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

[rockpond]

Wrong. You have it exactly backwards. The laws and constitutional amendments that are being challenged are those that define marriage as between a man and a woman. Laws that bastardize the definition of marriage to idiosyncratically include same sex couples, are not being challenged.

Let's recall that those laws that defined marriage as "one man, one woman" were put in place relatively recently:

Federal DOMA was passed in 1996.

Prop 8 was passed in 2008.

[wenglund]

Yes, it's true. Granting marriage rights to gay people would require a redefinition of "President of the United States". In fact, in the 9 states where same gender marriage is now law, they have had to change the term "governor" to mean "anyone who steps foot in the state capitol building". Mass chaos has ensued.

To better understand my point, think of traditional marital laws as analogous to potato salad. Over the years there have been a number of different potato salad recipes emerge. Some of the non-essential ingredients have changed, but potato salad was still potato salad, and was distinguishable from fruit salad and pancakes and soda pop and even french fries and potato soup and funeral potatoes..

Whereas, with the advent of domestic partnerships and civil unions, it is analogous to fruit salads being confusedly granted similar rights and privilege as potato salad, but potato salads were still potato salads and fruit salads were still fruit salad.

However, with advocacy for same-sex marriage, it is analogous to requesting, in the twisted name of equality, that the definition of potato salad be altered to include fruit salad. Here, violence is being done to the essential elements that once defined potato salad as potato salad, rendering it less meaningful.

And, even as inane as is such a request, and confounding to the definition, enough black robes and legislatures and low-information voters have been persuaded by the banal propaganda to make it so in the nine states you mentioned. Granted, no catastrophic results have yet to occur, but that makes it no less inane.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Let's recall that those laws that defined marriage as "one man, one woman" were put in place relatively recently:

Federal DOMA was passed in 1996.

Prop 8 was passed in 2008.

Wrong. Those more recent laws merely made explicit what was clearly implicit in the law for centuries if not millennium. Those laws were enacted in response to a growing segment of the population that were unable to grasp the obvious and were inanely inclined to view fruit salad as potato salad (see the analogies above).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

To better understand my point, think of traditional marital laws as analogous to potato salad. Over the years there have been a number of different potato salad recipes emerge. Some of the non-essential ingredients have changed, but potato salad was still potato salad, and was distinguishable from fruit salad and pancakes and soda pop and even french fries and potato soup and funeral potatoes..

Whereas, with the advent of domestic partnerships and civil unions, it is analogous to fruit salads being confusedly granted similar rights and privilege as potato salad, but potato salads were still potato salads and fruit salads were still fruit salad.

However, with advocacy for same-sex marriage, it is analogous to requesting, in the twisted name of equality, that the definition of potato salad be altered to include fruit salad. Here, violence is being done to the essential elements that once defined potato salad as potato salad, rendering it less meaningful.

And, even as inane as is such a request, and confounding to the definition, enough black robes and legislatures and low-information voters have been persuaded by the banal propaganda to make it so in the nine states you mentioned. Granted, no catastrophic results have yet to occur, but that makes it no less inane.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Or maybe it's not comparable to potatoes vs fruit. For me it's more like the difference between using Russets and Yukons.

I don't see the "violence" in all this that you do.

[rockpond]

Wrong. Those more recent laws merely made explicit what was clearly implicit in the law for centuries if not millennium. Those laws were enacted in response to a growing segment of the population that were unable to grasp the obvious and were inanely inclined to view fruit salad as potato salad (see the analogies above).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not wrong... Those laws defined marriage as "one man, one woman". It's what they did. It was the point of passing them (particularly in CA where gay marriage was legal). Tradition does not establish constitutionality. Tradition also does not establish truth.

And as you noted, potato salad is still potato salad whether you use mayo or vinegar as the base of the dressing. And no violence is done because you and I still get to keep our right to heterosexual marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

At the very heart of this issue are divergent ways in which we respectively define the notion of "equality." Here is one example of the differences I have mentioned in my "Wadester's Political Dictionary":

I point out other divergent meanings HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Or maybe it's not comparable to potatoes vs fruit. For me it's more like the difference between using Russets and Yukons.

I don't see the "violence" in all this that you do.

That is understandable. A key prong of the gay movement was to use the confused notion of "sexual equality" to blur the clear traditional lines of distinction between the sexes, rendering men and women, in the minds of some, relatively the same (potatoes are potatoes, whether Russet or Yukon). And in spite of the obvious procreative differences, this banal equivalency allowed social morays to be changed so that relationships and sex between a man and a woman may be viewed morally and otherwise as little different from relationships and sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You evidently bought into the inane propaganda.

