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

[cdowis]

. Let tradition stand on its own merit or be overturned.

Actually, the courts take precedence very seriously, especially Common Law.

I feel traditional marriage, while not perfect, does indeed stand on its own merit. It is the burden of those who want to change the definition of marriage who have the burden to prove why it should be changed.

Edited February 6, 2013 by cdowis

[Zeta-Flux]

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

True. As has been explained, and upheld by the courts, marriage is not sex discrimination because none are prohibited due to their gender. Rather, it is restricted to couples of opposite gender.

If you like, I suppose you could describe the restriction as pairs-of-gender discrimination. But, in the context of marriage this "discrimination" is just a rational differentiation, as the reason the government subsidizes marriage is to promote (but not require) the formation of stable homes for the children which naturally and normally follow sexual intercourse. They want the biological parents of such children to form stable bonds and raise their children together. Thus, it makes rational sense to prohibit those same-sex couples from receiving the same benefits when (1) their coupling decreases the likelihood of children being raised in stable homes (as evidenced by recent studies), (2) extending the benefits damages the public perception of marriage, due to the increased instability and divorce rate, (3) the reasons they ask for the benefits have nothing to do with the reason the benefits were extended in the first place (and thus they are asking for the mission of marriage to creep to a new mission), etc...

[semlogo]

Actually, the courts take precedence very seriously, especially Common Law.

I feel traditional marriage, while not perfect, does indeed stand on its own merit. It is the burden of those who want to change the definition of marriage who have the burden to prove why it should be changed.

Legal precedent is not quite the same thing as what is merely "traditional." Loving v Virginia is the sort of precedent that matters in cases like this. That is the precedent for changing old traditions when they result in violations of the equal protection clause.

Edited February 6, 2013 by semlogo

[semlogo]

True. As has been explained, and upheld by the courts, marriage is not sex discrimination because none are prohibited due to their gender. Rather, it is restricted to couples of opposite gender.

The result is the same. A woman cannot enter into a marriage (in most states) with another woman. That is discrimination based on her gender.

But, in the context of marriage this "discrimination" is just a rational differentiation, as the reason the government subsidizes marriage is to promote (but not require) the formation of stable homes for the children which naturally and normally follow sexual intercourse.

Is that written down somewhere in the law?

They want the biological parents of such children to form stable bonds and raise their children together. Thus, it makes rational sense to prohibit those same-sex couples from receiving the same benefits when (1) their coupling decreases the likelihood of children being raised in stable homes (as evidenced by recent studies),

I know of no credible studies that say children are at a disadvantage when raised by gay parents

(2) extending the benefits damages the public perception of marriage, due to the increased instability and divorce rate,

There is no evidence that gay marriage rights have any effect on divorce rates

(3) the reasons they ask for the benefits have nothing to do with the reason the benefits were extended in the first place (and thus they are asking for the mission of marriage to creep to a new mission), etc...

If marriage does indeed have a stabilizing influence on straight couples, what reason do you have to think that similar benefits will not be seen in gay couples?

[Zeta-Flux]

The result is the same. A woman cannot enter into a marriage (in most states) with another woman. That is discrimination based on her gender.

Yes a woman cannot enter into a marriage with another woman. No, it is not discrimination based on her gender. It has nothing to do with her gender per se. It is a rational differentiation based on the genders of both parties jointly. This rule (of opposite gendered relationships) is applied in a gender neutral way, as the courts (and basic logic) have found. In other words, the rule is applied the same among the genders, and the rule was not formed to discriminate against one or the other gender.

Is that written down somewhere in the law?

Apparently, it does not have to be. When deriving the reasons for laws, courts often look at the surrounding arguments given at the time of adoption, historical records, etc...

I know of no credible studies that say children are at a disadvantage when raised by gay parents.

The NFSS is a random sample study, which has people self-reporting on their outcomes. Those raised by parents who participated in same-sex relationships (known to the reporting child) report much worse outcomes. Whether this is due to "parenting" or not is another question. But I believe it is rational to read the study as supporting the position that, on average, a child being raised by a parent who participates in same-sex relationships fairs worse, and thus such relations should not be promoted.

