United States Supreme Court To Take Up Prop 8 And Doma

[Saints Alive]

Just curious== does it pass constitutional muster for the state to deny a driver's license to someone who is blind? Does this deny equal protection under the law. May I point out that a blind person is allowed to apply for such a license.

Anyway, I have asked this question several times, and have yet to get a response.

That's a good point, the difference is that it would be very dangerous for a blind person to drive a car. Where is the danger in letting gay people marry, besides moral danger? Edited December 8, 2012 by Saints Alive

[cdowis]

That's a good point, the difference is that it would be very dangerous for a blind person to drive a car. Where is the danger in letting gay people marry, besides moral danger?

Let me pose a question.

Should we deny a driver's license to someone with a history of alcohol or drug abuse because of the "danger" they pose for other drivers or pedestrians? .......if "danger" is the criterion

The issue is that any license has certain requirements -- an attorney, pharmacist, and even a driver's license. In the case of marriage, is it reasonable to require, similar to a vision test for a driver's license, that the two are of different sexes, because the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation in a legally recognized framework. It is not a perfect system, we do not test whether they CAN have children, but the theoretical possibility exists. If a SS couple want to live together, that's their constitutional right, but that is not marriage. They have the *right* under the constitution to apply for that license.A

A blind person does not have a Constitutional right to a driver's license.

Edited December 8, 2012 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Just curious== does it pass constitutional muster for the state to deny a driver's license to someone who is blind? Does this deny equal protection under the law. May I point out that a blind person is allowed to apply for such a license.

Anyway, I have asked this question several times, and have yet to get a response.

Driving on the public highways is a state granted privilege not a right. Public safety nearly always takes precedents over some right. I have uncorrected vision of about 20/100 near vision, so it would be unsafe for me to drive a vehicle without my glasses. I don't see where SSM would endanger the public.

[Linda]

Washington state now has SSM.

May many states follow this good example in the USA. It is an absurdity to refuse American citizens a marriage; because it is SSA.

[thesometimesaint]

Let me pose a question.

Should we deny a driver's license to someone with a history of alcohol or drug abuse because of the "danger" they pose for other drivers or pedestrians? .......if "danger" is the criterion

The issue is that any license has certain requirements -- an attorney, pharmacist, and even a driver's license. In the case of marriage, is it reasonable to require, similar to a vision test for a driver's license, that the two are of different sexes, because the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation in a legally recognized framework. It is not a perfect system, we do not test whether they CAN have children, but the theoretical possibility exists. If a SS couple want to live together, that's their constitutional right, but that is not marriage. They have the *right* under the constitution to apply for that license.A

A blind person does not have a Constitutional right to a driver's license.

We don't punish a person for having a history of drug/alcohol abuse. Get high/snockered all you want in the privacy of your own home. Just don't get out on the public highways while doing it.

No one has a Constitution ride to drive on the public roads and highways. It is a privilege grated by the state.

[Linda]

@ cdowis,

A danger can start out from a driver who drinks alcohol. But which danger for body and lives starts out from a homosexual couple who wants to get married?

[thesometimesaint]

May many states follow this good example in the USA. It is an absurdity to refuse American citizens a marriage; because it is SSA.

That is what is before the USSC. Personally I favor getting the State out of the Marriage business all together. Make them all Domestic Partnerships, and let the churches marry whom they want.

[cdowis]

Driving on the public highways is a state granted privilege not a right. Public safety nearly always takes precedents over some right. I have uncorrected vision of about 20/100 near vision, so it would be unsafe for me to drive a vehicle without my glasses. I don't see where SSM would endanger the public.

You have a constitutional right to apply for a license, and the state has the right to determine the requisites for granting that license. Your argument is an admission that this discussion should be held at the individual state level, and is not a constitutional issue of rights. It is a matter of convincing the state legislators that they do not pose a "danger" and should be granted that license.

Edited December 8, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

@ cdowis,

A danger can start out from a driver who drinks alcohol. But which danger for body and lives starts out from a homosexual couple who wants to get married?

I agree with you that this is an argument which should be held with the state legislators, and is not a constitutional rights issue.

However, I disagree with you that all licenses should be granted on the basis of "endangerment". We grant a license to practice law, for example, based on the single question "is this person a danger to body and lives" if we grant him that license. If a license to practice law is based only on whether that individual endangers other people, and not on their competence and training, I think that would be very foolish.

But whatever floats your boat

May I suggest that you give your response some thought before hitting the "reply" button.

Edited December 8, 2012 by cdowis

[DavidB]

You have a constitutional right to apply for a license, and the state has the right to determine the requisites for granting that license. Your argument is an admission that this discussion should be held at the individual state level, and is not a constitutional issue of rights. It is a matter of convincing the state legislators that they do not pose a "danger" and should be granted that license.

Marriage is a US Constitutional Right, driving is not. So please stop with the false comparison

[cdowis]

Marriage is a US Constitutional Right, driving is not. So please stop with the false comparison

Can you give me the exact citation (give us the exact wording) where it spells out that out. "This right applies to marriage but not to driving a vehicle" would be nice.

Please stop pontificating over things where you are ignorant.

Edited December 8, 2012 by cdowis

[Saints Alive]

Can you give me the exact citation (give us the exact wording) where it spells out that out. "This right applies to marriage but not to driving a vehicle" would be nice.

Please stop pontificating over things where you are ignorant.