For those of us who didn't buy immoral tripe and inane equivelcy, relationships and sex between a man and a woman is as fundamentally different from relationships and sex between a man and a man as potato salad is different from fruit salad.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I'm not wrong... Those laws defined marriage as "one man, one woman". It's what they did. It was the point of passing them (particularly in CA where gay marriage was legal).

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the definition was so implicitly obvious in the laws before then that it went without saying. It only needed to be said when people became so blinded as not to see the obvious.

Tradition does not establish constitutionality. Tradition also does not establish truth.

In this case you are wrong. The courts have held that marriage has become a civil right because it is vital to the existence of society and because of its long tradition in the law.

And as you noted, potato salad is still potato salad whether you use mayo or vinegar as the base of the dressing.

Wrong. In my analogy, potatoes = relationship and sex between a man and a woman, whereas fruit salad = relationship and sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The mayo and vinegar (or the Russet and Yukon) represent diverse admixtures of races and ethnicity etc.

And no violence is done because you and I still get to keep our right to heterosexual marriage.

Violence is done to the DEFINITION by incorporating fruit salads as potato salads regardless of the fact that potato salads still qualify as potato salads.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2013 by wenglund

[cdowis]

KK - You clearly mischaracterize my point. i didn't equate their levels of persecution. I equated the logic both sets of persecutors use. The LOGIC is identical. Sures gays are free to marry in the US...just marry somone of the opposte sex. Christains in Saudi Arabia are free to to attend worship services...just at a mosque.

Let me see if i understand your assertion.

A mormon missionary could walk into a mosque, and start preaching Christianity to any person who happens to be there. He would pass out Bibles, the Book of Mormon, etc. He could hold a sacrament meeting in the mosque.

Is that what you are telling us? You are living in a fantasy world.

[rockpond]

That is understandable. A key prong of the gay movement was to use the confused notion of "sexual equality" to blur the clear traditional lines of distinction between the sexes, rendering men and women, in the minds of some, relatively the same (potatoes are potatoes, whether Russet or Yukon). And in spite of the obvious procreative differences, this banal equivalency allowed social morays to be changed so that relationships and sex between a man and a woman may be viewed morally and otherwise as little different from relationships and sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You evidently bought into the inane propaganda.

For those of us who didn't buy immoral tripe and inane equivelcy, relationships and sex between a man and a woman is as fundamentally different from relationships and sex between a man and a man as potato salad is different from fruit salad.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm enjoying hearing the author of the potato salad analogy call my thoughts inane propaganda.

I can't speak for everyone, but I am quite aware and appreciative of the distinction between the sexes. I've never met a gay person who wasn't also aware of that distinction. And I'm also clear on the procreative differences.

I'm not suggesting that we erase any of those differences.

[rockpond]

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the definition was so implicitly obvious in the laws before then that it went without saying. It only needed to be said when people became so blinded as not to see the obvious.

In this case you are wrong. The courts have held that marriage has become a civil right because it is vital to the existence of society and because of its long tradition in the law.

Wrong. In my analogy, potatoes = relationship and sex between a man and a woman, whereas fruit salad = relationship and sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The mayo and vinegar (or the Russet and Yukon) represent diverse admixtures of races and ethnicity etc.

Violence is done to the DEFINITION by incorporating fruit salads as potato salads regardless of the fact that potato salads still qualify as potato salads.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, the definition was so implicitly obvious that it has to be codified into law. And was subsequently overturned by our judicial branch. Now making its way to SCOTUS.

I'm glad we agree marriage is a civil right. Count me among those who feel it is obvious that our homosexual citizens also deserve marriage under our constitutional guarantees.

And I still don't see how you've established your definition of violence to the word marriage. You still can define your marriage however you want.

And you can still eat potato salad.

Edited February 18, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Let me see if i understand your assertion.

A mormon missionary could walk into a mosque, and start preaching Christianity to any person who happens to be there. He would pass out Bibles, the Book of Mormon, etc. He could hold a sacrament meeting in the mosque.

Is that what you are telling us? You are living in a fantasy world.

I think that is exactly Kevin's point... Offering worship rights to a Mormon but only in a mosque (where he can't perform a sacrament meeting) is as vacuous as offering a gay man the right to marry a woman. (In most cases... I recognize that some gay men do choose to happily marry women.)

