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

[Bikeemikey]

Yet the San Fransisco District Judge and the IXth Circuit panel have imposed a sea-change remaking of the fabric of society . . . in order to compel everybody to believe the same thing.

Sauce for the goose.

I think you suggestion above is not accurate.

Had all churches been compelled to marry homosexuals then I would agree. That has not happened.

All that is being required is that as a CA state institution marriage cannot be restricted from protected classes. I

It is a shame those who brought the vase were deemed not to have standing. From what i understand the court never made a strong and binding determination on whether we can change a state constitution to formally discriminate/restrict access of certain classes of people to specific things.

[Bikeemikey]

No, you are right, because the LDS church will never do it, but there is a difference between being heavily pressured to do it, and being forced to do it. Being forced implies that you gave in. Once you gave in there would be no more pressure, sooooo.....

There is nothing wrong with the church being pressured - that should be expected.

[Senator]

No, you are right, because the LDS church will never do it, but there is a difference between being heavily pressured to do it, and being forced to do it. Being forced implies that you gave in. Once you gave in there would be no more pressure, sooooo.....

I tell you that this will ever be less of an issue/pressure to the church, than paying property taxex is to you or I.

[Stone holm]

Of course we do not border the sea, but I have not noticed any sea change here in Vermont nor does it appear that we have edged nearer to the collapse of civilisation. We have just gone back to worrying about the drug trade, how to get everyone affordable healthcare, and GMOS labelling and kind of quit worrying so much about our neighbours bedroom habits.

[Tacenda]

Has anyone discussed what might happen to a member if they do get married in a SSM? Is it an immediate disfellowship or excommunication? Or court of love, that is if they were currently active? Anything in the church handbook about that?

Edited June 29, 2013 by Tacenda

[Stone holm]

Has anyone discussed what might happen to a member if they do get married in a SSM? Is it an immediate disfellowship or excommunication? Or court of love, that is if they were currently active? Anything in the church handbook about that?

Don't know what is in the Church Handbook, but am about 100% certain that their standing in the Church would be in the process of being flushed , and rightly so. We may be divided as to whether it is right to impose our religious beliefs on others by way of legislation, but expecting our members to behave according to our standards and not mock The Lord with SSM is surely a righteous expectation.

[wenglund]

I think, moreover, that the socialist state officials, knowing that an assignment of enforcement might well not be upheld by the IXth Circuit or the SCOTUS, lured the supporters into the agreement to assignment, rather than suffering mandamus compulsion to appeal . . . against their will and against their extremist constituency.

I don't know about the 9th Circuit, but given the state-right ruling in the federal DOMA case (i.e. each state has a right to define marriage as it sees fit), you are probably correct. It is very likely that the ruling of the lone homosexual judge in the federal district court in San Fransisco would have been over-turned by the SCOTUS, and Prop 8 deemed constitutional. The state officials who were puppets of pop culture and who support SSM, may have anticipated this (given how it was telegraphed by a similar ruling in Hawaii's district court), may have determined to violate their oaths of office and the 6th Amendment to prevent this from happening and ultimately get their way. They seem not to care if they get their way legitimately or not. As you imply, to them the ends justify the means.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It is unclear what exactly California may do. But there is some truth in putting the matter out again for a Statewide referendum, although it seems terribly wasteful given the amount of money that likely would be consumed in the campaign only to set the whole thing up again, in the event the measure passed which I agree the polling shows that another attempt to ban SSM would be defeated by a substantial margin, for another run through the Courts. There are several more States on the cusp of authorizing SSM, and the Court just signaled that it is sick of hearing SSM cases by declining to hear two. Eventually, they will have to hear it again, however, because the change in opinion in several States which adopted State Constitutional bans now favor SSM. Unlike California, the State Constitutions in these States are not easily changed, so the activists will most likely again resort to Constitutional challenges in order to overturn their State Constitutions.

First, it may be more costly to tax payers, in terms of court challenges, if Californians are illegitimately given SSM by executive fiat than legitimately by a vote of the people.

Second, as indicated in my post above, the SCOTUS ruling on the federal DOMA case, which affirms the state's right to define marriage as it sees fit, effectively eliminates on merits the chance that the federal courts, and SCOTUS in particular, would hear any SSM cases, at least in the near future.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

First, it may be more costly to tax payers, in terms of court challenges, if Californians are illegitimately given SSM by executive fiat than legitimately by a vote of the people.

