Lds Church Files Friend Of The Court Brief W/ Scotus Re: Prop 8, Doma

[T-Shirt]

I completely agree with you. Saying that there is no discrimination agaist gays marrying is like plugging your ears and yelling lalalalalalalalalalal. It would certainly be a laughable defense in a court of law.

It is not a matter of violating anyone's rights. As has been stated, gays have precisely the same rights as everyone else, there is not one bit of difference and, in my opinion, it is dishonest to say there is. This whole thing is a matter of definitions. Marriage has always been defined as a union between people of the opposite sex. Based on the traditional definition of the word, no one is being denied their rights. If the gay community would seek to legally redefine the word, "marriage" to include the union of members of the same sex, then they could participate in the right they already have in the manner they prefer. I feel, however, that the gay community has decided it will get more mileage out of claiming a violation of civil rights, even though it is a complete red herring. The honest thing to do, in my opinion, would be to drop the current fallacious argument of rights being violated and seek to change the definition of marriage instead. This is the real issue. Let me offer an analogy, keeping in mind that no analogy is perfect:

A country gives to its citizen's the right to sing in the streets at any time they want, regardless of their level of singing talent. Many citizens take advantage of this right and the streets are always filled with singing, even though, sometimes, it is not pleasant to listen to. Someone comes along and instead of singing, he decides to belch. He is told that he does not have the right to belch n the streets, he can only sing, He then gathers his belching friends and they claim that their rights are being violated. It is explained that they have the same right to sing as everyone else, to which they reply that while they have the ability to sing like everyone else, they prefer that their singing be done through belching and that if they are not allowed to sing in the manner they prefer, their rights are being violated. Well, as one can plainly see, what the belchers prefer, does not fit within the definition of singing. The only legitimate recourse they have is to mount a campaign to change the definition of the word, "singing" to include, "belching." This may be a difficult task, but it is the honest way to go about it, and if they are successful, the problem is solved.

[rockpond]

It is not a matter of violating anyone's rights. As has been stated, gays have precisely the same rights as everyone else, there is not one bit of difference and, in my opinion, it is dishonest to say there is. This whole thing is a matter of definitions. Marriage has always been defined as a union between people of the opposite sex. Based on the traditional definition of the word, no one is being denied their rights. If the gay community would seek to legally redefine the word, "marriage" to include the union of members of the same sex, then they could participate in the right they already have in the manner they prefer. I feel, however, that the gay community has decided it will get more mileage out of claiming a violation of civil rights, even though it is a complete red herring. The honest thing to do, in my opinion, would be to drop the current fallacious argument of rights being violated and seek to change the definition of marriage instead. This is the real issue. Let me offer an analogy, keeping in mind that no analogy is perfect:

A country gives to its citizen's the right to sing in the streets at any time they want, regardless of their level of singing talent. Many citizens take advantage of this right and the streets are always filled with singing, even though, sometimes, it is not pleasant to listen to. Someone comes along and instead of singing, he decides to belch. He is told that he does not have the right to belch n the streets, he can only sing, He then gathers his belching friends and they claim that their rights are being violated. It is explained that they have the same right to sing as everyone else, to which they reply that while they have the ability to sing like everyone else, they prefer that their singing be done through belching and that if they are not allowed to sing in the manner they prefer, their rights are being violated. Well, as one can plainly see, what the belchers prefer, does not fit within the definition of singing. The only legitimate recourse they have is to mount a campaign to change the definition of the word, "singing" to include, "belching." This may be a difficult task, but it is the honest way to go about it, and if they are successful, the problem is solved.

Correct, no analogy is perfect. Some are not even a good fit. This one has the added bonus of being insulting to gay people. The fact that you chose belching could offer insight as to why you don't feel homosexuals have a right to marriage equality (as they view it, not as you view it).

This analogy, IMO, would be more appropriate if instead of the "belchers" you had people who lacked vocal chords and wanted to take part in this musical society by playing violin in the streets. Rather than seeking to redefine the word singing, they sought to expand the "singing law" to include playing music.

