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

[Zeta-Flux]

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 context, I believe his comment was meant to convey that he was uncertain of the ramifications. Not that it was irrational to believe gay marriage would weaken the institution somehow.

In fact, I haven't heard anyone on this board give a rational answer to how gay marriage would weaken anyone's marriage.

I'm surprised by this fact. Let me give you a few reasons why gay marriage will weaken marriages.

1. Mission creep. The societal mission of marriage is not to give lovers government subsidized benefits.

It is to promote those relationships which benefit society the most, by creating stable homes, domesticating men, and providing support for women and children.

By redefining the social meaning of marriage to be primarily about the couple, and their love, we lose the traditional meaning. The mission of marriage creeps to a new focus.

2. Evidence continues to come that SSM has a higher divorce rate. Those children raised in homes with gay parents self report more problems. etc...

Similarly, only years later did we begin to understand the impact so-called "no fault divorce" had on marriage culture, and the effect it had and is continuing to have on children. And even with all these obvious negatives, New York recently became the 50th state to pass no-fault divorce laws!

There is no hurry to legalize SSM. Especially with the many negatives that are appearing.

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.

I think the brief I linked to thoroughly refutes this line of reasoning.

And yes, we have heard the whole children need both mother and father as optimum.

Let me repeat it. Children need a father and a mother.

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.

What is not required for marriage? That the married have children? Of course not. This has been addressed ad naseum, but let me try again. For ease, let me simply quote myself on another message board:

Consider the following. Suppose government wants to promote child-bearing. Having and raising children is a costly enterprise, and requires (modulo modern technologies) two adults. At least in our species, children have a better chance at survival when the parents form a caring, stable home. [Arguably, there are more secure evironments. But this one has worked well for a long time.] So, goverment offers incentives (in terms of joint taxes, inheritance laws, etc...) to opposite-gender adults to form lasting contracts with one another.

Someone says, "Hey! Some of the people getting the benefits of marriage are not procreating!" To get around this, further benefits are given when children come (further tax breaks, etc...). But still, some are not satisfied.

On one hand, some argue that the purpose is to promote child-bearing, not require it. On the other hand, some would say that the purpose is child-bearing, and if people are not actively engaged in it, they should lose their benefits. The problem is, by adding requirements, one actually *undoes* the benefits. People are LESS likely to enter marriage and have children. If you knew that at menopause (or possibly after your last child leaves the home) your government given benefits of marriage will be terminated because you have "served your purpose", you might be a little less likely to enter marriage. Further, at least historically, whether or not one was able to bear children was in many cases "virtually impossible" to tell (as Brian-E hinted).

On the other hand, some sort of requirement should be made of the individuals. They should (for example) agree to try and stay together. (At least historically, this was the case.)

So, the question becomes (from this standpoint) which requirements are too restrictive, which are not restrictive enough, and which violate other principles (like discrimination). Should we restrict marriage from those who are unfit to be parents (like ax murderers)? Should we restrict marriage from people who have been castrated? What about same-gender unions? etc...

If the rational basis for government intrusion into marriage is to promote (but not require) child-bearing then there are two questions we have to ask.

1. If marriage benefits are given to same-gender couples, will this further promote child-bearing, or demote it?

2. If marriage benefits are withheld from same-gender couples, because it is easy to verify same-gender couples are not going to have children naturally, what other behaviors should be used as measuring sticks to restrict marriages and yet still promote child-rearing? (Implicit in this question is the assumption that "discrimination" (in the non-hate-filled meaning) is rational in certain cases. [e.g. having bathrooms labelled "men" and "women" is rational, even though "discriminatory"]) Clearly, other "easily verified" qualities should be on the table. Other conditions should be judged on their relation to the goal (of *promoting* child-bearing) and not on the related goal (of actually having child).

CB, you also said:

Hence, is all the brief can state is, we are against gay marriage for religious reasons and tradition.

No. It is not all they said. But what they did say is that judges should not merely use the fact that just because religious reasons and traditions support our rational conclusions, and give us value judgements, that those are therefore illogical, irrational, or based in hate. They are not.

[cdowis]

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

I guess you missed the "minor" point that the laws can be constructed to accomodate beliefs of churches.

[cdowis]

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

Thanks, perhaps I missed that. Please provide the link that they are currently operating within the city limits of Washington DC.

Edited February 5, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

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.

Now, what if you restricted the LLP that a man can only contract with a woman, and vise versa, which fits the discussion here.

Go back and read my posts and give it some thought. There is no "restricing rights by gender" and I have explained that in detail.

.

[semlogo]

Now, what if you restricted the LLP that a man can only contract with a woman, and vise versa, which fits the discussion here.

Go back and read my posts and give it some thought. There is no "restricing rights by gender" and I have explained that in detail.

.

Yes, that would be a clear case of sex discrimination.

[semlogo]

I guess you missed the "minor" point that the laws can be constructed to accomodate beliefs of churches.