There is no evidence that gay marriage rights have any effect on divorce rates

This is incorrect. Take a look at this study on the demographics in Sweden from 2006. http://www-same-sex....oc124Gunnar.pdf The same-sex marriages are at a much higher divorce rate, thus having a negative effect on the total.

If marriage does indeed have a stabilizing influence on straight couples, what reason do you have to think that similar benefits will not be seen in gay couples?

You have made a false inference from what I said. Same-sex couples do derive benefits. Same-sex couples who are married are more likely to be stable. (Again, see the document I linked to above.) However, even after this stabilization their relationships are less stable than traditional marriages. And they do not satisfy most of the basic reason government given marital privileges were extended in the first place. [i also recommend you read the brief I linked to earlier in the thread, that gave rise to the title of this thread.] Edited February 6, 2013 by Zeta-Flux

[rockpond]

This is incorrect. Take a look at this study on the demographics in Sweden from 2006. http://www-same-sex....oc124Gunnar.pdf The same-sex marriages are at a much higher divorce rate, thus having a negative effect on the total.

You have made a false inference from what I said. Same-sex couples do derive benefits. Same-sex couples who are married are more likely to be stable. (Again, see the document I linked to above.) However, even after this stabilization their relationships are less stable than traditional marriages. And they do not satisfy most of the basic reason government given marital privileges were extended in the first place. [i also recommend you read the brief I linked to earlier in the thread, that gave rise to the title of this thread.]

This study you cite is of same-sex registered partnerships. Not same-sex marriages. That seems to be a significant difference in context of this discussion. At the very least you ought to correct your language and refer to them as registered partnerships and not marriages.

[Zeta-Flux]

rockpond,

Thanks for the correction.

[california boy]

Yes a woman cannot enter into a marriage with another woman. No, it is not discrimination based on her gender. It has nothing to do with her gender per se. It is a rational differentiation based on the genders of both parties jointly. This rule (of opposite gendered relationships) is applied in a gender neutral way, as the courts (and basic logic) have found. In other words, the rule is applied the same among the genders, and the rule was not formed to discriminate against one or the other gender.

Apparently, it does not have to be. When deriving the reasons for laws, courts often look at the surrounding arguments given at the time of adoption, historical records, etc...

The NFSS is a random sample study, which has people self-reporting on their outcomes. Those raised by parents who participated in same-sex relationships (known to the reporting child) report much worse outcomes. Whether this is due to "parenting" or not is another question. But I believe it is rational to read the study as supporting the position that, on average, a child being raised by a parent who participates in same-sex relationships fairs worse, and thus such relations should not be promoted.

This is incorrect. Take a look at this study on the demographics in Sweden from 2006. http://www-same-sex....oc124Gunnar.pdf The same-sex marriages are at a much higher divorce rate, thus having a negative effect on the total.

You have made a false inference from what I said. Same-sex couples do derive benefits. Same-sex couples who are married are more likely to be stable. (Again, see the document I linked to above.) However, even after this stabilization their relationships are less stable than traditional marriages. And they do not satisfy most of the basic reason government given marital privileges were extended in the first place. [i also recommend you read the brief I linked to earlier in the thread, that gave rise to the title of this thread.]

Zeta, do you really think those defending prop 8 will use this study to support their case before the Supreme Court?

Problems with this study"

Sweden and Norway is not the United States. Divorce laws are not the same between the three countries.

This is a study comparing partnerships verses marriages. If anything, you could make the argument that partnerships are less stable than marriages.

Do you think that hetero couples have a particularly good track record when it comes to divorce?

If we use the rate of divorce to determine if a group should be allowed to get married, why do we let once divorced people marry a second third, fourth etc time. Those that divorce once have a much higher percentage of divorce than those that never divorce. Should we ban people who get divorced from ever marrying again?

How many of these same sex couples had children? Were the number of children compared to straight couples that divorce? Did the study compare childless partnerships with childless marriages?

I could go on. But there are reasons why these kinds of studies don't hold up well in a court of law. Actually I even question whether the rate of divorce is even something the courts would consider when it comes to gay marriage.

