Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[rockpond]

So tell me, since you ridicule this very possible scenario, how does the church becoming increasingly constrained in its ability to perform marriages for its own members and work in its own temples protect my freedom of religion? In reality, it does exactly the opposite.

How did Prop 8's constraining of other religions ability to perform marriages for the gay members of their congregation protect their freedom of religion?

[rockpond]

The reason it is mentioned is because you have constantly sought to portray homosexual and heterosexual relationships as identical - such as that whole 14th amendment thing. Promiscuity is simply ONE demonstration of that inequality, one in which you ripped out of context and have totally ignored the implications on. We are not talking about individual cases, we are talking about advocating a policy to increase or decrease the incidence of a choice in the aggregate. And the simple fact of the matter is that homosexual community is MUCH more, like an order of magnitude MORE, promiscuous than the heterosexual community on average. That means we going allow marriage and apparently adoption of children into an environment where they will routinely be exposed to highly promiscuous behavior, which we are saying is 'normal' ... admirable enough to advocate because mommy and mommy went through that and turned out just fine?

Except that such high promiscuity has definitive effects on self esteem, including MUCH higher instances of suicide.

Indeed, that much maligned Regnerus study found, among other issues:

• Have impulsive behavior
  
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
  
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
  
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
  
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
  
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
  
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)
  
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
  
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
  
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
  
• Have a sexually tramsmitted infection (STI)
  

http://www.focusonth...ures-study.aspx

How off that those finding are almost identical to the effects of overt promiscuity in any social class or gender where it is observed. But for some reason we scoff, or say that there is a disingenuous mention of something in WHICH WE KNOW THE MORAL, PHYSICAL, AND SOCIETAL CONSEQUENCES of a particular form of sexual morality.

Well, you found a line to pursue on emotion without thinking it through or applying objective standards - and that is, once again, why I stand in opposition to this 'movement'. Its nothing propaganda and volume.

Okay, so you are saying that promiscuity is one of the differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. And because they are more promiscuous, we shouldn't "normalize" that by granting them marriage equality?

The flaw in your argument is that homosexuals will be with us regardless of whether they are granted marriage equality. As I've noted before, I think that one of the likely causes of the increased promiscuity among some homosexuals is that we've spent decades pushing them to the fringes of society. Denying marriage equality isn't going to decrease the number of homosexuals, nor will it make them feel less marginalized.

Are homosexual couples different than heterosexual couples. In some ways, yes. Certainly. Is promiscuity among some a difference that justifies denying marriage equality? No. Just the opposite, actually.

[gree0232]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Prop 8 violated scripture because it encouraged us to use our religious beliefs to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others....

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

This violates 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4.

1 Cor. 10:29 - "...for why is my liberty judged* of another man's conscience?"

(* Note - the Greek word for "to judge" used here is also rendered "to determine" elsewhere in the KJV as for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc...). In other words, our liberties / freedoms are not to be determined, limited, restricted, etc... by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others. In context, verses 27 through 33 have Paul saying that we should limit our otherwise allowed behaviors if they offend others, which offense may cause them to reject the Gospel. Consider this essay regarding our obligation to not cause others to be offended. In verse 29, though, Paul says that we do this only for the sake of the others' conscience and rejects the idea that the opinions of others can limit our freedom. If the opinions of others can't limit our freedom, how can we hypocritically state that OUR opinions can limit the freedom of others? Verse 30 says that since Paul is saved through grace (and not by living the Law of Moses), why should he be judged for doing something that the Law of Moses forbids? He is saying that he is not subject to that law and therefore can't be judged by it. Why should his liberty be judged of another law's (man's) conscience? He is saying that he doesn't play by those rules but his own rules (the law of Grace). He doesn't want the old laws limiting what he can do under the new law. He will voluntarily refrain from doing things forbidden under the old law so as to not offend those still under that law, but the old law does not restrict him otherwise, for why should his liberty judged of another law's (man's) conscience?