[wenglund]

I'm enjoying hearing the author of the potato salad analogy call my thoughts inane propaganda.

I can't speak for everyone, but I am quite aware and appreciative of the distinction between the sexes. I've never met a gay person who wasn't also aware of that distinction. And I'm also clear on the procreative differences.

I'm not suggesting that we erase any of those differences.

The distinction strikes at the very heart of the definitional change. The very essense of the definition is violated by the definitional change. That is what you don't seem to get.

Since you appear to be having trouble grasping this simple point of my potato salad analogy, let's try another analogy. For hundreds of years "bolt locks" have been defined as a locking and security mechanism consisting of a bolt and a lock (receiver). It functions as a security mechanism by inserting the bolt into the lock. And, while over the ages there have been a variety of different designs and colors and sizes and shapes of bolt locks, they have always consisted of the two key essential parts (bolt and lock) that function by inserting the bolt into the lock.

If, however, someone inanely proposes to expand the definition of bolt locks to include two bolts or two locks, this would fundamentally change the meaning of the word, both compositionally and functionally, thereby doing violence to and confounding the word. Two bolts, in and of themselves, do not a locking mechanism make, nor do two receiver. No "locking" or "security" occurs.

Do you now get it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 18, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Yes, the definition was so implicitly obvious that it has to be codified into law.

Only because certain people have become too blinded to see the obvious.

And was subsequently overturned by our judicial branch. Now making its way to SCOTUS.

...having earlier been upheld on multiple occasions, including by the SCOTUS. Where once the judiciary could see, it is now blind.

I'm glad we agree marriage is a civil right. Count me among those who feel it is obvious that our homosexual citizens also deserve marriage under our constitutional guarantees.

Marriage, defined as between a man and a woman is obviously a civil right--and this because it is vital to our survival and because of its long tradition in the law, and should thus be afforded our constitutional guarantees. However, the bastardized version of marriage (i.e. same-sex marriage), obviously isn't a civil right--it isn't vital to our survival nor is there a long tradition, and is thus not deserving the same marital constitutional guarantees. At this point SSM is only a legal right in 9 states (not to be confused with a civil right). The use of slights-of-words or twisting of definitions will not change this--except perhaps eventually in the inverted minds of our increasingly upside-down world.

And I still don't see how you've established your definition of violence to the word marriage. You still can define your marriage however you want.

The violence isn't being done to how I define my marriage (I'm not married), but to how the STATE legally defines marriage. How did you not know this?

And you can still eat potato salad

Not if it is made of fruit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[howller]

Not if it is made of fruit.

And herein is the crux of the problem. The whole banquet of society was built around potato salad, all the way from gym memberships to eternal exaltation. And then a bunch of fruits show up. But there is no place at the table for them, because, after all, it wouldn't be potato salad with a bunch of fruits in it.

[california boy]

Who really cares how you feel about the definition of marriage. It is not going to be a factor in the Supreme Court ruling. I doubt very much that lawyers will be arguing about potato salad during the hearing. Yes some people think it is a big deal that expanding marriage to include gay couples will change what they think marriage should be. So? The majority of the people in this country think that is just fine and look forward to the day gays can marry. You can come up with as many torturous analogies as you want, eventually equality has always won out. It has happened before, and it will happen with this issue as well.

[wenglund]

And herein is the crux of the problem. The whole banquet of society was built around potato salad, all the way from gym memberships to eternal exaltation. And then a bunch of fruits show up. But there is no place at the table for them, because, after all, it wouldn't be potato salad with a bunch of fruits in it.

Here you are doing great violence to the intended meaning of the analogy, and this by taking the analogy well beyond its intent, thus obscuring the point.

However, my second analogy may work much better in your case. The whole security system was built around bolt-lock mechanisms, from gym doors to the doors of heaven. And, then a bunch of bolts who only want to be with bolts, and a bunch of locks that only want to be with locks, show up wanting to be a part of the security system. And, while there is certainly a place for bolts and locks in the security system, their declining to operate according to the inter-connective design of their creation unavoidably prevents them from providing security, because after all, it wouldn't be security with out the combination of a bolt and lock.

