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

[Daniel2]

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-

Oh.... my... gosh!!!!..... I TOTALLY get it now!!!!! Psssssttt..... Wade! You've struck legal GOLD with this revolutionary (it MUST be new!!! I’ve never heard it before!!! ) lock-and-key analogy. Quick--please send it over to the Pro-Prop 8 Legal Team so they can share it before the entire nation. Maybe THEN we'll all understand why the term "marriage" MUST be preserved ONLY to describe the civil partnerships between opposite-sex couples, and is completely inappropriate to use for same-sex couples (especially since using it for same-sex couples actually does VIOLENCE to the term... something the legal team has shockingly and egregiously omitted from their defense so far!!!).

EDIT: One thought occurred to me: When dealing with plumbing fixtures, it's common to refer to one set as "male" plumbing, and the other set as "female." Perhaps, when you call the legal defense team with your water-tight lock-and-key analogy errors, you could kill two birds with one stone and have them call Webster's, the National Plumbing Association, and perhaps the Supreme Court object to the use of those terms, as such inappropriate usage of the terms "male" and "female" for inanimate objects "violates the very essence of the definition by the definitional usage" to the concepts and definition of "maleness" and "femaleness."

It does look like Westboro Church is on the same track, Wade--here's a screenshot of a poster they're using, only they use plugs. I wonder why no one seems to be listening to or employing their logic??

Daniel2

Edited February 19, 2013 by Daniel2

[howller]

At minimum, Wade should get a prize for using "fruit salad" in an analogy about same-sex marriage.

[Daniel2]

This just in from Mexico:

Mexican Supreme Court Rules That Bans On Gay Marriage Are Unconstitutional

The Mexican Supreme Court today issued a sweeping decision in which it declared that bans on same-sex marriage are "discriminatory and unconstitutional." The formal ruling was delivered today, but the court made the decision in December.

J. Lester Feder reports at Buzzfeed:

The ruling not only makes a strong statement about Mexican law's treatment of equal protection guarantees, it also relies heavily on civil rights rulings handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although several justices of the American court take pride in not caring what foreign courts say, any who read the Mexican decision will find the court makes an impassioned case for the United States to follow its lead. Writing for a unanimous tribunal, Minister Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea invoked the U.S. cases Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education to argue for marriage equality in a way that American activists would be overjoyed to see from a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Same-sex marriage is presently legal in Mexico City and the state of Quintana Roo. Marriages performed in both places are recognized nationwide. Today's ruling only applies in the state of Oaxaca. Feder explains:

Unlike in the United States, it takes more than one ruling from Mexico's Supreme Court to strike down a law—the court must rule the same way in five separate cases before a law falls. This ruling concerns three separate cases; it will take two more for any same-sex couple in Oaxaca to be able to wed easily, and then the process may have to be repeated in other states. But this precedent means this is a procedural issue, not a legal one.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Another source (Buzzfeed), has a few more details:

Mexican Supreme Court: American Cases Demand Marriage Equality

In a sweeping ruling striking down a ban on same-sex couples' marriages in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico's Supreme Court says U.S. Supreme Court cases support marriage equality. posted on February 18, 2013 at 6:50pm EST

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutionally discriminatory, Mexico's Supreme Court announced in a sweeping ruling made public Monday.

The ruling not only makes a strong statement about Mexican law's treatment of equal protection guarantees, it also relies heavily on civil rights rulings handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although several justices of the American court take pride in not caring what foreign courts say, any who read the Mexican decision will find the court makes an impassioned case for the United States to follow its lead.

Writing for a unanimous tribunal, Minister Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea invoked the U.S. cases Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education to argue for marriage equality in a way that American activists would be overjoyed to see from a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage in 1967, Zaldívar wrote (translated from its original Spanish):

The historical disadvantages that homosexuals have suffered have been well recognized and documented: public harassment, verbal abuse, discrimination in their employment and in access to certain services, in addition to their exclusion to some aspects of public life. In this sense … when they are denied access to marriage it creates an analogy with the discrimination that interracial couples suffered in another era. In the celebrated case Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court argued that "restricting marriage rights as belonging to one race or another is incompatible with the equal protection clause" under the US constitution. In connection with this analogy, it can be said that the normative power of marriage is worth little if it does grant the possibility to marry the person one chooses.

