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

[DavidB]

Nevermind

Edited February 4, 2013 by DavidB

[bu11fr0g]

And why true sibs that have been sterilized and/or do not want to have a sexual relationship cannot be married.

[Scott Lloyd]

Long term I think it will come down to children. While the church is slow to acknowledge it (see Elder Oak's conference reference that we should "assume" gay families harm children), the reality is that we're starting to have a good data set to look at as to children raised in gay families. And they're doing just as well as kids in hetro families.

Depends on which study you look at. (link)

I think it's too soon to be speaking in such absolutist terms as you have here.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

Depends on which study you look at. (link)

I think it's too soon to be speaking in such absolutist terms as you have here.

You are quoting a study that the author himself said

"I'm not claiming that gay and lesbian adults are bad parents. This is not a parenting study," Regnerus said. "What this shows is that there's lots of diversity."

If you know anything about this study, you know that he was not studying gay couples raising children. There in fact has not been any study that shows gay couples raising children where the children of those families have not done just as well as kids in hetro families.

[webbles]

You are quoting a study that the author himself said

If you know anything about this study, you know that he was not studying gay couples raising children. There in fact has not been any study that shows gay couples raising children where the children of those families have not done just as well as kids in hetro families.

The studies that I know are all self-selected. Do you know of any study that is not self-selected?

And I've been wondering about comparing families that have a mom and a dad vs families that have the same sex parent. The same sex parent families are much closer to adoptive parents or step-mom/step-dad parents. Have there been any studies that compares just those family types?

[california boy]

california boy,

The full brief is available here

From the table of contents, here are some of the things they argue.

1. Proposition 8 is a rational choice, rather than made out of prejudice or irrationality.

-It was a measured response.

-The debate is ongoing about what constitutes marriage, and this was a rational position to take as the debate continues.

2. The fact that religious voters went for Prop. 8 does not invalidate it.

-Values based judgements are not, a priori, unconstitutional.

3. Prop. 8 satisfies equal protection for reasons the 9th circuit did not consider.

-Rational basis is the correct level of review.

-Prop 8 recovers a definition of marriage more likely to sustain the institution

-Prop 8 protects the substantial expectation and reliance interests of married couples.

[i recommend the arguments starting on p. 17. They are quite cogent.]

Thanks for your help. I reread the brief starting on p. 17 and while I think the brief tries to make a case that prop 8 supporters have nothing against gays, they just want to defend traditional marriage. But for me, the hole in that argument is that when asked how gay marriage will weaken the institute of marriage, there is not much legal rational given. Pointedly, in the prop 8 trial, one of the experts were asked directly how gay marriage will weaken anyone's marriage and his answer was "I don't know" In fact, I haven't heard anyone on this board give a rational answer to how gay marriage would weaken anyone's marriage. So the question still has to be asked to the religious community, why do you oppose gay marriage? Until they can answer that in a way that will satisfy the courts then it sounds like they are just opposed to gays participating in this institution but have no reason to not allow them to participate. If they want to claim that they are not prejudice against gay couples marrying then they have to have a reason for excluding them. They haven't offered one. So one has to assume that in fact they are prejudice against gay couples at least in allowing them to marry.

And yes, we have heard the whole children need both mother and father as optimum. But since that is not what is required for marriage, then again it seems like the application of this reasoning only applies to gay couples and not to all heterosexual couples that wish to participate in the institution of marriage.

Hence, is all the brief can state is, we are against gay marriage for religious reasons and tradition. Maybe that is a strong enough argument, but I certainly don't see it that way. Now we have to wait to see how the justices will see it.

[rockpond]

The studies that I know are all self-selected. Do you know of any study that is not self-selected?

And I've been wondering about comparing families that have a mom and a dad vs families that have the same sex parent. The same sex parent families are much closer to adoptive parents or step-mom/step-dad parents. Have there been any studies that compares just those family types?