Edited to add: On second thought, I'm not really even fond of suggesting that gay people are analogous to people born without vocal chords (i.e. somehow handicapped). So I apologize if that is offensive. But, I'm going to let it stand as my best attempt to modify TShirt's analogy to make it fit what I see as the reality.

Edited February 12, 2013 by rockpond

[T-Shirt]

Correct, no analogy is perfect. Some are not even a good fit. This one has the added bonus of being insulting to gay people. The fact that you chose belching could offer insight as to why you don't feel homosexuals have a right to marriage equality (as they view it, not as you view it).

This analogy, IMO, would be more appropriate if instead of the "belchers" you had people who lacked vocal chords and wanted to take part in this musical society by playing violin in the streets. Rather than seeking to redefine the word singing, they sought to expand the "singing law" to include playing music.

Good grief, I thought for a moment that someone might choose to take offense at the use of, "belching", but then I decided that people are mature enough to get the point. I had no malicious intent in using the words I did, in fact I am completely comfortable in flipping the scenario around and changing the singers to belchers and the belchers to singers. The point stands. Some people will choose to find offense at anything, regardless of intent.

[rockpond]

Good grief, I thought for a moment that someone might choose to take offense at the use of, "belching", but then I decided that people are mature enough to get the point. I had no malicious intent in using the words I did, in fact I am completely comfortable in flipping the scenario around and changing the singers to belchers and the belchers to singers. The point stands. Some people will choose to find offense at anything, regardless of intent.

Fair enough. But I'm not comfortable with the analogy even after reversing the singers & belchers.

[T-Shirt]

This analogy, IMO, would be more appropriate if instead of the "belchers" you had people who lacked vocal chords and wanted to take part in this musical society by playing violin in the streets. Rather than seeking to redefine the word singing, they sought to expand the "singing law" to include playing music.

Edited to add: On second thought, I'm not really even fond of suggesting that gay people are analogous to people born without vocal chords (i.e. somehow handicapped). So I apologize if that is offensive. But, I'm going to let it stand as my best attempt to modify TShirt's analogy to make it fit what I see as the reality.

I think you have completely missed the point. In fact, instead of trying to grasp the point of the analogy, you changed it to mean something completely different.

[rockpond]

I think you have completely missed the point. In fact, instead of trying to grasp the point of the analogy, you changed it to mean something completely different.

I got the point of your analogy. I just disagreed with it which is why I offered a modified version to show the differences in how I view the situation.

[T-Shirt]

Fair enough. But I'm not comfortable with the analogy even after reversing the singers & belchers.

Tell me what makes you uncomfortable so that, maybe, we can better understand each other. Please don't try to read more into the analogy than is there.

[T-Shirt]

I got the point of your analogy. I just disagreed with it which is why I offered a modified version to show the differences in how I view the situation.

But, with your changes, you imply that the belchers don't have the same physical ability as the singers which does not fit reality. That is a key part of the whole analogy.

[rockpond]

Tell me what makes you uncomfortable so that, maybe, we can better understand each other. Please don't try to read more into the analogy than is there.

Thanks for asking...

Two elements make me uncomfortable:

1) Singing is generally considered to be beautiful. Belching is generally considered to be offensive and rude (typically prompting someone to excuse themselves). I don't see the difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples as a choice between something beautiful and something offensive.

2) Your analogy leads one to believe that an individual can choose to sing or they can choose to belch. In the majority of cases, one does not choose to be gay or to be straight. Yes they choose their behavior but not their innate desire and I don't see that difference noted in your analogy.

[rockpond]

But, with your changes, you imply that the belchers don't have the same physical ability as the singers which does not fit reality. That is a key part of the whole analogy.

Because in reality, gay people do not have the same ability to enter into an opposite-gender marriage that heterosexual people have.

For me, any analogy that suggests gay people could be just as capable as straight people of entering into a heterosexual marriage is faulty.

Edited February 13, 2013 by rockpond

[Daniel2]

Smac,

I know you to be an intelligent, compassionate person, as well as very legally competent.

During the historical period of our nation when law prohibited miscegenation, would you have agreed with the following argument?

First, I am not denying "the rights of [blacks] to marry." [black] people have the exact same access to marriage as everyone else.

