United States Supreme Court To Take Up Prop 8 And Doma

[AddamS]

Religions can call them ham sandwiches for all the difference it would make. Go to the county clerks office fill out the paper work. A Judge/Justice of the Peace says OK you are now married. After that 5 minute public "ceremony" the couple can have any private ceremony they and/or their church wants.

You would think the LDS church members would undertsand the difference between marriage as recognized by the state and marriage as recognized by the church better than the adherents of most other religions.

[The Nehor]

I am more of the consenting adult frame of mind as well.

I am of the opinion that eventually we need to decide that some people are doing too much harm to society for their "consent" to be a defense of their activities.

[thesometimesaint]

You would think the LDS church members would undertsand the difference between marriage as recognized by the state and marriage as recognized by the church better than the adherents of most other religions.

I'm trying to separate the idea of marriage from the power of the state while giving equal protection to all. If someone can come up with a better idea I'll listen.

[wenglund]

Make them ALL Civil Unions, then let the churches, synagogue, mosque, what have you, have any religious ceremony they want.

I don't think gay advocates would want this. They weren't satisfied with civil unions in California. So, I don't think they will be happy until they have co-oped the decidedly heterosexual convention of "marriage" nation-wide. Actually, I doubt that even that will make them happy, but there it is.

I have been against "civil unions" because I see them as a replacement for, and thus a way of diminishing the value of "marriage" as an institution. However, with the expansion of SSM, which I view as a desecration of "marriage," then since "marriage" is thereby being diminished in value anyway, perhaps it may be good to go with civil unions all around since that may prevent gays from entirely profaning the heterosexual convention of "marriage."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

I say that one can not support traditional marriage and support civil unions. If we look at the arguments for and against ssm, the arguments are about more than the title given to a couple. The arguments are about who can procreate, who makes the better home for children and things along those lines.

Proposition 8 will likely be rule unconstitutional for the reason that civil unions and marriage are equal in the eyes of state except in title.

[AddamS]

I'm trying to separate the idea of marriage from the power of the state while giving equal protection to all. If someone can come up with a better idea I'll listen.

Actually, I was agreeing with you.

I've always said let the government call these unions (heterosexual and homosexual) civil unions and let the people have the freedom to define their title and recognoze the titles of others or not.

[AddamS]

I don't think gay advocates would want this. They weren't satisfied with civil unions in California. So, I don't think they will be happy until they have co-oped the decidedly heterosexual convention of "marriage" nation-wide. Actually, I doubt that even that will make them happy, but there it is.

I have been against "civil unions" because I see them as a replacement for, and thus a way of diminishing the value of "marriage" as an institution. However, with the expansion of SSM, which I view as a desecration of "marriage," then since "marriage" is thereby being diminished in value anyway, perhaps it may be good to go with civil unions all around since that may prevent gays from entirely profaning the heterosexual convention of "marriage."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can only speak for myself, but there is nothing that another person, or group of people can do in the name of what they consider proper marriage that would in any way diminish the value of the marriage between my wife and I.

How scary the world would appear if I were that afraid.

[wenglund]

I can only speak for myself, but there is nothing that another person, or group of people can do in the name of what they consider proper marriage that would in any way diminish the value of the marriage between my wife and I.

How scary the world would appear if I were that afraid.

I wasn't speaking specifically to individual marriages, but rather generally in terms of how society as a whole values marriage. How inane the world would be if you were afraid to think beyond your own personal circumstances.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[AddamS]

I wasn't speaking specifically to individual marriages, but rather generally in terms of how society as a whole values marriage. How inane the world would be if you were afraid to think beyond your own personal circumstances.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It must be the Libertarian streak in me, but I think it's up to the individual to decide how important marriage is.

[wenglund]

It must be the Libertarian streak in me, but I think it's up to the individual to decide how important marriage is.

If we were simply talking about the importance one may personally place on one's own marriage, then you may have a point. However, since we are talking about public laws and societal perceptions, you don't--regardless of libertarian streaks. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[AddamS]

If we were simply talking about the importance one may personally place on one's own marriage, then you may have a point. However, since we are talking about public laws and societal perceptions, you don't--regardless of libertarian streaks. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't require government policy to influence how I feel about such issues. I don't expect others to, either.

Maybe I'm an optomist, but I think adults can decide for themselves how they view social issues regardless of the government's stance.

Plenty of LDS people avoid drinking alcohol even though the government has largely decriminalized its consumption. One could argue that the legal status of booze is in some ways a tacit endorsement of its use but somehow a great deal of people choose the path of sobriety.

[DavidB]

What the government calls a contract does not affect whether or not others will agree amongst themselves to enter that contract.

[california boy]

I don't think gay advocates would want this. They weren't satisfied with civil unions in California. So, I don't think they will be happy until they have co-oped the decidedly heterosexual convention of "marriage" nation-wide. Actually, I doubt that even that will make them happy, but there it is.

I have been against "civil unions" because I see them as a replacement for, and thus a way of diminishing the value of "marriage" as an institution. However, with the expansion of SSM, which I view as a desecration of "marriage," then since "marriage" is thereby being diminished in value anyway, perhaps it may be good to go with civil unions all around since that may prevent gays from entirely profaning the heterosexual convention of "marriage."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When I think of marriage from a Mormon perspective, I think of temple marriage. The gays or the serial divorcee don't seem to diminish its value or importance to those that follow that path.