While this is an interesting discussion and you all can, of course, continue it... I just want to point out that gay couples are already raising children even in states in which they do not have marriage rights. It seems unlikely that a SCOTUS decision upholding DOMA and/or Prop 8 would persuade gay couples to cease creating families and raising kids. So, whether or not they are good parents seems irrelevant to me.

[cdowis]

Age restrictions pass scrutiny due to issues of consent. Gender issues do not.

Sigh. You have just proven my point.

Age is an issue of "reasonable restriction", depending on the age. For example, an age restriction, the age of consent, of thirty years of age is not reasonable. That should be decided, not on the Constitution, but on prudence and reasonable consideration.

ONCE AGAIN, this issue is not **Gender** issue, but whether mixed gender vs same gender is a reasonable restriction. This is not an issue of a violation of the Constitution. Mixed gender vs same gender is not a protected classification.

Are you able to wrap your mind around that concept?

Leave out insults.

[cdowis]

While this is an interesting discussion and you all can, of course, continue it... I just want to point out that gay couples are already raising children even in states in which they do not have marriage rights. It seems unlikely that a SCOTUS decision upholding DOMA and/or Prop 8 would persuade gay couples to cease creating families and raising kids. So, whether or not they are good parents seems irrelevant to me.

But it will affect whether a state can force with the weight of law to have adoption agencies, such as Catholic Charities. to give SS couples the same rights of adoption in their system. Catholic Charities was forced to close down where the state required this, e.g. Washington DC.

[cdowis]

Thanks for your help. I reread the brief starting on p. 17 and while I think the brief tries to make a case that prop 8 supporters have nothing against gays, they just want to defend traditional marriage. But for me, the hole in that argument is that when asked how gay marriage will weaken the institute of marriage, there is not much legal rational given. Pointedly, in the prop 8 trial, one of the experts were asked directly how gay marriage will weaken anyone's marriage and his answer was "I don't know" In fact, I haven't heard anyone on this board give a rational answer to how gay marriage would weaken anyone's marriage.

1. Considering common law in the matter, the burden is upon the advocates of SSM to prove why such a fundamental change in the definition of marriage is necessary and proper. So far, no such convincing argument has been proposed.

2. The issue of how it would affect an individual's personal marriage is a phoney issue. It is how it would affect the family structure in society, not one particular marriage. SS marriage is a fundamental change, a highly speculative experiment with unknown affects to society. Once instigated, you cannot undo the effect -- it sill stay with us. And the effects may not be evident for at least two generations. The advocates of SSM must present convincing arguments that the advantages are known and sufficient to have this society alterning experiment.

The burden is on the SSM advocates.

[DavidB]

But it will affect whether a state can force with the weight of law to have adoption agencies, such as Catholic Charities. to give SS couples the same rights of adoption in their system. Catholic Charities was forced to close down where the state required this, e.g. Washington DC.

CFR.

Who forced the charities to shut down?

Why did the charities shut down?

[cdowis]

CFR.

Who forced the charities to shut down?

Why did the charities shut down?

Thanks for the opportunity to share this tragic event. The city attempted to force the Catholic Church to violate its strongly held religious principles, and the church had no choice but to close the agency.

http://www.catholicn...option_program/

"Archbishop Donald Wuerl is a man of principle and prudence: he did not want to end the foster-care program, but he was left with no realistic option,” Donohue said Wednesday. “District lawmakers could have granted the kind of religious exemptions that would have ensured a continuation of services, but instead they sought to create a Catch-22 situation for the archdiocese.

“Surely they knew that Archbishop Wuerl was not going to negotiate Catholic Church teachings on marriage, yet that hardly mattered to them. The real losers are the children who were served by the Catholic Church.”

Those who characterized the Catholic Church’s actions on the issue as neglectful of the children, Donohue claimed, were “phonies.”

“Archbishop Wuerl isn't about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program.”

The city counsel doubtless gave itself a high five for the decision. It chose to force the issue and they achieved their goal.