The basic underlying principle is that we, as LDS, have our own laws and others (non-LDS) have their own various sets of rules. We may avoid ordering pork when dining with Jews or vegetarians, so as to not cause them offense, but the laws which the Jews observe have no claim on us and our liberty is not to be judged by another law's (man's) conscience. Just as their laws have no power over us, neither do our laws, in a non-theocratic society, hold sway over them. They are free to do as they wish until they decide to join us and adopt our laws. We have no right to impose our laws, beliefs or opinions on them, for why is their liberty judged of another man's (our) conscience?

D&C 134:4 - "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others..." (emphasis added). It is contrary to God to try to take away the civil rights of others based on our own religious beliefs. We are not to force our subjective moral standards on others in violation of their legal rights and privileges to benignly do as they please.

Regarding D&C 134:4, consider this quote from a Doctrine & Covenants commentary -

"Religious freedom does not imply nor provide license to infringe or impose upon the rights and liberties of others."

(L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982-1983], 2: 375.)

You assume that sexual choices are matter of liberty? Rights?

Once again, there is that bald assumption based on your opinion, one devoid of proof.

Simply because homosexuals have painted themselves as modern day slaves, and their supporters as Abe Lincoln does not make it so. In fact, the entire presentation makes a mockery of genuine denial of rights and the enormous sacrifice that had to be made to bring men genuine freedom and liberty.

But heh, highly educated, totally free men and women, who have no problems finding either employment or social acceptance are clearly in the same bag trafficked human slaves? Which of course deserve less attention than do homosexuals not getting a tax break.

Objective standards.

[Avatar4321]

I wasn't suggesting that it was the only defining aspect of marriage. But it is part of what defines marriage.

No. It isn't. There is nothing about marriage defined by attraction. People have married where no attraction exists for millenia. It certainly doesnt hurt making the marriage stronger. But attraction is not a requirement for marriage. This is exactly the problem when you try to personally redefine marriage to whatever you want it to be rather than what it actually is.

[rockpond]

But heh, highly educated, totally free men and women, who have no problems finding either employment or social acceptance are clearly in the same bag trafficked human slaves? Which of course deserve less attention than do homosexuals not getting a tax break.

I wouldn't (and haven't) put them in the same bag as "trafficked human slaves" but let's not pretend that homosexuals (who can still be legally fired in 29 states just for being gay) have unfettered social acceptance...

http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/05/23/37371/report-hate-crimes-against-the-lgbt-community-jump/

http://www.businessinsider.com/hate-crimes-against-gays-in-america-2013-5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

[Avatar4321]

How did Prop 8's constraining of other religions ability to perform marriages for the gay members of their congregation protect their freedom of religion?

It didn't. The mere fact that the government refused to recognize and redefine marriage does not stop private citizens from entering into any private agreement they wish to do.

Why are you so determined to empower the government to regulate homosexual relationships?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Avatar4321

[rockpond]

No. It isn't. There is nothing about marriage defined by attraction. People have married where no attraction exists for millenia. It certainly doesnt hurt making the marriage stronger. But attraction is not a requirement for marriage. This is exactly the problem when you try to personally redefine marriage to whatever you want it to be rather than what it actually is.

Okay. So what is your definition and why should the government use it, exclusively, as the basis of legally recognizing marriages?

[gree0232]

Okay, so you are saying that promiscuity is one of the differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. And because they are more promiscuous, we shouldn't "normalize" that by granting them marriage equality?

The flaw in your argument is that homosexuals will be with us regardless of whether they are granted marriage equality. As I've noted before, I think that one of the likely causes of the increased promiscuity among some homosexuals is that we've spent decades pushing them to the fringes of society. Denying marriage equality isn't going to decrease the number of homosexuals, nor will it make them feel less marginalized.

Are homosexual couples different than heterosexual couples. In some ways, yes. Certainly. Is promiscuity among some a difference that justifies denying marriage equality? No. Just the opposite, actually.

We should not do ANYTHING to advocate or normalize hyper sexuality because of its destructive tendencies on individuals and our society. I guess it would be about like preventing deformed babies ... only on this one, we are talking about millions of people.