Technically there is no restriction on driving a vehicle by anyone, the only restriction is where you may drive one. As for those who dring / use drugs, if they do so and attempt to drive there licenses can and are taken away.

[DavidB]

Can you give me the exact citation (give us the exact wording) where it spells out that out. "This right applies to marriage but not to driving a vehicle" would be nice.

Please stop pontificating over things where you are ignorant.

Please following your own advice.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ... To deny this fundamental freedom [to marry]

Loving reiterates the numerous case before it, that marriage is a fundamental right. Now onto personal choice in the fundamental right of marriage

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

(countdown to cdowis liberal activist judge diatribe 3, 2,.....)

[Linda]

That is what is before the USSC. Personally I favor getting the State out of the Marriage business all together. Make them all Domestic Partnerships, and let the churches marry whom they want.

Even straight couples? If so, I would agree with it.

[DavidB]

Even straight couples? If so, I would agree with it.

There is a growing trend in this direction.

The State would have to drop "marriage" and convert to "Partnership". People could still use the term marriage, but the State would have to be nuertal. Singling out "religion" for exclusive use of the term marriage, still lets the current issue exist to a degree.

[thesometimesaint]

You have a constitutional right to apply for a license, and the state has the right to determine the requisites for granting that license. Your argument is an admission that this discussion should be held at the individual state level, and is not a constitutional issue of rights. It is a matter of convincing the state legislators that they do not pose a "danger" and should be granted that license.

I know of no State that makes driving on the public roads and highways a right. So at least in the US it is a privilege granted by the state. Marriage is a right as defined by the USSC. What remains to be seen is, does that right extend to SS couples.

Edited December 9, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[DavidB]

I know of no State that makes driving on the public roads and highways a right. So at least in the US it is a privilege granted by the state. Marriage is a right as defined by the USSC. What remains to be seen is, does that right extend to SS couples.

I find it difficult to believe that as heated, current, and ongoing as the issue over marriage is in the United States, that someone who purports to know or understand US Law, would compare Marriage to driving.

[cdowis]

Please following your own advice.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ... To deny this fundamental freedom [to marry]

Loving reiterates the numerous case before it, that marriage is a fundamental right. Now onto personal choice in the fundamental right of marriage

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

(countdown to cdowis liberal activist judge diatribe 3, 2,.....)

OK, I will take my own advice and educate you in the process. This right is not unrestricted. does not preclude any restrictions. For example, a father marrying his daughter is not a "right", brother and sister, etc. Also, The granting of a marriage license includes certain medical tests, which could cause a denial of that license. This is very similar to the test for a driver's license, there are restrictions as well, so this "right" to marriage is equally restrictive. So the wording of the court could be extended to many other enterprises, such as practicing law, becoming a pharmacist, etc. It grants nothing unique in that respect unless you can teach us otherwise.

Hopefully you will continue our education on the matter.

[cdowis]

I find it difficult to believe that as heated, current, and ongoing as the issue over marriage is in the United States, that someone who purports to know or understand US Law, would compare Marriage to driving.

Others here are able to follow the discussion. Perhaps you can find someone to help you understand it.

[that doesn't help] -Ares

Edited December 11, 2012 by Ares

[canard78]

I am well aware that people tried to use the bible to support segregation, but segregation isn't in the bible, at least not as clearly as Gods disapproval of homosexuality.

In light of the recent mormonsandgays website conversation, it would be more accurate to talk of "homosexual activity" not "homosexuality" (which is only the physical attraction, not the sexual act)?

Elder Christofferson's video seems very careful to always say "homosexual activity" while making it clear the attraction is not a sin.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

We cried "Uncle" when the Feds simply disincorporated the Church. We have yet to feel the full force of Federal power which includes the strongest military the world has ever seen come down on us. As to Zion, I have no idea as to how that is going to come about. But I doubt it will be through military might.

It is simple...God will fight our battles, delivering us even if by fire. The scriptures could not be more clear; only question is, do we believe?

[The Nehor]

It is simple...God will fight our battles, delivering us even if by fire. The scriptures could not be more clear; only question is, do we believe?

God will deliver the Saints who follow his law and establish Zion. Maybe I am a pessimist but I imagine that is a third of the Church at most and I am not sure if I am in that third.

[Saints Alive]

In light of the recent mormonsandgays website conversation, it would be more accurate to talk of "homosexual activity" not "homosexuality" (which is only the physical attraction, not the sexual act)?

Elder Christofferson's video seems very careful to always say "homosexual activity" while making it clear the attraction is not a sin.

Do you think the bible or scripture in general could ever condone SSM?

[blackstrap]

Where is the line drawn between SSA and lust thoughts about someone of the same sex and sexual activity with someone of the opposite sex?

From a heterosexual perspective,we have been taught to think pure thoughts, to avoid lustful thoughts. We are told that as a man thinketh,so is he. Christ says that lusting after a woman can be the same as commiting adultery just as being angry with your neighbor can be considered sinful.

All this fuss over the separation between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity, seems to disregard the idea that we can and will be judged by our thoughts.The Church leaders may not be able to read thoughts and judge but that does not mean God cannot.

The fact that I know my thoughts , will condemn me as unrighteous and requiring the atonement .

[california boy]

Do you think the bible or scripture in general could ever condone SSM?

If you really want to know the answer to that question, I might suggest viewing the video post #2 by Jeremy on this thread Then decide for yourself and let us know what you think.