Would you have agreed with this argument during that period, T-Shirt?:

It is not a matter of violating anyone's rights. As has been stated, [blacks] have precisely the same rights as everyone else, there is not one bit of difference and, in my opinion, it is dishonest to say there is. This whole thing is a matter of definitions. Marriage has always been defined as a union between people of the opposite [race]. Based on the traditional definition of the word, no one is being denied their rights. If the [inter-racial] community would seek to legally redefine the word, "marriage" to include the union of members of the same [race], then they could participate in the right they already have in the manner they prefer. I feel, however, that the [inter-racial] community has decided it will get more mileage out of claiming a violation of civil rights, even though it is a complete red herring. The honest thing to do, in my opinion, would be to drop the current fallacious argument of rights being violated and seek to change the definition of marriage instead. This is the real issue.

Before anyone responds with the objection that "race isn't the same thing as [sexual orientation], given that the latter is a choice and the former is not," I would respond by saying that is a red herring to the point I'm trying to make, which is that it's nonsensical to suggest that "no one's rights are being violated" simply because "they have the right to make the same type of choice as everyone else." (Not to mention the fact that gender of the spouse--which is the bottom line of same-sex marriage--is just as immutable as race is).

Daniel2

Edited February 13, 2013 by Daniel2

[T-Shirt]

1) Singing is generally considered to be beautiful. Belching is generally considered to be offensive and rude (typically prompting someone to excuse themselves). I don't see the difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples as a choice between something beautiful and something offensive.

I assure you that was not my intent. If you focus too much on the words, you will miss the point. Change singing to dancing and belching to tumbling, it doesn't matter.

2) Your analogy leads one to believe that an individual can choose to sing or they can choose to belch. In the majority of cases, one does not choose to be gay or to be straight. Yes they choose their behavior but not their innate desire and I don't see that difference noted in your analogy.

It has nothing to do with choosing to be gay. It is about the right to sing. The non-singers had the right to sing and had the ability to sing, they just did not like to sing and felt they had the right to do something that did not fall within the definition of, "singing". Thus the need to change the definition of singing rather than to claim their rights were violated, when they weren't. The analogy fits.

[california boy]

It is not a matter of violating anyone's rights. As has been stated, gays have precisely the same rights as everyone else, there is not one bit of difference and, in my opinion, it is dishonest to say there is. This whole thing is a matter of definitions. Marriage has always been defined as a union between people of the opposite sex. Based on the traditional definition of the word, no one is being denied their rights. If the gay community would seek to legally redefine the word, "marriage" to include the union of members of the same sex, then they could participate in the right they already have in the manner they prefer. I feel, however, that the gay community has decided it will get more mileage out of claiming a violation of civil rights, even though it is a complete red herring. The honest thing to do, in my opinion, would be to drop the current fallacious argument of rights being violated and seek to change the definition of marriage instead. This is the real issue. Let me offer an analogy, keeping in mind that no analogy is perfect:

A country gives to its citizen's the right to sing in the streets at any time they want, regardless of their level of singing talent. Many citizens take advantage of this right and the streets are always filled with singing, even though, sometimes, it is not pleasant to listen to. Someone comes along and instead of singing, he decides to belch. He is told that he does not have the right to belch n the streets, he can only sing, He then gathers his belching friends and they claim that their rights are being violated. It is explained that they have the same right to sing as everyone else, to which they reply that while they have the ability to sing like everyone else, they prefer that their singing be done through belching and that if they are not allowed to sing in the manner they prefer, their rights are being violated. Well, as one can plainly see, what the belches prefer, does not fit within the definition of singing. The only legitimate recourse they have is to mount a campaign to change the definition of the word, "singing" to include, "belching." This may be a difficult task, but it is the honest way to go about it, and if they are successful, the problem is solved.