Zaldívar also wrote that it would also be contrary to the principles of the 1954 school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education to restrict same-sex couples to civil unions or domestic partnerships while barring them from marriage.

It can be said that the [other] models for recognition of same-sex couples, even if the only difference with marriage be the name given to both types of institutions, are inherently discriminatory because the constitute a regime of "separate but equal." Like racial segregation, founded on the unacceptable idea of white supremacy, the exclusion of homosexual couples from marriage also is based on prejudice that historically has existed against homosexuals. Their exclusion from the institution of marriage perpetuates the notion that same-sex couples are less worthy of recognition than heterosexuals, offending their dignity as people.

The ruling had been anticipated since the court announced December 5, 2012, that it would order the state of Oaxaca to recognize the marriages of the three same-sex couples that had filed suit. But the court waited to spell out its justification for this decision in a written ruling for two-and-a-half months, suggesting there may have been disagreement about just how broadly it should make the case for marriage equality. The couples' lawyer, Alex Alí Méndez Díaz, told BuzzFeed the opinion was posted on the court's site Monday.

The court broke important ground in the ruling by invoking another precedent from international law, a ruling handed down in 2012 by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Karen Atala Riffo y Niños v. Chile. Most Latin American countries recognize the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, which is the legal arm of the Organization of American States. (The United States and Canada do not submit to the court's jurisdiction.)

Karen Atala was a Chilean mother who was denied custody of her children during divorce proceedings with her ex-husband because she is a lesbian. The Inter-American Court said the Chilean courts violated Atala's human rights and for the first time said that gays and lesbians were protected from discrimination under international law, declaring that the American Convention on Human Rights, "prohibits … any rule, act, or discriminatory practice based on sexual orientation."

A trio of same-sex couples from Chile have already started proceedings in the Inter-American justice system claiming that the Atala precedent means that international law should also protect the right to marry. If they succeed, it could open the door to marriage rights throughout Latin America for same-sex couples.

The Mexican marriage case was the first test in any Latin American court of whether the decision in Atala's case can be applied to marriage rights. The court held that it could, writing that Atala requires the rejection of "a regime of separate-but-equal marriage."

Hunter Carter, a lawyer for the Chilean couples suing to marry in the Inter-American Court, told BuzzFeed, "This opinion is a huge win for marriage rights for same sex couples in the Americas."

Despite its breadth, this ruling will have only a small immediate impact in Mexico.

Technicalities of the country's legal system mean that only the three couples who brought this case will be able to marry right away. Mexico City is still the only jurisdiction inside Mexico where marriage between same-sex couples is fully legal; several more lawsuits will have to be brought before that right is available nationwide.

Unlike in the United States, it takes more than one ruling from Mexico's Supreme Court to strike down a law—the court must rule the same way in five separate cases before a law falls. This ruling concerns three separate cases; it will take two more for any same-sex couple in Oaxaca to be able to wed easily, and then the process may have to be repeated in other states. But this precedent means this is a procedural issue, not a legal one.

For the lawyer who brought this suit, Alí Méndez Díaz, the verdict is still a big win.

"Without a doubt, we have made history … in Mexico. The next step is to extend this experience to other parts of the country," he said.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

...But, I think that I am understanding your view on the issue...

Nope. However, enough has been said that you should have long since come to an understanding. And, even though more could be said, I see no point in doing so, and will leave each to their own, appreciative of a lively, if fruitless, discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Oh.... my... gosh!!!!..... I TOTALLY get it now!!!!! Psssssttt..... Wade! You've struck legal GOLD with this revolutionary (it MUST be new!!! I’ve never heard it before!!! ) lock-and-key analogy. Quick--please send it over to the Pro-Prop 8 Legal Team so they can share it before the entire nation. Maybe THEN we'll all understand why the term "marriage" MUST be preserved ONLY to describe the civil partnerships between opposite-sex couples, and is completely inappropriate to use for same-sex couples (especially since using it for same-sex couples actually does VIOLENCE to the term... something the legal team has shockingly and egregiously omitted from their defense so far!!!).