Edited February 5, 2013 by cdowis

[rockpond]

Thanks for the opportunity to share this tragic event. The city attempted to force the Catholic Church to violate its strongly held religious principles, and the church had no choice but to close the agency.

http://www.catholicn...option_program/

The city counsel doubtless gave itself a high five for the decision. It chose to force the issue and they achieved their goal.

The story you linked left out an important detail... Catholic Charities was a *paid* contractor for the city ($2 million for the foster care program). And that's why the city council was able to dictate how they administer their program.

And, yes, I don't think an organization should receive public funding and be permitted to discriminate, against local law, with it.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/dc-gay-marriage-law-archdiocese-end-foster-care/

If you'd like to bring up the Boston CC example as well, I can explain why they were not "forced" to stop offering adoptions either.

Edited February 5, 2013 by rockpond

[jwhitlock]

And, yes, I don't think an organization should receive public funding and be permitted to discriminate, against local law, with it.

Such claims of discrimination are arbitrary and serve only to further the particular agenda of the group making the accusation.

For instance, I don't think that I should be coerced to pay taxes to support agendas that I don't agree with. My opinion in that sense has as much validity as yours.

Where do the lines get drawn when it comes to discrimination? By the arbitrary whims of regulations and laws that get passed by agenda driven special interest groups and which have no real ethical or moral foundation?

Why do we support discriminatory programs that only women, or only the poor, or only those on welfare, etc. can use?

The point is that selectively applied public programs are the rule, not the exception. To demand that Catholic Charities submit to an arbitrary definition of "discrimination" just on the basis of receiving public funding is invalid.

[california boy]

1. Considering common law in the matter, the burden is upon the advocates of SSM to prove why such a fundamental change in the definition of marriage is necessary and proper. So far, no such convincing argument has been proposed.

2. The issue of how it would affect an individual's personal marriage is a phoney issue. It is how it would affect the family structure in society, not one particular marriage. SS marriage is a fundamental change, a highly speculative experiment with unknown affects to society. Once instigated, you cannot undo the effect -- it sill stay with us. And the effects may not be evident for at least two generations. The advocates of SSM must present convincing arguments that the advantages are known and sufficient to have this society alterning experiment.

The burden is on the SSM advocates.

The simple aregument for gay marriage is equality under the law regardless of sexual orientation for all Americans. That is the issue that is before the Supreme Court justices (as well as standing). If those that want to deny ssm can not show harm (blind pilots etc) then to deny an American citizen this fundimental right of marriage will be approved. So yes, the prop 8 supporters do have to fundimentally show harm done to society if gay marriage is passed. So far, they have been unable to do this in a court of law.

I don't know of any laws that are held up from passing by speculating on what may or may not happen in the future. While it has been an argument for many laws (womens right to vote, ending slavery etc) the courts have never withheld a judgement based on speculation on what may or may not happen. Perhaps you lnow of such a thing? Love to hear if you do.

[california boy]

Such claims of discrimination are arbitrary and serve only to further the particular agenda of the group making the accusation.

For instance, I don't think that I should be coerced to pay taxes to support agendas that I don't agree with. My opinion in that sense has as much validity as yours.

Where do the lines get drawn when it comes to discrimination? By the arbitrary whims of regulations and laws that get passed by agenda driven special interest groups and which have no real ethical or moral foundation?

Why do we support discriminatory programs that only women, or only the poor, or only those on welfare, etc. can use?

The point is that selectively applied public programs are the rule, not the exception. To demand that Catholic Charities submit to an arbitrary definition of "discrimination" just on the basis of receiving public funding is invalid.

The courts have ruled that you can not discriminate against someone based on whether they are gay if you make your services available to the general public. It is federal law. Cathoiic Charities know that if they took this issue to court they would loose. Your argument is a strawman.

Edited February 5, 2013 by california boy

[semlogo]

It's still discrimination against people because of their age, though, even if it applies to everyone who is that age.