I am always slightly amused at the lengths some go to try and justify their position. Do you really think that the parable of the belchers is something that will persuade the supreme court justices to support prop 8? Whether or not gays are allowed to marry in this country is strictly a legal matter. The justices will be weighing the, yes, rights of gay people to marry against the established law. In general, the Supreme Court rules in favor of individual rights unless there is compelling evidence that those rights will cause damage to people who are against granting those rights. (Note: slipperly slope arguments rarely hold up in court) So the compelling question the justices will be asking is simply "How will allowing gays to marry diminish anyone else's rights to marry" Many have offered reasons why they think it would be harmful to society. Perhaps the justices will be compelled to rule that the possible harm is greater than the individual liberties. Unfortunately may of those arguments have holes big enough to drive a truck though. So personally, my opinion is that the justices will side with the district and federal justices and overturn prop 8.

I

[T-Shirt]

Before anyone responds with the objection that "race isn't the same thing as [sexual orientation], given that the latter is a choice and the former is not," I would respond by saying that is a red herring to the point I'm trying to make, which is that it's nonsensical to suggest that "no one's rights are being violated" simply because "they have the right to make the same type of choice as everyone else." (Not to mention the fact that gender of the spouse--which is the bottom line of same-sex marriage--is just as immutable as race is).

I disagree for more than one reason, but primarily because this does not fit my argument which has to do with the definition of the word, "marriage". The definition of marriage has never included race, color creed, religion, etc, it only refers to the union of people of opposite gender.

[california boy]

Does anyone here ever wonder why there has been a consistent shift towards marriage equality amongst both the population if the country, the courts, and the governments of the rest of the world and even the churches? It is simply because most people do not buy into these kinds of reasons to deny gay couples from marrying. There are far more straight couples that support gay marriage then there are gay couples. Why is that? What is motivating the demographics to shift so dramatically on this issue? Both sides have had their chance to make their case to the public. Those against gay marriage started with a much stronger demographic position. Yet each year, each month, each day, court case after court case continues to favor gay marriage. Straight couples continue to change their position and support gay marriage. Nations that value liberty of it's citizens continue to support gay marriage. The truth is, if a nation values liberty, it will eventually support gay marriage. You can pretend that gays already have equal rights, but it is an argument that is not convincing the majority of Americans the courts, or any other nation that values liberty.

[rockpond]

It has nothing to do with choosing to be gay. It is about the right to sing. The non-singers had the right to sing and had the ability to sing, they just did not like to sing and felt they had the right to do something that did not fall within the definition of, "singing". Thus the need to change the definition of singing rather than to claim their rights were violated, when they weren't. The analogy fits.

So are you suggesting that gay people have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex but they just don't "like" to?

[rockpond]

The definition of marriage has never included race, color creed, religion, etc, it only refers to the union of people of opposite gender.

CFR on the definition of marriage.

Also, if it never included race than what was the Loving v Virginia SCOTUS decision about?

[Daniel2]

I disagree for more than one reason, but primarily because this does not fit my argument which has to do with the definition of the word, "marriage". The definition of marriage has never included race, color creed, religion, etc, it only refers to the union of people of opposite gender.

My point was about the wording of one's choice of spouse, as related to "rights being the same as everyone else." The definition of the word "marriage" is actually unrelated to my point.

Even so, historically speaking (prior to the movement for same-sex marriage in the last few decades, when gender became an issue), I'd be curious to see a citation for a legal reference when the legal definition of "marriage" specified "the union of people of opposite gender." (Though that's unrelated to my question about rights, that's a CFR on your comment about the definition of the word 'marriage').

Darin

Edited February 13, 2013 by Daniel2

[T-Shirt]

I am always slightly amused at the lengths some go to try and justify their position.

I am not sure what you mean by, "the lengths some people go to". The whole point is that words have meaning and you seem to want to completely avoid the matter of the definition of a simple word.

Do you really think that the parable of the belchers is something that will persuade the supreme court justices to support prop 8?

Since when is trying to make a simple point on a message board equal to arguing before the Supreme Court?

Whether or not gays are allowed to marry in this country is strictly a legal matter. The justices will be weighing the, yes, rights of gay people to marry against the established law. In general, the Supreme Court rules in favor of individual rights unless there is compelling evidence that those rights will cause damage to people who are against granting those rights. (Note: slipperly slope arguments rarely hold up in court) So the compelling question the justices will be asking is simply "How will allowing gays to marry diminish anyone else's rights to marry" Many have offered reasons why they think it would be harmful to society. Perhaps the justices will be compelled to rule that the possible harm is greater than the individual liberties. Unfortunately may of those arguments have holes big enough to drive a truck though. So personally, my opinion is that the justices will side with the district and federal justices and overturn prop 8.