Again, you concede that it is NOT equal, and then declare it doesn't matter anyway ... based on convoluted logic that somehow the behavior that leads to further sexual erosion, documented, and suicide is going to be solved by allowing marriage? How exactly? I mean is a guy is looney, how exactly does marriage solve that on the heterosexual side? Is marriage a mental health treatment? Odd, that this would become the therapy of choice for homosexuals ... but once again ... ONLY homosexuals.

There is also the fact that, as you just proved repeatedly, that the promiscuity issue is unacknowledged and indeed downplayed if not ignored. So how do you solve problems when you are busy rationalizing them as non-existenent? Right, you don't. When presented with a list of problems as found by Regnerus, all which are ignored as well, in order to paint a clear intellectual picture.

The normal methodology of argumentation is pretty simple: thesis, supporting evidence, rebuttal of common criticism, and restated conclusion.

Your argument thus far:

Thesis: Gay marriage is A-OK!

Reasons: Because sexuality is immutable ... er, but ONLY for homosexuals! And that is based solely upon my opinion. Thus it is wrong to deny them marriage. AND, clearly the two are equal! Once again, because I say so!!! Therefore it is wrong to deny them equal rights.

Not a shread of actual evidence is put forward.

Rebuttal: Inequality - demonstrated evidence of inequality is simply ignored. The Regerus study is attacked and when that fails, its conclusions ignored. Hyper sexuality, with documented individual and societal level effects, are first irrelevant, then disingenuous, and then somehow actually supportive of marriage as a mental health regimen? Strong evidence of choice in ALL sexuality, with documented cases of mutability in homosexuality including the point of how it becomes 'beyond choice' which is completely ignored - indeed how is homosexuality different than heroine addiction? Once again, ignored.

Conclusion: You have a opinion based on nothing in which you seek justification by randomly attempting find a justification for your preconceptions. Otherwise, you would be able to make a case, and once again ... I will point out the utter failure of the ability to do so by the homosexual side. Indeed, the key legal tenet of the homosexual debate, that homosexuality is immutable, is simply wrong.

Now what was my opinion of the process? That the entire thing is devoid of objectivity and actual analysis? That it has become hyper emotional and illogical?

Well, you seem to be hell bent on proving that thesis correct.

[rockpond]

It didn't. The mere fact that the government refused to recognize and redefine marriage does not stop private citizens from entering into any private agreement they wish to do.

So the government taking away our ability to perform legally recognized marriages in our temples wouldn't constrain our freedom of religion then, right? (That was point that I was responding to.)

Why are you so determined to empower the government to regulate homosexual relationships?

Let me be clear - I think it was a colossal mistake to ever let the government co-opt the term marriage and make it a part of our legal system. But that damage has been done and while it's possible to reverse it, it seems highly unlikely.

So, given the situation we're in, I'm not determined to let the government regulate homosexual relationships but I do believe that the due process and equal protection clauses contained in the 14th amendment must be extended to homosexual unions. That is one of the reasons I believe that marriage equality should be extended to gay & lesbian couples.

[gree0232]

I wouldn't (and haven't) put them in the same bag as "trafficked human slaves" but let's not pretend that homosexuals (who can still be legally fired in 29 states just for being gay) have unfettered social acceptance...

http://www.scpr.org/...community-jump/

http://www.businessi...-america-2013-5

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/06/pf/gay-money/index.html

Right. Once again, generally make more and have less debt.

However, everytime I have failed to get a job, rather than be resilient and go find a different job, it far better to turn myself into a mewling victim of discrimination. And of course, if I am murdered as a heterosexual is just a crime ... if a homosexual is murdered ... it obviously a much worse hate crime.

And of course, when comparing the 'plight' of homosexuals with a real denial of right, like modern sexual bondage, its highly infomrative to say, effectively, "Gee, we are NOT downplaying the other, but here are a few hyper sensationalized events that clearly ... effect individuals just like those events do everyone else ... who also experiences those same things."

Again, the major problem here appears to be that telling a homosexual he or she is wrong is a grave threat to liberty itself? In the meantime, in the aggregate they have no problems and choose to see themselves as victims ... and their enablers apparently like to feed them.