So do you still think that the pro prop 8 attorneys will use this study to support their case?

[cdowis]

del

Edited February 7, 2013 by cdowis

[california boy]

This is probably how the brief will be countered.

Mormons, Evangelicals Ask Supreme Court to Ignore Science on Gay Parents

Zack Ford at ThinkProgress LGBT collected the key arguments from the briefs, where Mormon Church attorney Von Keetch alleges that same-sex couples make inferior parents. Ford also notes that the briefs cite the controversial parenting study from Mark Regnerus, who has admittedthat his research methods were not scientifically sound, and which an internal auditor from the journal that published the study called "bullshit."

In the brief for U.S. v. Windsor, which challenges the constitutionality of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the evangelical groups argue:

"By their nature, such policy questions cannot be definitively answered by science, professional opinion, or legal reasoning alone. Although we are certainly persuaded by scholarly opinion supporting traditional marriage, the truth is that social science scholars, for instance, disagree about the effects of gay parenting on children. Whatever the ultimate conclusions may be, “nothing in the Constitution requires [government] to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.”

In the brief filed in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case challenging the constitutionality of California's voter-approved revocation of marriage equality, the religious groups admit, "There is an active debate within the social sciences over whether some of these common sense judgments are empirically sound. But 'nothing in the Constitution requires California to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.” Lawmakers — including the people of California — are entitled to 'act on various unprovable assumptions,' including those that in 'the sum of [their] experience' lead them to conclude that traditional marriage and the family structure it supports deserve distinctive legal protection."

[semlogo]

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.

I suspect if marriage laws were changed so that only two members of the same sex could marry, the inequality of the law would suddenly seem obvious to you.

[semlogo]

Yes a woman cannot enter into a marriage with another woman. No, it is not discrimination based on her gender. It has nothing to do with her gender per se. It is a rational differentiation based on the genders of both parties jointly. This rule (of opposite gendered relationships) is applied in a gender neutral way, as the courts (and basic logic) have found. In other words, the rule is applied the same among the genders, and the rule was not formed to discriminate against one or the other gender.

I'm not aware of any basis for concluding that sex discrimination is acceptable when applied to more than one person.

Apparently, it does not have to be. When deriving the reasons for laws, courts often look at the surrounding arguments given at the time of adoption, historical records, etc...

Is that a no?

The NFSS is a random sample study, which has people self-reporting on their outcomes. Those raised by parents who participated in same-sex relationships (known to the reporting child) report much worse outcomes. Whether this is due to "parenting" or not is another question. But I believe it is rational to read the study as supporting the position that, on average, a child being raised by a parent who participates in same-sex relationships fairs worse, and thus such relations should not be promoted.

This study has been widely discredited.

This is incorrect. Take a look at this study on the demographics in Sweden from 2006. http://www-same-sex....oc124Gunnar.pdf The same-sex marriages are at a much higher divorce rate, thus having a negative effect on the total.

For anti-gay marriage activists, gay marriage is not marriage at all, so this would still have no effect on divorce rates.

If it were found that black people have higher divorce rates, would you advocate that we take away their marriage rights?

You have made a false inference from what I said. Same-sex couples do derive benefits. Same-sex couples who are married are more likely to be stable. (Again, see the document I linked to above.) However, even after this stabilization their relationships are less stable than traditional marriages. And they do not satisfy most of the basic reason government given marital privileges were extended in the first place. [i also recommend you read the brief I linked to earlier in the thread, that gave rise to the title of this thread.]

Even given all your premises, if same sex relationships (which will exist regardless of whether or not they are allowed to marry) derive benefits from marriage, then there is substantial interest in granting them marriage rights.

Even if gay marriage made their relationships worse off than before, equal protection under the law dictates that they be given the choice.

[semlogo]

Zeta, do you really think those defending prop 8 will use this study to support their case before the Supreme Court?

Problems with this study"

Sweden and Norway is not the United States. Divorce laws are not the same between the three countries.

This is a study comparing partnerships verses marriages. If anything, you could make the argument that partnerships are less stable than marriages.

