A War Against The Church Based On Marriage, Or Is This Just Sarcasm I Missed?

[mfbukowski]

It is unclear what exactly California may do. But there is some truth in putting the matter out again for a Statewide referendum, ....

You don't understand the main issue here.

In effect the decision makes all referendums unenforceable since those who create them do not have standing to allow them to be enforced.

That is the issue here, and that will be the main challenge in my opinion. The entire referendum procedure is at stake. The implications go far beyond same sex marriage.

[webbles]

Wow! Resorting to nannying what is talked about in the thread and a blatant attempt to dismiss me...how kind of you. Perhaps you could save me time and find the full letter. I stand by what I said.

A copy can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7505187/Prop-8-Threat-Letter.

[Damien the Leper]

Thank you webbles. I'll check it out.

[california boy]

You don't understand the main issue here.

In effect the decision makes all referendums unenforceable since those who create them do not have standing to allow them to be enforced.

That is the issue here, and that will be the main challenge in my opinion. The entire referendum procedure is at stake. The implications go far beyond same sex marriage.

Well you are partially right. The referendum process that denies its citizens of equality before the law is certainly at stake and will always be at stake. That is the role of the judicial branch of government to ensure referendums are within the rights of the citizens of the state of California. If you know anything about the history of the referendum process of California, this is not the first vote of the people that has been ruled against. And it will not be the last. A referendum does not mean you can take away someone's equality before the law simply because the majority of the citizens thinks it is ok.

What does it say about this process when after the government of California refused to enforce the discrimination goal of prop 8, every single state official responsible for such decision was either re-elected or a person supporting that same position was elected.

I would hope that any referendum in the future that also denies equality of any of the citizens of California will have similar support of the elected representatives of the people.

[jim_mason]

This is a deflection.

Not a deflection at all. A legitimate question, if we are to hold bullying in low regard as one of your post asserts.

Actually this is a partial quote which nicely mischaracterizes the letter. jim_mason, do you work for the Tanners?

The full letter addresses the point that the anti-prop 8 crowd were advertising on their website a few companies as corporate donors. Should we not know who is on what side? I suggest finding the whole letter and considering it in context (and if you want to discuss it more, I'd recommend another thread).

emarkp, You are more than welcome to start a thread about how the quote "mischaracterizes the letter". I must now ask you, emarkp, do you work for the rabid anit-mormons Gerald and Sandra Tanner? The quote succintly sums up the letter - please prove to the contrary, I welcome it. The letter was a bully tactic utilized by ProtectMarriage.com. The letter was an attempt to shame or otherwise embarass companies. That both sides engaged bullying, does not mean Protectmarriage.com did not engage in bullying.

[mfbukowski]

Well you are partially right. The referendum process that denies its citizens of equality before the law is certainly at stake and will always be at stake. That is the role of the judicial branch of government to ensure referendums are within the rights of the citizens of the state of California. If you know anything about the history of the referendum process of California, this is not the first vote of the people that has been ruled against. And it will not be the last. A referendum does not mean you can take away someone's equality before the law simply because the majority of the citizens thinks it is ok.

What does it say about this process when after the government of California refused to enforce the discrimination goal of prop 8, every single state official responsible for such decision was either re-elected or a person supporting that same position was elected.

I would hope that any referendum in the future that also denies equality of any of the citizens of California will have similar support of the elected representatives of the people.

Our wonderful governor here in the people's republic is already looking at this as a way to overthrow proposition 13, and increase property taxes.

You are so short sighted about your own personal issues that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The DECISION had nothing to do with "equality before the law"- I could not care less what people do in their own bedrooms.

The decision goes to the root of the referendum process itself and raises the question of who EVER - among those who voted for the referendum- has standing to challenge the law- for any referendum.

[california boy]

Our wonderful governor here in the people's republic is already looking at this as a way to overthrow proposition 13, and increase property taxes.

When prop 8 passed the governor of California was a Republican and he is the one that refused to defend prop 8. Jerry Brown, the current governor of California was elected AFTER prop 8 went to court. So you are distorting the actual facts to suit your own agenda.

You are so short sighted about your own personal issues that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The DECISION had nothing to do with "equality before the law"- I could not care less what people do in their own bedrooms.