What if you weren't considered to be "old" enough to marry the person you wanted to marry? How would you feel?

You're asking the wrong person. I didn't date until I was old enough to get married.

Age of consent laws pass muster because there is a logical reason for them, based on sound reasoning and evidence. One can't say the same of gender and race discrimination.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe the government can hand out marriage licenses to those who have a civil marriage. If someone wants a religious marriage, then the government is not obligated to hand out licenses.

I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Make them all Civil Unions enforceable like any other contract. Let the couple go to any church of their own religion to get married there. If they want.

[semlogo]

And why true sibs that have been sterilized and/or do not want to have a sexual relationship cannot be married.

What does this have to do with gay marriage?

[semlogo]

Sigh. You have just proven my point.

Age is an issue of "reasonable restriction", depending on the age. For example, an age restriction, the age of consent, of thirty years of age is not reasonable. That should be decided, not on the Constitution, but on prudence and reasonable consideration.

ONCE AGAIN, this issue is not **Gender** issue, but whether mixed gender vs same gender is a reasonable restriction. This is not an issue of a violation of the Constitution. Mixed gender vs same gender is not a protected classification.

Are you able to wrap your mind around that concept?

Does not follow. You're arguing for restricting rights by gender in marriage. If you tried to limit the number of women in an LLP, it would be considered sex discrimination.

[semlogo]

But it will affect whether a state can force with the weight of law to have adoption agencies, such as Catholic Charities. to give SS couples the same rights of adoption in their system. Catholic Charities was forced to close down where the state required this, e.g. Washington DC.

If a religion accepts tax payer $, they must abide by the same laws as everyone else.

[rockpond]

Such claims of discrimination are arbitrary and serve only to further the particular agenda of the group making the accusation.

For instance, I don't think that I should be coerced to pay taxes to support agendas that I don't agree with. My opinion in that sense has as much validity as yours.

Where do the lines get drawn when it comes to discrimination? By the arbitrary whims of regulations and laws that get passed by agenda driven special interest groups and which have no real ethical or moral foundation?

Why do we support discriminatory programs that only women, or only the poor, or only those on welfare, etc. can use?

The point is that selectively applied public programs are the rule, not the exception. To demand that Catholic Charities submit to an arbitrary definition of "discrimination" just on the basis of receiving public funding is invalid.

I understand and share in the frustration of having to pay for programs that we agree don't agree with.

However, we live in a constitutional republic. The marriage statutes in DC followed the appropriate process and became law. This is not an "arbitrary whim".

In this example, the City Council is just enforcing the laws of its municipality with its contractors. Catholic Charities was not forced to close down, it was not forced to violate its religious principles (as cdowis falsely claimed). Catholic Charities was told that if it wanted to continue to be paid as a contractor of the city, it had to administer the program with respect to the new law. It then chose to end that contract and it was given to another organization. The article I linked in my previous post noted that the foster care program was less than one-tenth of the $22.5 million that the DC government paid CC to operate 63 different social services programs. Catholic Charities is still operating and doing great things in the DC area... here's a link to their website.

[DavidB]

Thanks for the opportunity to share this tragic event. The city attempted to force the Catholic Church to violate its strongly held religious principles, and the church had no choice but to close the agency.

http://www.catholicn...option_program/

The city counsel doubtless gave itself a high five for the decision. It chose to force the issue and they achieved their goal.

So the Catholic made the choice on their own volition to shut down; how much tax subsidy money could the charity have given up to stay open?

Edited February 5, 2013 by DavidB

[rockpond]

So the Catholic made the choice on their own volition to shut down; how much tax subsidy money could the charity have given up to stay open?

Nope... they did not even shut down. Catholic Charities is still operating in DC.

[DavidB]

Nope... they did not even shut down. Catholic Charities is still operating in DC.

"Gay agenda forced" _________________*insert sympathetic non-victim" is usually a misrepresentation of the situation.