EDIT: One thought occurred to me: When dealing with plumbing fixtures, it's common to refer to one set as "male" plumbing, and the other set as "female." Perhaps, when you call the legal defense team with your water-tight lock-and-key analogy errors, you could kill two birds with one stone and have them call Webster's, the National Plumbing Association, and perhaps the Supreme Court object to the use of those terms, as such inappropriate usage of the terms "male" and "female" for inanimate objects "violates the very essence of the definition by the definitional usage" to the concepts and definition of "maleness" and "femaleness."

It does look like Westboro Church is on the same track, Wade--here's a screenshot of a poster they're using, only they use plugs. I wonder why no one seems to be listening to or employing their logic??

Daniel2

This kind of juvenile over-reaction is often indicative of a touched nerve. If so, that is encouraging since it shows sign that certain minds aren't entirely impermeable on a given subject.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

At minimum, Wade should get a prize for using "fruit salad" in an analogy about same-sex marriage.

I am glad to see someone else on this thread has a sense of humor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This just in from Mexico:

It will suggest much to me about the state of moral and legal affairs in the U.S. if we end up following Mexico's lead. I can think of few governments that are more corrupt.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Speaking of things in the news, here is a belated report from down under: Man Marries His Dog.

Also: Indiana Woman Wants to Marry Her Pet Dog--Tries to rally Support from Gay Rights Activists.

And, Actress Wants to Marry Her Dog.

Evidently, the notion of "marriage equality" is catching on throughout the world and being taken to a whole new level.

...and to think that some people have been adamant that we aren't on a slippery slope.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 19, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

Speaking of things in the news, here is a belated report from down under: Man Marries His Dog.

Also: Indiana Woman Wants to Marry Her Pet Dog--Tries to rally Support from Gay Rights Activists.

And, Actress Wants to Marry Her Dog.

Evidently, the notion of "marriage equality" is catching on throughout the world and being taken to a whole new level.

...and to think that some people have been adamant that we aren't on a slippery slope.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

FunnyorDie.com... is this where you get most of your news?

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take this post seriously, but it appears that you are. So, I'll say (as I've said to JWhitlock) that just because someone makes a demand does not grant it any validity.

[rockpond]

Nope. However, enough has been said that you should have long since come to an understanding. And, even though more could be said, I see no point in doing so, and will leave each to their own, appreciative of a lively, if fruitless, discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, that isn't your position? Interesting. I was trying to be respectful and sincere in my summary. My goal is honestly to understand your position - I apologize if I have not been able to do that.

[wenglund]

FunnyorDie.com... is this where you get most of your news?

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take this post seriously, but it appears that you are. So, I'll say (as I've said to JWhitlock) that just because someone makes a demand does not grant it any validity.

I'm amused that an advocate for perverse sexual relationships would be talking about validity and questioning whether to take my post seriously. However, as I have said, we now live in an upside-down world.

If you have been, for as long as I (spanning more than 4 decades), an observer of pop culture in general, and the sexual revolution and gay movements in particular, you may have realized that it isn't so much about validity as it is about changing public sentiment.

From what I can tell as an observer, animal lovers are just now starting to come out of the closet. Their movement is just in its infancy and is now no further along than the gay movement was in the late 60's. And, not surprisingly, they appear to be taking some pages from the gay propaganda play book, just as the gays did with the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement. It isn't coincidental that they are now appealing to gay activist and are staring to leverage the social currency of celebrities, and beginning to commit acts of civil disobedience. I predict that in several decades I will be debating well-intending people like you, and having to address questions like how my marriage is harmed by people marrying their pets.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Edited February 19, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[rockpond]

I'm amused that an advocate for perverse sexual relationships would be talking about validity and questioning whether to take my post seriously. However, as I have said, we now live in an upside-down world.