So I do like the, "You are not as bad as sexual slaves ... but really you are," basis of your argument there.

Once again, Mormons face greater challenges in the discrimination department than do most homosexuals, so I find it extremely naive and boy who cried wolfish to see the case made that homosexuals are victims of anything other than their own narcissism.

[gree0232]

So the government taking away our ability to perform legally recognized marriages in our temples wouldn't constrain our freedom of religion then, right? (That was point that I was responding to.)

Let me be clear - I think it was a colossal mistake to ever let the government co-opt the term marriage and make it a part of our legal system. But that damage has been done and while it's possible to reverse it, it seems highly unlikely.

So, given the situation we're in, I'm not determined to let the government regulate homosexual relationships but I do believe that the due process and equal protection clauses contained in the 14th amendment must be extended to homosexual unions. That is one of the reasons I believe that marriage equality should be extended to gay & lesbian couples.

In other words, you subjectively think it was a mistake.

Why did government get involved? Because it had to. As I have already written out the reasons earlier in this thread, I will leave it to you to form some actual analysis instead of taking another random shot in the dark.

BTW - I do like how the 14th amendment comes back up, even as you just acknowledged that the types of marriage are not equal ... but we should treat them as equal anyway?

Edited May 23, 2013 by gree0232

[Daniel2]

You assume that sexual choices are matter of liberty? Rights?

Once again, there is that bald assumption based on your opinion, one devoid of proof.

Simply because homosexuals have painted themselves as modern day slaves, and their supporters as Abe Lincoln does not make it so. In fact, the entire presentation makes a mockery of genuine denial of rights and the enormous sacrifice that had to be made to bring men genuine freedom and liberty.

it apprars youre unaware that the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. From wiki:

Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 26, 2003

Decided June 26, 2003

Holding

A Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment. Texas state courts reversed and charges dismissed.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),[1] is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. In the 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.[2]

[rockpond]

We should not do ANYTHING to advocate or normalize hyper sexuality because of its destructive tendencies on individuals and our society. I guess it would be about like preventing deformed babies ... only on this one, we are talking about millions of people.

Legalizing gay marriage is not advocating or normalizing hyper sexuality. It's actually the opposite: it promotes monogamy.

I've acknowledged the promiscuity among some homosexuals. I'm not claiming that it's non-existent. I believe that having pushed them to the fringes of society for decades, we are -in part- responsible for what has happened among that community.

If you believe that sexual orientation is a choice than I totally and completely get why you would be adamantly opposed to marriage equality.

I don't believe it's a choice. I have no reason to doubt all those thousands of people who have said that they have no choice in the matter. I especially have no reason to doubt those friends and loved ones in my life who have told me that it isn't a choice. So, I therefore believe that the 14th amendment applies.

I don't have much of an interest in debating whether or not homosexuality is a choice. I believe that matter has been settled... fewer and fewer people think like you.

So, aside from the 14th amendment case for marriage equality (which multiple courts have now upheld), there is the argument that marriage has a beneficial effect on couples and families (and gay people do have families). Excluding people unnecessarily from mainstream society is not going to have positive results, in my opinion.

I also believe in D&C 134 and that we shouldn't allow our government to infringe upon the free exercise of conscience.

And finally, as I've gotten to know several gay people and couples, I simply see no rational reason to deny them access to legally recognized marriage and the privileges that accompany it.

So there's my entire argument in a nutshell. I'm sure you disagree. You can shoot holes in it all you want but I don't much care for how you talk about our gay & lesbian brothers and sisters. You can continue to think that gay marriage is this terrible, horrible thing. Meanwhile the country will soon legalize gay marriage and we'll all be able to see that it isn't a tragedy.

[rockpond]

Once again, Mormons face greater challenges in the discrimination department than do most homosexuals, so I find it extremely naive and boy who cried wolfish to see the case made that homosexuals are victims of anything other than their own narcissism.

I can be (and am) opposed to discrimination against Mormons and homosexuals (as well as others).

[rockpond]

In other words, you subjectively think it was a mistake.

