented right selectively discriminates in favor of same-sex couples and doesn't advocate for marriage equality in terms of age, close biological relationships, multiple relationships, etc.. In fact, some of the legal arguments forwarded by gay advocates attempt to give homosexuals special classification, which would privilege them as a group over other groups in 14th amendment legal challenges. In short, the notions of "equal rights" and "marriage equality" as purported by SSM advocates is a demonstrable myth.

Third, I am not looking at this issue strictly from a religious perspective. In fact, my arguments against mangling the definition of marriage and diluting the fundamental institution of society, have been almost exclusively secular. My moral compass may well be set on Christ and his revealed gospel (as contrasted with those whose moral compasses are set on the selfish desires of the flesh), but my legal compass is set on the Constitution (as contrasted with those whose legal compasses are set on pop culture), and so my determination of what is "evil" or deleterious or insipid or corrupt in legal matters is based on the Constitution, which is the same government under which we now live--though increasingly less so until perhaps eventually it may hang by a thread.

With that having been said, would you please satisfy the CFR I issued to you in post # 307 of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 19, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I really like your post... Haven't figured out how to give rep points from my iphone - sorry.

I agree with almost everything you have said.

As I have noted earlier I support the states right to both discriminate and preference. Even when such behavior leads to unequal treatment.

However, such action must be limited to the states restriction to operate in the narrow moral field if harm, not the broader religious moral field.

I am asking what is the states arguments for harm associated with SSM. The recent arguments before the courts on this have all stated harm is not clearly evident from SSM.

If we can not demonstrate a (narrow) example of harm SSM will be accepted by the Supreme Court.

CFR that the constitutionality of certain DOMA/traditional marriage laws hinges on whether examples of harm from SSM can be demonstrated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 19, 2012 by wenglund