The decision goes to the root of the referendum process itself and raises the question of who EVER - among those who voted for the referendum- has standing to challenge the law- for any referendum.

The Supreme Court based it's decision on standing. The elected government of California however based their decision to not defend prop 8 in the courts because they believed prop 8 unfairly discriminated against California's gay citizens. That part of the court case was based on equality.

[USU78]

The elected government of California however based their decision to not defend prop 8 in the courts because they believed prop 8 unfairly discriminated against California's gay citizens.

The elected government of the Golden Bear State ignored the express wishes of its citizenry after there was a full airing of the issue because they thought they knew better . . . and liked one part of the constituency better than another.

[Brian 2.0]

Our government is a REPUBLIC, not a pure DEMOCRACY. There is a big difference. We are not a majority-rule country.

The U.S. government with it's separate branches of government was set up to provide the checks and balances necessary so that a simple majority could not infringe upon a smaller minority. What has happened with DOMA, PROP 8, and the SCOTUS is exactly in line with how it's supposed to work. You may disagree with what the Supreme Court has said, but the government is not "broken". There is not "something fundamentally wrong when [the] government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens." There is actually something fundamentally RIGHT about not defending the view of the majority if it infringes on the rights of the minority. That's how it was set up! That's how the founding fathers designed the whole system!

You can disagree with the rulings, but the government is expressly set up to "ignore the express wishes of its citizenry" at times when it feels the rights of other citizens is in question.

Read the Federalist Papers if you don't want to believe me. The founding fathers were fearful of a pure democracy, so those arguing that the Court rulings fly in the face of democracy, well... you're kind of right. Pure democracy was never the intent. And thankfully so.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[california boy]

Our government is a REPUBLIC, not a pure DEMOCRACY. There is a big difference. We are not a majority-rule country.

The U.S. government with it's separate branches of government was set up to provide the checks and balances necessary so that a simple majority could not infringe upon a smaller minority. What has happened with DOMA, PROP 8, and the SCOTUS is exactly in line with how it's supposed to work. You may disagree with what the Supreme Court has said, but the government is not "broken". There is not "something fundamentally wrong when [the] government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens." There is actually something fundamentally RIGHT about not defending the view of the majority if it infringes on the rights of the minority. That's how it was set up! That's how the founding fathers designed the whole system!

You can disagree with the rulings, but the government is expressly set up to "ignore the express wishes of its citizenry" at times when it feels the rights of other citizens is in question.

Read the Federalist Papers if you don't want to believe me. The founding fathers were fearful of a pure democracy, so those arguing that the Court rulings fly in the face of democracy, well... you're kind of right. Pure democracy was never the intent. And thankfully so.

Good post. And I might add that every single one of those government officials got re-elected or the people that got elected to a vacent position also supported the stance that was taken by the government against prop 8. That says a lot about how the people of California feel about their elected officials taking such a stand against a law that unfairly discriminates against a group of the citizens of California.

[Stargazer]

As for bullies, does the following represents the behavior of a bully:

""Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

The letter was signed by four members of [ProtectMarriage.com] executive committee ... "

Yes, indeedy, it does. I would tell them to take their request and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Namely the deepest part of the Challenger Deep, lest anyone think I meant anything improper.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Stargazer

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, indeedy, it does. I would tell them to take their request and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Namely the deepest part of the Challenger Deep, lest anyone think I meant anything improper.

Aww man! You took my hopes and dreams of slight vulgarity and you destroyed them.

[mfbukowski]

When prop 8 passed the governor of California was a Republican and he is the one that refused to defend prop 8. Jerry Brown, the current governor of California was elected AFTER prop 8 went to court. So you are distorting the actual facts to suit your own agenda.

You are totally not getting this. Read my previous post. WHO THE PRESENT GOVERNOR IS IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in relation to prop 8. The issue here is much larger than prop 8 alone- it threatens the whole referendum process.

The point is that the current governor has the potential to use THIS DECISION based on the idea that there is now a huge loophole on WHO MIGHT EVER HAVE STANDING to defend referendums to challenge OTHER REFERENDUMS LIKE PROP 13- NOT PROP 8.

Since defining who has standing is now open to question EVERY LAWSUIT TO DEFEND A REFERENDUM is now open to question.