Why did government get involved? Because it had to. As I have already written out the reasons earlier in this thread, I will leave it to you to form some actual analysis instead of taking another random shot in the dark.

BTW - I do like how the 14th amendment comes back up, even as you just acknowledged that the types of marriage are not equal ... but we should treat them as equal anyway?

I"m just saying that I wish "marriage" had remaining only a religious ordinance/covenant. I see reasons for the government to be involved but I wish we hadn't allowed it to use the word "marriage" since that should have stayed exclusively within the religious context. I would have preferred the government have people register as a civil union or something like that.

I'm not sure how I've acknowledged that the types of marriage are not equal. I believe that the 14th amendment requires that we not let couples be treated differently under the law just because they are gay (which is what Prop 8 did).

[awyatt]

http://en.wikipedia....ing_v._Virginia

If you scroll down to the "Decision" section you'll see the quote from Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Thank you for this. I appreciate it. I went there and looked up the quote, but I went further and looked at the original documents. This makes me believe that this particular phrase ("fundamental civil right") is being misused by you and some others on this thread. I don't know if that misuse is intentional or not, but on the assumption it is inadvertent, please bear with me and allow me to share my understanding based on the original documents.

First, here is my understanding of what you (and other pro-SSM advocates) are asserting: Because marriage is a "fundamental civil right," it cannot and should not be denied to anyone, including gays. (If I am incorrect in my statement of this position, please let me know.)

Now, to the quote. Here is the quote from the actual decision by Justice Warren, without the ellipses that are in the Wikipedia article:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888).

Note that Justice Warren doesn't say that marriage is a "fundamental civil right", but one of the "basic civil rights of man" and that this right is "fundamental to our very existence and survival." This can be seen in the quote, above, and in the actual wording of the decision, here. This may sound like picking a nit, but it is not, as "basic" and "fundamental," at least in this usage, are not synonymous. Further, it can be seen from the quote that Justice Warren is actually quoting someone else in his assertion. Here is the actual wording he is quoting, from the case Skinner v. Oklahoma, rendered by Justice Douglas:

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

This original quote makes it clear that the reason marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (as Justice Warren said) is because of procreation. (The Skinner v. Oklahoma case had to do with the forced sterilization of "habitual criminals," not with marriage, per se.) To assert that the procreative aspect of marriage should not be considered when applying Justice Warren's paraphrase of Justice Douglas' statement which specifically cites marriage and procreation is a classic example of leaving out inconvenient facts and possibly twisting a statement to mean something it didn't originally mean.

Justice Warren also directs readers to the case of Maynard v. Hill (1888), which can be found here. That case talks about, among other things, how basic marriage is to society, even that it has "more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution." It also quotes the Supreme Court of Rhode Island (among others) which said that marriage "signifies the relation of husband and wife, deriving both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the parties are capable."

It is clear that the "basic" and "fundamental" marriage Justice Warren had in mind was one that involved a husband and wife and included the promise, at least, of a procreative component. He could not see that limiting such marriages through anti-miscegenation laws was lawful, but it is--at least on the surface--a definite stretch to say that marriages between two people of the same sex, which precludes the potential of procreation that Justice Warren thought critical, would be considered either "basic" or "fundamental" by him.

As I said, I don't know if your incorrect usage of this type of quote was intentional or not; I hope it was not.

-Allen

[rockpond]

Thank you for this. I appreciate it. I went there and looked up the quote, but I went further and looked at the original documents. This makes me believe that this particular phrase ("fundamental civil right") is being misused by you and some others on this thread. I don't know if that misuse is intentional or not, but on the assumption it is inadvertent, please bear with me and allow me to share my understanding based on the original documents.

First, here is my understanding of what you (and other pro-SSM advocates) are asserting: Because marriage is a "fundamental civil right," it cannot and should not be denied to anyone, including gays. (If I am incorrect in my statement of this position, please let me know.)