Churches may discriminate all they wish, unless they are offering a tax payer-funded public service.

[rockpond]

Thanks, perhaps I missed that. Please provide the link that they are currently operating within the city limits of Washington DC.

Here are the two links from my previous posts...

First: This is the Catholic Charities DC website (I went ahead and jumped it to the services location page: a long list of programs they have going on there.)

Second: This Washington Times article contains the following quote:

The foster care and adoption programs had been two among the 63 social service programs that the D.C. government paid Catholic Charities $22.5 million to run. Of that amount, $2 million went to the foster care program.

[DavidB]

Churches may discriminate all they wish, unless they are offering a tax payer-funded public service.

Bingo!

[jwhitlock]

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.

The "general public" qualification is arbitrarily applied by government. It defines it how it wishes in order to fit its own agenda.

My point in all this is that laws are arbitrarily passed and judgments of discrimination are arbitrarily applied based on those laws. Like any other organization that caters to narrow interest groups - and those organizations are supported by public funds - Catholic Charities defined its support to a specific segment of the population. That the law was arbitrarily applied in that case to cut Catholic Charities off should be evident to anyone - especially since gay couples could go elsewhere to other publicly funded organizations for what they wanted.

Are there publicly funded gay organizations out there that cater to gays? If so, by the same definition of the law, those organizations should be cut off from public funding.

[jwhitlock]

Churches may discriminate all they wish, unless they are offering a tax payer-funded public service.

In effect, religious tax payers are being told that they have no say in where their taxes go, while special interest groups have moved in to control the government purse strings. Those groups - including gay groups - are the ones arbitrarily telling us that our religious beliefs discriminate and so organizations that provide targeted public services to non-gays, which is consistent with the targeted services other organizations offer, should not be allowed any public funding.

Religious belief - a basic, fundamental, and constitutionally guaranteed right - is slowly but surely being relegated to be subject to special rights demanded by special interest groups. They take our money and deny us our valid religious beliefs when they don't approve of them.

[AddamS]

Is it illegal to deny a driver's license to a blind person?

Some licenses require the ability to pass an exam. Is this "discrimination" against the mentally challanged?

The issue is whether the state is allowed to control the requirements for granting of a license -- a driver's license, a marriage license.

A gay person, a blind person, a brown person, a male or female individual can apply for marriage license as long as the partner is the opposite gender. There may be some age restriction, but even a blind person can see that there is no illegal discrimination, only a state approved *requirement*, viz. mixed gender.

Overturning DOMA, will pave the way to remove the requirements mentioned above. No more bar exams, no more CPA exam, no more testing for eyesight because they are "illegal".

Now that is obvious, my friend. The requirement must be reasonable, and that then becomes a discussion on whether a requirement of mixed gender is reasonable, not whether it is discrimination.

How do you remain upright to type while sitting on that slippery slope?

[Daniel2]

A great speech from Britain's house of parliament, which just overwhelmingly passed gay marriage by something like 400 to 150:

[bu11fr0g]

An argument that allows gays to marry must also have a teason for sibs not too. Both can be said to distort and weaken societal benefits of marriage?

That it doesnt weaken my marriage is inadequate.

[cdowis]

Yes, that would be a clear case of sex discrimination.

Both male and female are able to enter into a contract. In fact the law would be constructed to ensure exact equality among the genders that neither sex is discriminated against.

"Clearly" you are mistaken. Clearly there is not gender discrimination. I understand that you must twist the logic is an attempt to rescue your argument, but it has failed. SSM may actually create a situation of an inequality among the genders in the participation in marriage == it is possible that more male partners may exist than female. Traditional marriage ensures equal participation.

Your argument falls flat on its face.

Edited February 6, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

How do you remain upright to type while sitting on that slippery slope?

Thanks, you have just validated my point. Failing logical discourse, you must now resort to Bozo the clown arguments.

honk, honk!

Edited February 6, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

The simple aregument for gay marriage is equality under the law regardless of sexual orientation for all Americans.

You have not demonstrated that an inequality exists. Please read my posts where I have examined that specific issue. Can you quote and respond to those posts where I addressed that issue -- no point in repeating myself.

Edited February 6, 2013 by cdowis

[DavidB]

You have not demonstrated that an inequality exists. Please read my posts where I have examined that specific issue. Can you quote and respond to those posts where I addressed that issue -- no point in repeating myself.

There is no point in doing that. You refuse to accept that marriage is a fundamental right. You continue to make the false illegitimate comparison of.a marriage license to any other license.

[cdowis]

Marriage is a right, but the issue of "mixed vs same gender" is not defined in the constitution nor in law as a protected category. Mixed gender marriage goes back to common law and is avery ancient precedent.

You and others have failed to demonstrate that "same gender" is an issue for discrimination, and I have suggested that this is an issue to be decided by the state as a "reaonable requirement" for a marriage license. But I do understand why you refulse to discuss the issue. We can simply agree to disagree, and I will continue my discussion with others.