I realize that this later analogy militates against the victimological intent of your post, but I hope you can learn to live with the logical and reasonable realities.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[go_utes01]

Who really cares how you feel about the definition of marriage. It is not going to be a factor in the Supreme Court ruling. I doubt very much that lawyers will be arguing about potato salad during the hearing. Yes some people think it is a big deal that expanding marriage to include gay couples will change what they think marriage should be. So? The majority of the people in this country think that is just fine and look forward to the day gays can marry. You can come up with as many torturous analogies as you want, eventually equality has always won out. It has happened before, and it will happen with this issue as well.

Right, why do we even discuss it on a DISCUSSION BOARD?...his opinion is just as valid for discussion as yours or the nine justices on the Supreme Court.

[wenglund]

Who really cares how you feel about the definition of marriage. It is not going to be a factor in the Supreme Court ruling. I doubt very much that lawyers will be arguing about potato salad during the hearing. Yes some people think it is a big deal that expanding marriage to include gay couples will change what they think marriage should be. So? The majority of the people in this country think that is just fine and look forward to the day gays can marry. You can come up with as many torturous analogies as you want, eventually equality has always won out. It has happened before, and it will happen with this issue as well.

I realize that some people could care less about what makes sense and what works in everyone's interest, particularly when the only "feelings" they care about satisfying are their own, including those of a perverse nature.

And, if you are correct that the definition of marriage will not be factored into the Court's ruling, then that will be astonishing given that the cases being heard involve laws and amendments that essentially define marriage.

Now, after the last presidential election, I have come to grips with the fact that I am currently living in, from my perspective, an upside-down world, where "feelings" have sway over reason, and where, morally and otherwise, bad is now considered good and good considered as bad. Where once we as a society rationally condemned degeneracy and enacted laws to encourage generation and progression, we have slowly become corrupted into embracing the degeneracy. This isn't me, but I accept that it is now the majority, and I will find a way to live in this new world without being off it. To each their own.

This does not mean, however, that I won't at time, and where I deem appropriate, voice an opposing opinion. I will (on the off-chance that it might do some good), though I won't be holding my breath. At this point, sticking my finger in a leaky dike (no pun intended) will have little affect when the dike is now composed of coarse mesh wire.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

The distinction strikes at the very heart of the definitional change. The very essense of the definition is violated by the definitional change. That is what you don't seem to get.

Since you appear to be having trouble grasping this simple point of my potato salad analogy, let's try another analogy. For hundreds of years "bolt locks" have been defined as a locking and security mechanism consisting of a bolt and a lock (receiver). It functions as a security mechanism by inserting the bolt into the lock. And, while over the ages there have been a variety of different designs and colors and sizes and shapes of bolt locks, they have always consisted of the two key essential parts (bolt and lock) that function by inserting the bolt into the lock.

If, however, someone inanely proposes to expand the definition of bolt locks to include two bolts or two locks, this would fundamentally change the meaning of the word, both compositionally and functionally, thereby doing violence to and confounding the word. Two bolts, in and of themselves, do not a locking mechanism make, nor do two receiver. No "locking" or "security" occurs.

Do you now get it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The bolt & lock seems to assume a singular reason for getting married. I married my wife for reasons that are far deeper and more complex than just the procreative act. One can extract that procreative act and still have a beautiful and meaningful marriage.

[rockpond]

Only because certain people have become too blinded to see the obvious.

...having earlier been upheld on multiple occasions, including by the SCOTUS. Where once the judiciary could see, it is now blind.

Marriage, defined as between a man and a woman is obviously a civil right--and this because it is vital to our survival and because of its long tradition in the law, and should thus be afforded our constitutional guarantees. However, the bastardized version of marriage (i.e. same-sex marriage), obviously isn't a civil right--it isn't vital to our survival nor is there a long tradition, and is thus not deserving the same marital constitutional guarantees. At this point SSM is only a legal right in 9 states (not to be confused with a civil right). The use of slights-of-words or twisting of definitions will not change this--except perhaps eventually in the inverted minds of our increasingly upside-down world.

The violence isn't being done to how I define my marriage (I'm not married), but to how the STATE legally defines marriage. How did you not know this?

Not if it is made of fruit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

State recognized opposite-gender marriage is not vital to our survival. And the "tradition" or definition of that marriage has been altered and evolved over time.

I don't see any violence to the state definition of marriage either. Offering it to homosexual couples, for me, bolsters its societal importance.

But, I think that I am understanding your view on the issue. Please correct me if I am wrong: You believe that the judiciary has become blinded and is making incorrect rulings. The world has become inverted and can no longer see the proper definition of marriage. So violence is being committed upon the legal definition of marriage as we have more and more municipalities allowing same-gender marriage.