Second, as indicated in my post above, the SCOTUS ruling on the federal DOMA case, which affirms the state's right to define marriage as it sees fit, effectively eliminates on merits the chance that the federal courts, and SCOTUS in particular, would hear any SSM cases, at least in the near future.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is true that the DOMA case exercised judicial restraint in the way it structured its decision with a States Rights twist, I am not sure that I would go so far as to say that it has ruled that the State's have the right to define marriage as they see fit. The narrow holding is simply that Congress cannot by its actions create a discriminatory second class marriage when the State has decided to authorize equal marriage. That is just deciding the facts before it as narrowly as possible. The Court did not have before it a case where the State had refused to authorize SSM given it had dismissed the Prop 8 case for lack of standing.

[USU78]

I think you suggestion above is not accurate.

Had all churches been compelled to marry homosexuals then I would agree. That has not happened.

All that is being required is that as a CA state institution marriage cannot be restricted from protected classes. I

It is a shame those who brought the vase were deemed not to have standing. From what i understand the court never made a strong and binding determination on whether we can change a state constitution to formally discriminate/restrict access of certain classes of people to specific things.

Suppose you believe that homosexual acts are perversions, do actual damage to the participants, spread disease (both physical and mental), and any act done to promote or normalize the lifestyle is fatally damaging to societies and their constituent families [and there is, you must allow, at very least arguable validity to such a view, whether you believe the view is good or bad]. Now, suppose your tax dollars, seized from you against your will and the point of a metaphorical [and, in the right case, actual] gun, will be employed to promote and/or normalize homosexual lifestyle. Suppose further that this is done by manipulations, acts, failures to act, and bad acts by public officials, including tendentious socialist trial and appeals judges. Are you not being forced?

Yet this is precisely what is happening.

And there is and can be no guaranty that States whose populaces abhor homosexual marriage and anything looking like it will be left alone: indeed, in yesterday's Deseret News there was a story about local homophile advocacy groups announcing their intentions to impose homosexual marriage upon an unwilling Utah, expecting to be successful within 5 years. Are we not being forced.

And there is and can be no guaranty that the LDS Church and her leadership and her membership will be left alone either. Just look at recent history: The last thing any Mormon wanted when they agreed to take a little chunk of real estate off the hands of Salt Lake City that smartaleck homosexual 20-somethings should be making out in public on Church property. They [and if not they, then someone else would have done it] imposed a perversion upon an unwilling landowner. They would not leave the Church alone. Why? I have my theories. The same thing that made the smartalecks impose their perversion upon the rest of us in public will make them or someone that looks a whole lot like them impose upon an unwilling Church, leadership, and membership homosexual marriage inside our temples. It's simply in their makeup.

They are

put bluntly

bullies.

And bullies bully.

[USU78]

There is nothing wrong with the church being pressured - that should be expected.

So you approved of bullies.

Gotcha.

[USU78]

First, it may be more costly to tax payers, in terms of court challenges, if Californians are illegitimately given SSM by executive fiat than legitimately by a vote of the people.

Second, as indicated in my post above, the SCOTUS ruling on the federal DOMA case, which affirms the state's right to define marriage as it sees fit, effectively eliminates on merits the chance that the federal courts, and SCOTUS in particular, would hear any SSM cases, at least in the near future.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Socialist presidents' appointments don't care about states' rights, though in this instance they went along with it in order to acquire a majority they would otherwise not have enjoyed.

[USU78]

If there was merit to such claims such requests for disincorporation would be going before courts.

Those making those claims were just angry. Doesn't mean the claims they made had merit.

I'm glad you can be so cavalier about mobs' threats.

It's so very American, after all, to mob and be mobbed. Just how we want to be living.

You'll excuse me if I take the threats of bullies seriously.

[Stone holm]

I'm glad you can be so cavalier about mobs' threats.

It's so very American, after all, to mob and be mobbed. Just how we want to be living.

You'll excuse me if I take the threats of bullies seriously.

You should. Your language suggests strongly the form of right wing aggressiveness which normally provokes bad behaviour in the opposition.

[Tacenda]

You should. Your language suggests strongly the form of right wing aggressiveness which normally provokes bad behaviour in the opposition.

100% agree. Almost to the point that I'd be a little afraid, if in the same room and gay.

Both of you are out of the thread for politicizing and flaming.