If you have been, for as long as I (spanning more than 4 decades), an observer of pop culture in general, and the sexual revolution and gay movements in particular, you may have realized that it isn't so much about validity as it is about changing public sentiment.

From what I can tell as an observer, animal lovers are just now starting to come out of the closet. Their movement is just in its infancy and is now no further along than the gay movement was in the late 60's. And, not surprisingly, they appear to be taking some pages from the gay propaganda play book, just as the gays did with the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement. It isn't coincidental that they are now appealing to gay activist and are staring to leverage the social currency of celebrities, and beginning to commit acts of civil disobedience. I predict that in several decades I will be debating well-intending people like you, and having to address questions like how my marriage is harmed by people marrying their pets.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I feel like I've been respectful in our discourse. I've never intentionally tried to misrepresent your statements and positions. I am not an advocate of "perverse sexual relationships". I have repeatedly expressed my support of the law of chastity and my desire to see legal recognition of committed, loving relationships. I think that you can disagree with that without resorting to such rhetoric.

I see no reason why granting legal recognition to same gender marriages would cause our society to then legally recognize marriages between humans and animals.

[wenglund]

No, that isn't your position? Interesting. I was trying to be respectful and sincere in my summary. My goal is honestly to understand your position - I apologize if I have not been able to do that.

I can appreciate this. It is just that my point was simple and seemingly obvious, and I had sincerely gone to great lengths clarifying and correcting and expounding my point using multiple analogies, evidently without success, and so out of respect for your intelligence and honesty, I had to figure you were intentionally not getting it. Perhaps, though, I was wrong, and I have no problem now faulting myself for the communicative impasse. Whatever the case, I doubt that either of us are well served interminably indulging this Sisyphus-like exchange, and so at least I am pleased to move progressively along having at least some gratitude for the interaction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[go_utes01]

Wade,

I feel like I've been respectful in our discourse. I've never intentionally tried to misrepresent your statements and positions. I am not an advocate of "perverse sexual relationships". I have repeatedly expressed my support of the law of chastity and my desire to see legal recognition of committed, loving relationships. I think that you can disagree with that without resorting to such rhetoric.

I see no reason why granting legal recognition to same gender marriages would cause our society to then legally recognize marriages between humans and animals.

Is "perverse sexual relationships" extreme rhetoric to you? Just curious.

[rockpond]

Is "perverse sexual relationships" extreme rhetoric to you? Just curious.

Since we were talking about loving, committed relationships... yes, I think it was over the top to say that I was advocating perversion. Though it's possible that you (or Wade) see gay relationships in that light.

Edited February 19, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I can appreciate this. It is just that my point was simple and seemingly obvious, and I had sincerely gone to great lengths clarifying and correcting and expounding my point using multiple analogies, evidently without success, and so out of respect for your intelligence and honesty, I had to figure you were intentionally not getting it. Perhaps, though, I was wrong, and I have no problem now faulting myself for the communicative impasse. Whatever the case, I doubt that either of us are well served interminably indulging this Sisyphus-like exchange, and so at least I am pleased to move progressively along having at least some gratitude for the interaction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fair enough. I'll thank you for the dialogue and call it a day.

[go_utes01]

Since we were talking about loving, committed relationships... yes, I think it was over the top to say that I was advocating perversion. Though it's possible that you see gay relationships in that light.

The definition of perverse is "Contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice" I would say that same-sex relationships fit that definition. However, in the "evolving" culture we find ourselves in, you might be correct that it may already be, or at least soon will become, not contrary to the accepted or expected standard. I am not so sure that is a good thing.

Edited February 19, 2013 by go_utes01

[thesometimesaint]

I'm amused that an advocate for perverse sexual relationships would be talking about validity and questioning whether to take my post seriously. However, as I have said, we now live in an upside-down world.

If you have been, for as long as I (spanning more than 4 decades), an observer of pop culture in general, and the sexual revolution and gay movements in particular, you may have realized that it isn't so much about validity as it is about changing public sentiment.