Do you get the point now?

The Supreme Court based it's decision on standing.

Comes the dawn.....

The elected government of California however based their decision to not defend prop 8 in the courts because they believed prop 8 unfairly discriminated against California's gay citizens. That part of the court case was based on equality.

Cheesh this is frustrating.

Yes the "elected government" was the Democrat Jerry Brown as you pointed out above. HE decided not to defend the issue because he anticipated the standing issue- correctly AND SAW THAT HE COULD USE THAT POINT TO CHALLENGE OTHER REFFERENDA.

It is essentially a power grab by the Democrat governor for increased power- THAT is the real issue here.

Edited July 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[LDSAnomaly]

The state officials who were puppets of pop culture and who support SSM

That is an interesting view, would you be willing to explain that more?

[LDSAnomaly]

You don't understand the main issue here.

In effect the decision makes all referendums unenforceable since those who create them do not have standing to allow them to be enforced.

That is the issue here, and that will be the main challenge in my opinion. The entire referendum procedure is at stake. The implications go far beyond same sex marriage.

That ruling then actually protects the fears some have illustrated in this thread even further. Most people agree the tide is turning, or atleast the population in California, is turning for gay marriage. If it was not for this decision by SCOTUS the majority could do anything they wanted in California via referendum. That is becasue the California Constitution, in my opinion, is horrible in that regard. It clearly states through referendum the majority can do whatever they want. That means the LDS minority would truly be at the wim of the majority. From CA Supreme COurt rulings that was validated even further, a majority can do what they want. The US constitution on the other hand is crafted beautifully to protect the minority, the California constitution not so much.

[LDSAnomaly]

Actually this is a partial quote which nicely mischaracterizes the letter. jim_mason, do you work for the Tanners?

The full letter addresses the point that the anti-prop 8 crowd were advertising on their website a few companies as corporate donors. Should we not know who is on what side? I suggest finding the whole letter and considering it in context (and if you want to discuss it more, I'd recommend another thread).

I just read the whole letter in context and your post makes no sense. The letter was a pure threat, it was even laugable. To think these guys at Protect Marriage would bully these wealthy corporate businessmen is really laughable. It shows a lack of smarts on their part. They must have some big heads or a bunch of religious leaders advised them to send that letter. As most religious leaders have a belief that everybody will fall in line and listen to them.

[mfbukowski]

That ruling then actually protects the fears some have illustrated in this thread even further. Most people agree the tide is turning, or atleast the population in California, is turning for gay marriage. If it was not for this decision by SCOTUS the majority could do anything they wanted in California via referendum. That is becasue the California Constitution, in my opinion, is horrible in that regard. It clearly states through referendum the majority can do whatever they want. That means the LDS minority would truly be at the wim of the majority. From CA Supreme COurt rulings that was validated even further, a majority can do what they want. The US constitution on the other hand is crafted beautifully to protect the minority, the California constitution not so much.

Yes following the will of the people is a terrible idea. Clearly the minority should rule, not the majority.

Clearly those decisions should be made by educated people who are in the elite of society who know what's best for all. After all, them rich guys are smarter than all us dummies and know what's best for us. They have been to law school. They are judges. Not elected- but who cares what us dummies want anyway? What do we know?

After all, we might hurt someone's feelings about something and we can't have that!

I am so glad I have somebody smarter than stupid lil me to make my decisions for me. I'll jest give em all my money and let them give it to folks who need it more than I do.

Great idea.

Edited July 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

Yes following the will of the people is a terrible idea.

Clearly those decisions should be made by educated people who are in the elite of society who know what's best for all. After all, them rich guys are smarter than all us dummies and know what's best for us. They have been to law school. They are judges. Not elected- but who cares what us dummies want anyway? What do we know?

After all, we might hurt someone's feelings about something and we can't have that!

I am so glad I have somebody smarter than stupid lil me to make my decisions for me. I'll jest give em all my money and let them give it to folks who need it more than I do.

Great idea.

Well the founders at least agreed with you. Otherwise they would not have established a constitutional republic but rather a more direct democracy.

Was the constitution ever voted on by citizens, or was it simply crafted by the elite and adopted by the elite on behalf of everyone else.