Do you think that hetero couples have a particularly good track record when it comes to divorce?

If we use the rate of divorce to determine if a group should be allowed to get married, why do we let once divorced people marry a second third, fourth etc time. Those that divorce once have a much higher percentage of divorce than those that never divorce. Should we ban people who get divorced from ever marrying again?

How many of these same sex couples had children? Were the number of children compared to straight couples that divorce? Did the study compare childless partnerships with childless marriages?

I could go on. But there are reasons why these kinds of studies don't hold up well in a court of law. Actually I even question whether the rate of divorce is even something the courts would consider when it comes to gay marriage.

So do you still think that the pro prop 8 attorneys will use this study to support their case?

Thank you for this insight.

[cdowis]

I suspect if marriage laws were changed so that only two members of the same sex could marry, the inequality of the law would suddenly seem obvious to you.

Marriage would then become meaningless, without the purpose for which it was designed. The primary purpose of marriage is to build a strong society by building a family with children and the father and mother role model. A strong society is built upon that model.

We can already see what happens with single parent families.

You are very correct. i can see what would happen in such a state of affairs and why I oppose SSM. It turns the institution of marriage into a useless bygone relic of the past, and does irrepaable damage to the fabric of society. It is a very dangerous dangerous experiment, with the future of society at stake..... and for what? Where are the benefits that outweigh the dangers.

What is obvious to me is that the damage will be irreparable.

Edited February 7, 2013 by cdowis

[semlogo]

Marriage would then become meaningless, without the purpose for which it was designed. The primary purpose of marriage is to build a strong society by building a family with children and the father and mother role model. A strong society is built upon that model.

Don't forget the purpose of establishing ownership over one's wife and children.

Marriage is a construct whose meaning has been in constant flux.

[rockpond]

The primary purpose of marriage is to build a strong society by building a family with children and the father and mother role model.

I think that the primary purpose of marriage is different for different people, couples, families, and societies. Or is there somewhere that the primary purpose of marriage has been universally defined and accepted?

Edited February 7, 2013 by rockpond

[smac97]

I suspect if marriage laws were changed so that only two members of the same sex could marry, the inequality of the law would suddenly seem obvious to you.

There is no inequality where everyone faces the same restrictions.

-Smac

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm not aware of any basis for concluding that sex discrimination is acceptable when applied to more than one person.

And I'm not aware of any basis for concluding that sex discrimination is occuring.

Is that a no?

Yes it is a no, if you want to strip away the surrounding answer.

This study has been widely discredited.

I've seen people try to discredit it. I haven't seen anyone succeed in the slightest. (They have succeeded in pointing out flaws. And Regnerus in turn has modified some of his statements to take into account some of the good criticisms. etc...)

For anti-gay marriage activists, gay marriage is not marriage at all, so this would still have no effect on divorce rates.

If it were found that black people have higher divorce rates, would you advocate that we take away their marriage rights?

That is a fair question. The answer of course is no.

California Boy asked a very similar question: "So do you still think that the pro prop 8 attorneys will use this study to support their case?" My response to him is that I don't know if they will use it. I seem to remember the the anti-Prop. 8 crowd used the previous numbers from Norway and Sweden to try and bolster their case, back when Judge Walker was on the case, and back before the numbers dropped.

I can agree with you that there may be alternate ways to interpret the data, and that divorce rates alone are not sufficient to prevent marriages. California Boy's post was apropo. So I retract that argument.

Even given all your premises, if same sex relationships (which will exist regardless of whether or not they are allowed to marry) derive benefits from marriage, then there is substantial interest in granting them marriage rights.

Even if gay marriage made their relationships worse off than before, equal protection under the law dictates that they be given the choice.

Equal protection is a two-way street. Friendships could similarly derive benefits from government subsidy. If two friends want the benefits of marriage (shared inheritence, shared bank accounts, visitation rights in hospitals, etc...), and they don't want to call it a marriage, but want to call it a "government subsidized friendship" do we, in the name of equal protection, given them that right? Edited February 7, 2013 by Zeta-Flux

[california boy]

There is no inequality where everyone faces the same restrictions.