From what I can tell as an observer, animal lovers are just now starting to come out of the closet. Their movement is just in its infancy and is now no further along than the gay movement was in the late 60's. And, not surprisingly, they appear to be taking some pages from the gay propaganda play book, just as the gays did with the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement. It isn't coincidental that they are now appealing to gay activist and are staring to leverage the social currency of celebrities, and beginning to commit acts of civil disobedience. I predict that in several decades I will be debating well-intending people like you, and having to address questions like how my marriage is harmed by people marrying their pets.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Personally I don't care if someone wants to do it with a tree, However if that person and the tree were to come to me(As a Social Worker) and asked me for my opinion on getting married. We'd have a nice long talk on informed consent, species boundaries, and splinters.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I feel like I've been respectful in our discourse. I've never intentionally tried to misrepresent your statements and positions. I am not an advocate of "perverse sexual relationships". I have repeatedly expressed my support of the law of chastity and my desire to see legal recognition of committed, loving relationships. I think that you can disagree with that without resorting to such rhetoric.

I see no reason why granting legal recognition to same gender marriages would cause our society to then legally recognize marriages between humans and animals.

I am not all that fond of semantic dances. They have a way of obfuscating, regardless of how allegedly well intended and seemingly respectful. So, let's drop the pretenses and stop mincing words and be truly honest and straightforward with each other. Advocacy for legalizing same-sex marriage is tantamount to advocating for homo sex, and governmental sanctions of the same. It is an attempt to legitimize what to the Church considers perverse sexual behavior. Wrapping perverse sex in the cloak of marriage doesn't alter the perversion, and merely profanes the sacred. You, of course, are free to pretend otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

The definition of perverse is "Contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice" I would say that same-sex relationships fit that definition. However, in the "evolving" culture we find ourselves in, you might be correct that it may already be, or at least soon will become, not contrary to the accepted or expected standard. I am not so sure that is a good thing.

There are multiple definitions of perverse.

[thesometimesaint]

The definition of perverse is "Contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice" I would say that same-sex relationships fit that definition. However, in the "evolving" culture we find ourselves in, you might be correct that it may already be, or at least soon will become, not contrary to the accepted or expected standard. I am not so sure that is a good thing.

Better evolving than stagnant. Queen Elizabeth ll isn't our monarch. To the issue of SS marriage I prefer to have the State get out of the marriage business altogether, and make them all Civil Unions and enforced like any other contract. Let the churches, mosque's, synagog's, what have you, do whatever religious ceremony they want.

Edited February 19, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[rockpond]

I am not all that fond of semantic dances. They have a way of obfuscating, regardless of how allegedly well intended and seemingly respectful. So, let's drop the pretenses and stop mincing words and be truly honest and straightforward with each other. Advocacy for legalizing same-sex marriage is tantamount to advocating for homo sex, and governmental sanctions of the same. It is an attempt to legitimize what to the Church considers perverse sexual behavior. Wrapping perverse sex in the cloak of marriage doesn't alter the perversion, and merely profanes the sacred. You, of course, are free to pretend otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fine.

The Lord has not spoken to us yet on the subject of same gender marriage. The Church's position has continually changed over the past decades as the restoration unfolds. Until we have full revelatory clarify on the subject, I believe we ought to follow Elder Cook's advice: "As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender."

For me, personally, that means supporting their right to legally recognized marriage. And it means celebrating with them when Prop 8 is overturned by the Supreme Court.

You, of course, can continue to fear the slippery slope.

[wenglund]

Personally I don't care if someone wants to do it with a tree,

Same with me. However, I draw a line when someone want to legally sanction their relationship with the tree and equate it with the sacred relationship between married man and woman.

However if that person and the tree were to come to me(As a Social Worker) and asked me for my opinion on getting married. We'd have a nice long talk on informed consent, species boundaries, and splinters.

Be prepared to be decried as a bigot for putting up boundaries and not accepting the equality of species, let alone for assuming that trees require, let alone can't give, informed consent. In the immortal words of the eldest Ent, Treebeard, "Theeeese thiiiingsss taaaaaakeeee time." LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-