Now, to the quote. Here is the quote from the actual decision by Justice Warren, without the ellipses that are in the Wikipedia article:

Note that Justice Warren doesn't say that marriage is a "fundamental civil right", but one of the "basic civil rights of man" and that this right is "fundamental to our very existence and survival." This can be seen in the quote, above, and in the actual wording of the decision, here. This may sound like picking a nit, but it is not, as "basic" and "fundamental," at least in this usage, are not synonymous. Further, it can be seen from the quote that Justice Warren is actually quoting someone else in his assertion. Here is the actual wording he is quoting, from the case Skinner v. Oklahoma, rendered by Justice Douglas:

This original quote makes it clear that the reason marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (as Justice Warren said) is because of procreation. (The Skinner v. Oklahoma case had to do with the forced sterilization of "habitual criminals," not with marriage, per se.) To assert that the procreative aspect of marriage should not be considered when applying Justice Warren's paraphrase of Justice Douglas' statement which specifically cites marriage and procreation is a classic example of leaving out inconvenient facts and possibly twisting a statement to mean something it didn't originally mean.

Justice Warren also directs readers to the case of Maynard v. Hill (1888), which can be found here. That case talks about, among other things, how basic marriage is to society, even that it has "more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution." It also quotes the Supreme Court of Rhode Island (among others) which said that marriage "signifies the relation of husband and wife, deriving both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the parties are capable."

It is clear that the "basic" and "fundamental" marriage Justice Warren had in mind was one that involved a husband and wife and included the promise, at least, of a procreative component. He could not see that limiting such marriages through anti-miscegenation laws was lawful, but it is--at least on the surface--a definite stretch to say that marriages between two people of the same sex, which precludes the potential of procreation that Justice Warren thought critical, would be considered either "basic" or "fundamental" by him.

As I said, I don't know if your incorrect usage of this type of quote was intentional or not; I hope it was not.

-Allen

I think that it's fair to interpret his statement that marriage is a "basic civil right" because of the procreative aspect of the relationship of marriage. But I don't think his words necessarily need to be limited to that.

Marriage is also fundamental to our very existence and survival because it is how we raise the next generation. And gay couples also procreate (though through non-traditional means), they adopt, and they raise children who are productive citizens. I think this is a fair interpretation of Justice Warren's statement as well.

Either way, the Loving decision isn't key to why I believe in marriage equality. As someone (jwhitlock, I think) pointed out... marriage isn't a civil right in the same way we have other civil rights because it isn't something that you have inherent access to (like freedom of speech)... it requires another person joining you.

Edited May 23, 2013 by rockpond

[awyatt]

I think this is a fair interpretation of Justice Warren's statement as well.

But would Justice Warren think that? ;-)

While said half-in-jest, I think that we have a problem here. It isn't a problem just with pro-SSM advocates, but with many who seek to modify past definitions in support of whatever position they are advocating. Justice Warren said 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights.' The question, of course, is whether he had the same definition of marriage as those who now attempt to use his quote to bolster their cause. Chances are very good (for reasons I already outlined) that he didn't, at least not when it comes to SSM.

So why even use such a quote? The reason is because if it can simply be "snuck by", without examination, then it appears that one of the greatest legal minds of that century agrees with the position of those sneaking it by. But that really isn't the case, is it?

So when you state that "SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental civil right," you are (either implicitly or explicitly) stating an untruth as applied to the scope you are positing for the term "marriage." A reading of the actual decisions would indicate that WEnglund is closer to Justice Warren's original meaning when he says that the "fundamental civil right of marriage applies only to traditional marriage."

And LDS4 takes it way too far by assuming facts not in evidence when he said, building upon your comment, that SCOTUS defined marriage as precluding "a subjective, religion supported restriction and said that people should be able to marry whom they wish." They, of course, said no such thing. Arguably it was the other way around when they quoted the Supreme Court of Rhode Island (and others) as implicitly saying that marriage has to do with morality and comes from a "source higher" than any of its participants.

-Allen

[rockpond]

But would Justice Warren think that? ;-)

While said half-in-jest, I think that we have a problem here. It isn't a problem just with pro-SSM advocates, but with many who seek to modify past definitions in support of whatever position they are advocating. Justice Warren said 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights.' The question, of course, is whether he had the same definition of marriage as those who now attempt to use his quote to bolster their cause. Chances are very good (for reasons I already outlined) that he didn't, at least not when it comes to SSM.