-Smac

Perhaps. I guess that is why gay couples feel they also deserve the right to marry who the choose. I think this point is exactly what the court case is about. We will soon find out if the justices agree with you.

[rockpond]

Equal protection is a two-way street. Friendships could similarly derive benefits from government subsidy. If two friends want the benefits of marriage (shared inheritence, shared bank accounts, visitation rights in hospitals, etc...), and they don't want to call it a marriage, but want to call it a "government subsidized friendship" do we, in the name of equal protection, given them that right?

As long as the friends are opposite-sex, they can file for a marriage license and then call their union whatever they want.

But, if they are two friends of the same gender, they can't.

[cdowis]

I think that the primary purpose of marriage is different for different people, couples, families, and societies. Or is there somewhere that the primary purpose of marriage has been universally defined and accepted?

Hmmm... well, are we able to agree on a universally accepted definition of a human being? There used to be such a definition, but that has changed over the past decades. Some see it as a bothersome lump of cells, like a tumor. I am afraid that "marriage" is moving in that direction as well -- two people who live together, and enjoy special tax treatment. Just a co-joint lump of cells.

I have the right to defend my idea of a human being, as well as the ideal concept of marriage. We can disagree, and we do disagree, but I can use my logic, my religion, and my view of the world to defend those ideas. They are worth defending against those who want to make fundamental changes in those traditional views.

Edited February 8, 2013 by cdowis

[rockpond]

Hmmm... well, are we able to agree on a universally accepted definition of a human being? There used to be such a definition, but that has changed over the past decades. Some see it as a bothersome lump of cells, like a tumor. I am afraid that "marriage" is moving in that direction as well -- two people who live together, and enjoy special tax treatment. Just a co-joint lump of cells.

You and I might be able to agree on the definition of a human being. For me it is the living product of human conception. But if your point is that universally accepted definitions on these types of things are difficult to arrive at -- I agree.

If the goals is to not have "two people who live together, and enjoy special tax treatment. Just a co-joint lump of cells" then let's do everything we can to say marriage is significant, important, and we want everyone who is willing to make such a commitment to have that option.

[semlogo]

There is no inequality where everyone faces the same restrictions.

-Smac

So you'd not feel your rights infringed upon if you could only legally marry someone of the same sex?

[semlogo]

I've seen people try to discredit it. I haven't seen anyone succeed in the slightest. (They have succeeded in pointing out flaws. And Regnerus in turn has modified some of his statements to take into account some of the good criticisms. etc...)

I doesn't seem to have been well received in academic circles.

That is a fair question. The answer of course is no.

California Boy asked a very similar question: "So do you still think that the pro prop 8 attorneys will use this study to support their case?" My response to him is that I don't know if they will use it. I seem to remember the the anti-Prop. 8 crowd used the previous numbers from Norway and Sweden to try and bolster their case, back when Judge Walker was on the case, and back before the numbers dropped.

I can agree with you that there may be alternate ways to interpret the data, and that divorce rates alone are not sufficient to prevent marriages. California Boy's post was apropo. So I retract that argument.

Thanks for this commentary.

Equal protection is a two-way street. Friendships could similarly derive benefits from government subsidy. If two friends want the benefits of marriage (shared inheritence, shared bank accounts, visitation rights in hospitals, etc...), and they don't want to call it a marriage, but want to call it a "government subsidized friendship" do we, in the name of equal protection, given them that right?

They already have that right. It's called "marriage"

[cdowis]

If the goals is to not have "two people who live together, and enjoy special tax treatment. Just a co-joint lump of cells" then let's do everything we can to say marriage is significant, important, and we want everyone who is willing to make such a commitment to have that option.

The destruction of the family and marriage expands==>>

A Florida judge is allowing the names of three people — a gay man and two lesbians — to be included as the parents on a 23-month-old girl’s birth certificate.

According to Reuters, the decision by Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Antonio Marin is the end of a two year battle between the lesbian couple who used the man’s sperm to conceive the girl, but the man later wanted more of a part in the child’s life.

This is just the beginning.

Edited February 8, 2013 by cdowis