I find it odd that you are so obsessed with protecting the institute of marriage from the gays. Rampant divorce, broken homes, single parents, fathers not paying child support, children being shuffled back and forth by hostile parents who use their children as pawns to manipulate their former spouses all seem like much bigger problems with marriage to obsess over. When it comes to the desecration of "marriage" two people of the same sex entering that relationship sees much further down the list of importance. But then, I am not threatened by the idea of gay marriage as you seem to be.

Edited December 15, 2012 by california boy

[california boy]

Many feel that the gay rights laws facing the Supreme Court will swing on one thing, how Justice Kennedy casts his vote. I thought this was an interesting article on how Kennedy might come down in favor of gay rights. Here is the complete article

“There have been two decisions in American history expanding rights for gays and lesbians: Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court in both,” Chemerinsky told TPM by email. “He knows where history is going and that he faces the choice between writing the nextPlessy v. Ferguson and the next Brown v. Board of Education. He wants to be on the right side of history

.”

[Zeta-Flux]

I don't require government policy to influence how I feel about such issues. I don't expect others to, either.

Unfortunately, the whole business with "no-fault divorce" proves your expectation wrong. That simple social experiment has had a host of negative influences in how others feel about these issues, and marriage in general.

[wenglund]

I don't require government policy to influence how I feel about such issues. I don't expect others to, either.

When you realize this isn't just about YOU, then you might just get what I am saying--perhaps, though, I am being overly optimistic in this regard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Unfortunately, the whole business with "no-fault divorce" proves your expectation wrong. That simple social experiment has had a host of negative influences in how others feel about these issues, and marriage in general.

Do you really think the government should have the power to force two people together that don't want to be together?

[Calm]

Do you really think the government should have the power to force two people together that don't want to be together?

Divorce existed before "no fault".

[wenglund]

When I think of marriage from a Mormon perspective, I think of temple marriage. The gays or the serial divorcee don't seem to diminish its value or importance to those that follow that path.

Your own personal experience as someone who once followed that path but now defy it, and other statistics, suggest otherwise.

find it odd that you are so obsessed with protecting the institute of marriage from the gays. Rampant divorce, broken homes, single parents, fathers not paying child support, children being shuffled back and forth by hostile parents who use their children as pawns to manipulate their former spouses all seem like much bigger problems with marriage to obsess over. When it comes to the desecration of "marriage" two people of the same sex entering that relationship sees much further down the list of importance. But then, I am not threatened by the idea of gay marriage as you seem to be.

There are several critical flaws in your propagandizing. First, it isn't so much the gay envy of the heterosexual convention of marriage that is, itself, the threat (in fact, it is somewhat flattering), but their profanation of marriage through gaining legal sanctions and entering into marriage.

Second, were the gay envy of that heterosexual convention not so pronounced and were it not of such extreme importance to them, motivating them to engage in extraordinary efforts to keep their warped agenda in our collective public face, and this in hopes of widely corrupting pop culture and the law, this would be a non-issue with me and others.

And, third, unlike mono-dimensional people with a one-track mind (such as those bent on profaning the sacred), those of us who defend marriage are somewhat capable of multitasking, and can pragmatically engage attacks in various ways on various significant public fronts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 16, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Divorce existed before "no fault".

That it did. I don't believe "at fault divorce" was any better. IMHO Any marriage can be saved if both want it to be. If not there isn't much that will.

Edited December 16, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

Any marriage can be saved if both want it to be. If not there isn't much that will.

There is less reason to try with no fault as it is easier just to call it quits. If one has to work for a divorce, perhaps they just might decide to put that effort into staying together.

[wenglund]

That it did. I don't believe "at fault divorce" was any better. IMHO Any marriage can be saved if both want it to be. If not there isn't much that will.

It is in society's interest to elevate in importance and encourage keeping significant commitments. They do so legally with business contracts, so it makes sense to do likewise with the fundamental institution of society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 16, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

There is less reason to try with no fault as it is easier just to call it quits. If one has to work for a divorce, perhaps they just might decide to put that effort into staying together.

In California there is a mandatory 6 month waiting period for any divorce to be finalized and judges may require extensive counseling in the mean time. I would recommend professional counseling for any couple contemplating divorce.

[thesometimesaint]

It is in society's interest to elevate in importance and encourage keeping significant commitments. They do so legally with business contracts, so it makes sense to do likewise with the fundamental institution of society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed.

The purpose of the law is to make whole, as far as possible, all the parties to or associated with the contract. As to divorce in California here are the required subjects to agreement.

• Custody and visitation;
  
  
• Child support;
  
  
• Spousal or partner support;
  
  
• The division of your property; and
  
  
• Who will be responsible for paying debts.
  
  

[california boy]

Your own personal experience as someone who once followed that path but now defy it, and other statistics, suggest otherwise.

There are several critical flaws in your propagandizing. First, it isn't so much the gay envy of the heterosexual convention of marriage that is, itself, the threat (in fact, it is somewhat flattering), but their profanation of marriage through gaining legal sanctions and entering into marriage.

Second, were the gay envy of that heterosexual convention not so pronounced and were it not of such extreme importance to them, motivating them to engage in extraordinary efforts to keep their warped agenda in our collective public face, and this in hopes of widely corrupting pop culture and the law, this would be a non-issue with me and others.

And, third, unlike mono-dimensional people with a one-track mind (such as those bent on profaning the sacred), those of us who defend marriage are somewhat capable of multitasking, and can pragmatically engage attacks in various ways on various significant public fronts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You use of such inflamatory language does nothing more than obscure any point you might be making. I think you have gotten so warped over this issue that you have a hard time writing anything that does not belittle those that you wish to attack. In the end, it just comes across as an attack rather than an expression of a point of view.