So why even use such a quote? The reason is because if it can simply be "snuck by", without examination, then it appears that one of the greatest legal minds of that century agrees with the position of those sneaking it by. But that really isn't the case, is it?

So when you state that "SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental civil right," you are (either implicitly or explicitly) stating an untruth as applied to the scope you are positing for the term "marriage." A reading of the actual decisions would indicate that WEnglund is closer to Justice Warren's original meaning when he says that the "fundamental civil right of marriage applies only to traditional marriage."

And LDS4 takes it way too far by assuming facts not in evidence when he said, building upon your comment, that SCOTUS defined marriage as precluding "a subjective, religion supported restriction and said that people should be able to marry whom they wish." They, of course, said no such thing. Arguably it was the other way around when they quoted the Supreme Court of Rhode Island (and others) as implicitly saying that marriage has to do with morality and comes from a "source higher" than any of its participants.

-Allen

Interpreting what past court decisions have said is just part of the process. It's what judges all over the land are paid to do. And we do it here because we're having these discussions.

I can see where WEnglund is coming from in his interpretation. But I believe he's taking too restrictive a view.

I used the quote because I sincerely believe that it applies in the broader interpretation. I think that marriages (gay and straight varieties) are fundamental to our existence because they are how we raise the next generation. So, I was not trying to sneak something in. Having discussed it at length with Wade, I'm quite familiar with his interpretation of that quote.

But, whether Justice Warren's statement existed or not, it is not really a part of why I believe in marriage equality. It's just a precedent that is interesting to consider because of the way that it is used on both sides of this debate.

[USU78]

This isn't about Judicial Activism. It's about laws being passed by the popular majority against unpopular minorities which violate federal or state constitutions. The purpose of the courts is to make sure the rights of unpopular minorities are protected. This is why America is a REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy.

It's all about social engineering by an activist and power-mad judiciary.

[rockpond]

It's all about social engineering by an activist and power-mad judiciary.

"It's alI about..." Right. It's not possible that any of those judges could have a valid interpretation that is different from yours. They are all activists and power-mad.

Is that also true of the electorate? Because the anti-marriage-equality side seems to have lost majority support there as well.

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Edited May 23, 2013 by rockpond

[wenglund]

Right... and the reason you are pointing out those perceived relationship differences is what? That gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

The reason I pointed out those perceived relationship differences was to counter the claim that they are the same. This should have been obvious to you from the context of my original statement and my response to your follow-up question.

There is a reason you keep getting this wrong. You should work on fixing it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

In response to my request for the definition of "marriage" the court was using when it referred to marriage as a fundamental civil right, LDS4 said:

They said that the definition that precluded a subjective, religion supported restriction and said that people should be able to marry whom they wish.

Not only does this not directly answer my question, it isn't correct. The correct answer would have to fit the criteria the court gave for why marriage is a fundamental civil right--i.e. it is fundamental to the existence and survival of the country and because of its long tradition. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that so-called same-sex marriage doesn't fit criteria, and thus isn't the definition of "marriage" that the court had in mind as a fundamentla civil right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Maybe we could deny those same benefits to the senior citizens who marry and those who never produce kids. Since they are basically no different than gays since none are producing kids.

This doesn't engage, but rather avoids my questions and comments. It also presupposes things that I haven't argued. So, you will have to address your inane suggestion to whom it may apply.

Anyone who can legally enter into a contract should be able to do so.

This begs the question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[awyatt]

But, whether Justice Warren's statement existed or not, it is not really a part of why I believe in marriage equality. It's just a precedent that is interesting to consider because of the way that it is used on both sides of this debate.

Perhaps I've missed it in the 24 pages of commentary on this thread, but what is the "bedrock" of your belief in why our society should permit SSM? (I'm assuming that they bedrock is not in constitutional law, because I'm also assuming that you believe SSM should be permissible within a broader, non-US context, as well, where our flavor of constitutional law does not apply.)

What's the bottom-line basis for your belief?

-Allen