Happy 4th.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[mfbukowski]

Well the founders at least agreed with you. Otherwise they would not have established a constitutional republic but rather a more direct democracy.

Was the constitution ever voted on by citizens, or was it simply crafted by the elite and adopted by the elite on behalf of everyone else.

Happy 4th.

The majority favored its adoption.

It was the ultimate referendum and people voted for it with their blood. Hopefully it will not come to that again.

Edited July 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

The majority favored its adoption.

It was the ultimate referendum and people voted for it with their blood. Hopefully it will not come to that again.

Dont entirely disagree with this sentiment, though it is a dramatic over simplification of behavioral motivations and power dynamics that result in people engaging in conflict.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[california boy]

The point is that the current governor has the potential to use THIS DECISION based on the idea that there is now a huge loophole on WHO MIGHT EVER HAVE STANDING to defend referendums to challenge OTHER REFERENDUMS LIKE PROP 13- NOT PROP 8.

Wrong again. It was not just the governor who refused to defend Prop 8, it was every single elected official in the state of California that had the authority to defend this proposition refused to do so. For example the Attorney General of California could also have defended prop 8 on his own without the approval of the governor. He chose not to based on the discrimination nature of Prop 8.

Yes the "elected government" was the Democrat Jerry Brown as you pointed out above. HE decided not to defend the issue because he anticipated the standing issue- correctly AND SAW THAT HE COULD USE THAT POINT TO CHALLENGE OTHER REFFERENDA.

It is essentially a power grab by the Democrat governor for increased power- THAT is the real issue here.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The governor who refused to support Prop 8 after it was passed was Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. When the prop 8 first went to court, the case was Perry vs Schwarzenegger. Governor Brown did not take office until TWO YEARS after prop 8 challenged in the courts. The name of the case was later changed when governor Brown took office. The case against prop 8 was already in the courts and Schwarzenegger had for two years steadfastly refused to defend prop 8. Brown, by the way, promised that if elected, he too would not support prop 8.

Making this about beng a "power grab by the Democrat governor to increase power" is completely groundless. The facts are, Governor Schwarzenegger a Republican and Governor Brown a Democrat both refused to support prop 8. I hope I haven't confused you much with the facts.

Cheesh this is frustrating.

Edited July 4, 2013 by california boy

[Brian 2.0]

As part of a very small minority (Mormons), I'm surprised when people of that same minority balk at the idea of the judicial system striking down the will of a majority that would infringe on certain rights of a minority. The shoe could easily be on the other foot and those screaming about "the will of the people" now would be yelling about constitutional rights and how the system was set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

How would you react if someone on the other side of that situation said "we shouldn't be afraid of hurtling some Mormons feelings"

[jim_mason]

Brian great point and unfortunately it is usually lost on those who are asked to put themselves in the same circumstance.

[mfbukowski]

Dont entirely disagree with this sentiment, though it is a dramatic over simplification of behavioral motivations and power dynamics that result in people engaging in conflict.

And what kind of statement would not be?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Yes following the will of the people is a terrible idea. Clearly the minority should rule, not the majority.

Clearly those decisions should be made by educated people who are in the elite of society who know what's best for all. After all, them rich guys are smarter than all us dummies and know what's best for us. They have been to law school. They are judges. Not elected- but who cares what us dummies want anyway? What do we know?

After all, we might hurt someone's feelings about something and we can't have that!

I am so glad I have somebody smarter than stupid lil me to make my decisions for me. I'll jest give em all my money and let them give it to folks who need it more than I do.

Great idea.

It is the very vision found in 1 Nephi 8...the "educated in (on) the things of the world" lifted up in the "large and spacious building" who will "point the finger of scorn", at those who seek the will of God. With this issue I fear that too many are thinking that on this matter alone it is ok to join their ranks. Marriage was forever defined and instituted by God, in his first act and command. We need to stop thinking our wisdom exceeds his own. "For this reason shall as man leave his mother and father, and bind to his wife only" (Not sure if perfectly quoted) Yes, the very purpose of the world was for marriage between a man and a woman that the plan of salvation might be fulfilled. Let's not make this emotional, but pratical. Too many are born outside marriage and now we wish to redefine it until it resembles the original plan?