Edited February 6, 2013 by cdowis

[DavidB]

So long as you make invalid comparisons there can be no real discussion.

[cdowis]

Okey dokey, as long as you don't mind that, if you post anything of interest, I will likely respond. You can then simply ignore my posts.

Edited February 6, 2013 by cdowis

[semlogo]

In effect, religious tax payers are being told that they have no say in where their taxes go, while special interest groups have moved in to control the government purse strings. Those groups - including gay groups - are the ones arbitrarily telling us that our religious beliefs discriminate and so organizations that provide targeted public services to non-gays, which is consistent with the targeted services other organizations offer, should not be allowed any public funding.

Religious belief - a basic, fundamental, and constitutionally guaranteed right - is slowly but surely being relegated to be subject to special rights demanded by special interest groups. They take our money and deny us our valid religious beliefs when they don't approve of them.

No one has infringed on anyone's religious belief. But churches that receive taxpayer money must abide by the same laws as businesses and government agencies.

If churches don't wish to do that, they may simply abstain from accepting taxpayer dollars.

Edited February 6, 2013 by semlogo

[semlogo]

Both male and female are able to enter into a contract. In fact the law would be constructed to ensure exact equality among the genders that neither sex is discriminated against.

"Clearly" you are mistaken. Clearly there is not gender discrimination. I understand that you must twist the logic is an attempt to rescue your argument, but it has failed. SSM may actually create a situation of an inequality among the genders in the participation in marriage == it is possible that more male partners may exist than female. Traditional marriage ensures equal participation.

Your argument falls flat on its face.

Prohibiting someone from entering into a contract due to their gender is sex discrimination. You don't have any way around that fact.

[Nofear]

FYI: BSA announced that it needs more time to deliberate and that they plan to vote on the issue at the National Annual Meeting, May 2013.

[cdowis]

Prohibiting someone from entering into a contract due to their gender is sex discrimination. You don't have any way around that fact.

You may be surprised at what can happen when passed off as "equality", especially as women's rights.

This hypothetical law actually makes males and females equal in entering into contracts. Indeed it ensures that males and females are equally represented in contracts.

So, let's suppose that a powerful politician, with gaggles of lawyer, represents a powerful feminist group which complains that women are unequally represented in making major financial contracts -- they trot out statistics that major contracts are primarily representing males as the parties.

They get hysterical. They sponser this law and it is passed, "giving women equal representation in making major financial contracts". Men no long have a monopoly on those contracts. (Think about schools giving minorities preferential treatment in entry requirements.)

The intent of the law is to give equal representation to women. This is clearly not sex discrimination==>>

Obama is behind this law, the Justice Department sees this as "equality" opportunity for women, since this study shows that males have hogged most the major financial contracts, pushing out women from their equal share. So, the politicians, and the courts agree, that this is not gender discrimination, but gender equality.

Who is going to fight the women groups, the justice department, and the top hancho himself. This is an issue of women's rights.

You are very naive, my friend. Facts can become very flexible when the right groups get involved. And this is what is happening with the DOMA case. Thousands of years of precedence, common law, are being challanged in some social experiment.

Edited February 6, 2013 by cdowis

[semlogo]

You may be surprised at what can happen when passed off as "equality", especially as women's rights.

This hypothetical law actually makes males and females equal in entering into contracts. Indeed it ensures that males and females are equally represented in contracts.

So, let's suppose that a powerful politician, with gaggles of lawyer, represents a powerful feminist group which complains that women are unequally represented in making major financial contracts -- they trot out statistics that major contracts are primarily representing males as the parties.

They get hysterical. They sponser this law and it is passed, "giving women equal representation in making major financial contracts". Men no long have a monopoly on those contracts. (Think about schools giving minorities preferential treatment in entry requirements.)

The intent of the law is to give equal representation to women. This is clearly not sex discrimination==>>

Obama is behind this law, the Justice Department sees this as "equality" opportunity for women, since this study shows that males have hogged most the major financial contracts, pushing out women from their equal share. So, the politicians, and the courts agree, that this is not gender discrimination, but gender equality.

Who is going to fight the women groups, the justice department, and the top hancho himself. This is an issue of women's rights.

You are very naive, my friend. Facts can become very flexible when the right groups get involved. And this is what is happening with the DOMA case. Thousands of years of precedence, common law, are being challanged in some social experiment.

I don't find slippery slope arguments very compelling (and they're usually used fallaciously), and your scenario again has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing. You seem to be veering off into a discussion about affirmative action.

I am not disturbed whenever thousands of years of precedent is challenged. I for one would not welcome back the old time traditions of women as property, blacks as second class citizens/slaves, religious affiliation as mandatory on pain of death, children as heavy laborers, etc. Let tradition stand on its own merit or be overturned.