[Five Solas]

puppets of pop culture and who support SSM

Support SSM because they're "puppets?" Correlation, causation, you'll help us out here, won't you, Wade?

--Erik

[Rivers]

The world is changing and it is inevitable that SSM will be legalized all over. Only time will tell what ramifications this will have on society.

[Stargazer]

It's only a matter of time before the Church gets attacked in the courts for refusing to solemnize the marriage of a gay couple.

I present as evidence of this the case of a florist in Richland, WA, who declined to provide flowers for the gay wedding of a couple, who incidentally were long-time customers of the shop in question, but the owner wouldn't service the request for a wedding, based on her religious beliefs.

Washington Florist Sued For Refusing to Provide Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding

[Calm]

The world is changing and it is inevitable that SSM will be legalized all over. Only time will tell what ramifications this will have on society.

I find it likely but not inevitable. Having watched a post apocalyptic show recently, I can see how a minority--whether racial, religious or other orientation could be fixed upon as the source of all mankind's trouble and attacked through that. One can already see gays targeted as such by organizations like Westboro. Such things seem highly unlikely, but if there were another world war, some epidemic outbreak or something else that got people really, really scared...or if there were anyone stupid enough to start a gay terrorist group that might shift opinions to the negative side.

It is also possible that the protraditional marriage side might develop a brilliant PR strategy that counteracts to a great degree the PR for the pro SSM side of things. And I can imagine some other scenarios that I'd rather not talk about as they are too pessimistic that might turn the tide against the gay movement again.

[jim_mason]

While some disparage Constitutional principles like 'full faith and credit', it is very likely said clause will be used to make ssm a national thing, not withstanding the rights of States to establish their own definitions, so all states may very likely have to permit ssm - which is unfortunate, though we do believe the Constitution to be Divinely inspired, so perhaps there is something greater going on, though I do not believe it is God condones ssm but maybe some kind of "Judas" i.e. Judas had a role to play or at least served a purpose. I think it is highly unlikely Church will be forced solemize ssm. And States Attorney General suing business owners is not evidence that Churches face similar actions, as there are different Constitutional and legal principles at play.

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 ... "

[Damien the Leper]

While some disparage Constitutional principles like 'full faith and credit', it is very likely said clause will be used to make ssm a national thing, not withstanding the rights of States to establish their own definitions, so all states may very likely have to permit ssm - which is unfortunate, though we do believe the Constitution to be Divinely inspired, so perhaps there is something greater going on, though I do not believe it is God condones ssm but maybe some kind of "Judas" i.e. Judas had a role to play or at least served a purpose. I think it is highly unlikely Church will be forced solemize ssm. And States Attorney General suing business owners is not evidence that Churches face similar actions, as there are different Constitutional and legal principles at play.

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 ... "

Definitely bullying. It appears to be a subtle smear tactic. The authors of said letter demonstrate their their lack of integrity and also that of their organization. It would be no different if the opposite side did the same thing.

[USU78]

You should. Your language suggests strongly the form of right wing aggressiveness which normally provokes bad behaviour in the opposition.

Namecalling, are we?

While some disparage Constitutional principles like 'full faith and credit', it is very likely said clause will be used to make ssm a national thing, not withstanding the rights of States to establish their own definitions, so all states may very likely have to permit ssm - which is unfortunate, though we do believe the Constitution to be Divinely inspired, so perhaps there is something greater going on, though I do not believe it is God condones ssm but maybe some kind of "Judas" i.e. Judas had a role to play or at least served a purpose. I think it is highly unlikely Church will be forced solemize ssm. And States Attorney General suing business owners is not evidence that Churches face similar actions, as there are different Constitutional and legal principles at play.

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 ... "

This is a deflection.

[emarkp]

Definitely bullying. It appears to be a subtle smear tactic. The authors of said letter demonstrate their their lack of integrity and also that of their organization. It would be no different if the opposite side did the same thing.

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).

[Kenngo1969]

... Bio-ethics wise this means sometime not to far from now someone will be able to take a skin cell from say an old piece of clothing and make a fertile egg or sperm and then add their own DNA (egg or sperm) and have a baby with half your generic [spelling sic, emphasis added] make up ...

My "generic" makeup? Sigh! I guess that's why I can't attract anyone's feminine attentions. Once you've seen one Ken, you've seen 'em all! :rofl: (Sorry; couldn't resist! Carry on!) Edited July 1, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Damien the Leper]

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).

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.