I guess the piece that I'm missing, in understanding your position, is the end result... since I don't understand the "violence" piece, maybe you can help me get what you view as the outcome of that.

As for me, my position is that church should not have put our good name on this amicus brief. I think that we should be holding fast to D&C 134 and until we have revelatory clarity on the subject we should stay away from these types of legal cases (as we seemed to have done in the most recent election cycle).

Edited February 18, 2013 by rockpond

[go_utes01]

State recognized opposite-gender marriage is not vital to our survival. And the "tradition" or definition of that marriage has been altered and evolved over time.

I don't see any violence to the state definition of marriage either. Offering it to homosexual couples, for me, bolsters its societal importance.

But, I think that I am understanding your view on the issue. Please correct me if I am wrong: You believe that the judiciary has become blinded and is making incorrect rulings. The world has become inverted and can no longer see the proper definition of marriage. So violence is being committed upon the legal definition of marriage as we have more and more municipalities allowing same-gender marriage.

I guess the piece that I'm missing, in understanding your position, is the end result... since I don't understand the "violence" piece, maybe you can help me get what you view as the outcome of that.

As for me, my position is that church should not have put our good name on this amicus brief. I think that we should be holding fast to D&C 134 and until we have revelatory clarity on the subject we should stay away from these types of legal cases (as we seemed to have done in the most recent election cycle).

Just curious what you mean by "revelatory clarity" on this matter? It seems the Church is clear concerning its position regarding same-sex behavior/marriage.

[rockpond]

Just curious what you mean by "revelatory clarity" on this matter? It seems the Church is clear concerning its position regarding same-sex behavior/marriage.

On a policy level, yes, the church is clear with respect to same gender marriage and its obvious implications with the law of chastity.

But I'm not aware of any clear revelation/scripture on the matter.

[wenglund]

The bolt & lock seems to assume a singular reason for getting married. I married my wife for reasons that are far deeper and more complex than just the procreative act. One can extract that procreative act and still have a beautiful and meaningful marriage.

No, it doesn't so much assume a singular reason for marriage. Bolt-locks can be used for a variety of purpose (paper weights, symbols of interpersonal security, devotion, and safety, etc.).

Rather, it simply acknowledges and speaks to the essential purpose(s) that are in the states interest. The state derives no more value from a deeply loving non-sexual marital relationship than it does from a deeply loving non-marital relationship. The non-sexual love shared between two people, whether married or not, may be nice in the eyes of the state, but the state doesn't realize any more value from the love whether the people are married or not.

Whereas, as explained in various court rulings, the value in or interest of the state in couples getting married, is primarily, if not exclusively tied to procreation--i.e. perpetuation of the species through committed and stable relationships and raising children preferably in a two parent (father and mother) home.

This is exactly why doing violence to the essential elements of the legal definition of marriage is irrational. It not only inanely alters the fundamental meaning of the term (turning it on its head), but it flies in the face of the functional value of the term to the state.

Is my point starting to register yet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

No, it doesn't so much assume a singular reason for marriage. Bolt-locks can be used for a variety of purpose (paper weights, symbols of interpersonal security, devotion, and safety, etc.).

Rather, it simply acknowledges and speaks to the essential purpose(s) that are in the states interest. The state derives no more value from a deeply loving non-sexual marital relationship than it does from a deeply loving non-marital relationship. The non-sexual love shared between two people, whether married or not, may be nice in the eyes of the state, but the state doesn't realize any more value from the love whether the people are married or not.

Whereas, as explained in various court rulings, the value in or interest of the state in couples getting married, is primarily, if not exclusively tied to procreation--i.e. perpetuation of the species through committed and stable relationships and raising children preferably in a two parent (father and mother) home.

This is exactly why doing violence to the essential elements of the legal definition of marriage is irrational. It not only inanely alters the fundamental meaning of the term (turning it on its head), but it flies in the face of the functional value of the term to the state.

Is my point starting to register yet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Expanding your analogy to a bolt-lock being used as a paper weight seems to throw support towards redefining marriage (since you'd be redefining the true purpose of the bolt-lock).

If the value of state recognized marriage is to provided committed stable relationships from children then we best get same gender marriage recognized by the state right away since more and more gay couples are having children.

I still don't see the "violence". What is the harm being done and who is the object of that harm?