The whole point is that, whether you care to admit it or not, gays have exactly the same right to marry as straights, period. I understand that gays do not like the fact that their rights do not include their wants, but the law does not look at wants and feelings. I am very sympathetic to the feelings of the gay community but the bottom line is that no rights are violated. If gay marriage is to become legitimate, the definition of marriage needs to change. Why is that such a bad thing? And, just to be clear, I do not think that allowing gay marriage will diminish anyone else's rights, that is not the point and it is not the only thing the State needs to consider. The bigger question is, is there any benefit to the State by changing the definition of marriage to include the union of members of the same gender? That, I believe, is the argument the gay community does not want to have.

Edited February 13, 2013 by T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

Since I am talking about the traditional definition of marriage, I'll start with the 1828 Webster's dictionary:

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Is there any doubt that this has been the traditional definition of marriage?

Edited February 13, 2013 by T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

So are you suggesting that gay people have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex but they just don't "like" to?

I would not word it exactly that way, but, yes. Gays have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex, it has been done many times. However, just as I do not want to marry someone of my same gender, most gays do not want to marry someone of the opposite gender. They have the same right, their right just does not fit what they want.

Edited February 13, 2013 by T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

Emily Dixon Lexicon (1830-1886)

marriage

, n. [Fr.] (webplay: church, son, wedlock).

• Union between a man and a woman in a procreative relationship with a covenant of fidelity.
  
• Covenant relationship between Christ and His followers.
  

1844 Websters

MAR'RIAGE

, n. [Fr.

mariage

, from

marier

, to marry, from

mari

, a husband; L.

mas

,

maris

; Sp.

maridage

.]

• The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children. Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled. Heb. xiii.
  
• A feast made on the occasion of marriage. The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made marriage for his son. Matt. xxii.
  
• In a Scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev. xix.
  

Websters 1913

Marriage (Page: 897)

Mar"riage (?), n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry, v. t.]

1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

Marriage

is honorable in all.

Heb. xiii. 4.

[rockpond]

Since I am talking about the traditional definition of marriage, I'll start with the 1828 Webster's dictionary:

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Is there any doubt that this has been the traditional definition of marriage?

Yes, there is a lot of doubt.

That definition is not the traditional definition within our LDS history & theology.

It is also not the legal definition.

I would submit that this definition represents the prevailing cultural norm within the U.S. in the early 19th century.

Edited February 13, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I would not word it exactly that way, but, yes. Gays have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex, it has been done many times. However, just as I do not want to marry someone of my same gender, most gays do not want to marry someone of the opposite gender. They have the same right, their right just does not fit what they want.

Right, gay people just want to marry someone of the same gender. Kinda like I wanted an extra spoonful of brown sugar on my oatmeal this morning.

It might be useful for you to consider it this way... as a heterosexual person, you have the right to marry the person you love and the person that you are physically attracted to (assuming that person consents). Currently, in 40+ states, a homosexual person does not have the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to (and even if they go to a state that does permit such a marriage, it is not recognized federally nor within our church).

[Daniel2]

Yes, there is a lot of doubt.

That definition is not the traditional definition within our LDS history & theology.

It is also not the legal definition.

I would submit that this definition represents the prevailing cultural norm within the U.S. in the early 19th century.

Additionally, T-Shirt didn't quote all of the definitions in the dictionary links he posted, which include other definitions of the term "marriage."

In other words, yes, T-Shirt, a historical definition ("a"--as in, "one of many") includes gender--but as Rockpond pointed out, it's not The sole definition, nor the legal one--the point being that there isn't "one", all-encompassing, exclusive, historical legal definition of marriage mandating that the spouses (or even items) classified as "married" be of "opposite genders," as you insist.

Daniel2

Edited February 13, 2013 by Daniel2