Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is Part Of The Concern Over Same Sex Marriage, The Bob Jones University Case?


Recommended Posts

Yeah but.....

I am sure you are aware that state by state and country by country the definition has changed legally speaking. So I was just trying to get clarification on which legal definition. Are you talking about Utah's article 3 definition or are you talking about CA's legal definition or are you tlaking about Iran's legal definition?

 

How ever I think I understood what you are saying. You were just saying that the 3 definition are interpreted generally differently one from another. And that answer would be obviously (I hope) they are interpreted differently in most cases.

 

Yeah, each definition is interpreted differently, used differently, and judged by different standards.

 

I wasn't speaking of any one legal definition... it's a moving target.  The legal definition of marriage in UT before Amendment 3, after Amendment 3, or a year or two from now after the court case has run to conclusion.  CA's legal definition... before Prop 22, after Prop 22, after Prop 22 was struck down per the state constitution, after Prop 8, or after Prop 8 was struck down per the federal constitution.

Link to comment

 

 

I wasn't speaking of any one legal definition... it's a moving target.  

Yeah that was the problem is that it is a moving target so if we got down to the nuts and bolts of it all it would be a hard question to answer. But yeah in general I think I would agree with you that they are different.

Link to comment

Yeah that was the problem is that it is a moving target so if we got down to the nuts and bolts of it all it would be a hard question to answer. But yeah in general I think I would agree with you that they are different.

The definition arguments don't add much substance to the discussion, but are great fall back punts.

Link to comment

You are correct.  You are not in a position to know what gay couples think.  So when you made the statement in post #147 in bold letters

 

Sorry to take so long to respond, was off doing non-interweb stuff.  My statement was not made based my knowing what gay couples think, it was based on what gay activists have said, in print. If you want to CFR me, I could do some digging, but I suspect you have read some of the same things as well.

 

you were stating something that was completely frabricated by you and you had absolutely no concrete reason to make such a statement.  Yet you made that statement to justify your position of denying gay couples their right to marry.  

 

What I just said, above. No fabrication, just repetition of the words of gay activists and their secularist allies.

 

We all wish that everyone would sin less.  But that is not what I asked.  I was asking that even though you admit you also have sins if.  "You still feel the need to stop people who do not even hold the same religious beliefs from sinning.  Do you feel that way about other sins by non members or just gay sins?" 

Even God can't stop people from sinning, much less me. But this thread is not about sin, really. It's about societal recognition of relationships that until a few years ago were not recognized anywhere, but now that recognition is being called a "fundamental human right", and per the OP, what will happen if/when society is persuaded to the POV that to oppose this recognition makes you an unacceptable member of said society. 

 

Well you only dodged the most important part of my question.  So I will state only that part.  If gay marriage is only for this earth life then what are, as you claim, is the "in particular, damning act." How does gay marriage damn gay couples any more than when they live together without marriage?

Well, I know that deceased man/woman couples who lived together as man and wife, even without evidence of a formal marriage, can be sealed by proxy in the temple. I don't know if there is a length of time required for that. The same cannot be said for same-sex couples, even with a civil marriage.  Of course, since said marriages have only existed a few short years, I doubt the question has come up much, though based on what the brethren have said, most LDS including myself don't see that changing.

Edited by Buzzard
Link to comment

You are correct. You are not in a position to know what gay couples think. So when you made the statement in post #147 in bold letters

Sorry to take so long to respond, was off doing non-interweb stuff. My statement was not made based my knowing what gay couples think, it was based on what gay activists have said, in print. If you want to CFR me, I could do some digging, but I suspect you have read some of the same things as well.

you were stating something that was completely frabricated by you and you had absolutely no concrete reason to make such a statement. Yet you made that statement to justify your position of denying gay couples their right to marry.

What I just said, above. No fabrication, just repetition of the words of gay activists and their secularist allies.

We all wish that everyone would sin less. But that is not what I asked. I was asking that even though you admit you also have sins if. "You still feel the need to stop people who do not even hold the same religious beliefs from sinning. Do you feel that way about other sins by non members or just gay sins?"

Even God can't stop people from sinning, much less me. But this thread is not about sin, really. It's about societal recognition of relationships that until a few years ago were not recognized anywhere, but now that recognition is being called a "fundamental human right", and per the OP, what will happen if/when society is persuaded to the POV that to oppose this recognition makes you an unacceptable member of said society.

Well you only dodged the most important part of my question. So I will state only that part. If gay marriage is only for this earth life then what are, as you claim, is the "in particular, damning act." How does gay marriage damn gay couples any more than when they live together without marriage?

Well, I know that deceased man/woman couples who lived together as man and wife, even without evidence of a formal marriage, can be sealed by proxy in the temple. I don't know if there is a length of time required for that. The same cannot be said for same-sex couples, even with a civil marriage. Of course, since said marriages have only existed a few short years, I doubt the question has come up much, though based on what the brethren have said, most LDS including myself don't see that changing.

1. Gay activists are not a unified group, all marching to the same ideology. So cherry picking quotes is no more representative of all "gay activists and SSM supporters" than quotIng me to represent Mormon beliefs on homosexuality.

2. It seems to me that at some point in time, nearly every fundamental civil right was not recognized.

3. Keep an eye on the polls, surveys, & blogosphere... From where I sit, attitudes continue to change within the Mormon population with respect to gay marriage. I now know very active members who would not be opposed to the church recognizing gay marriage and I know other active members who are certain that it will happen someday. Of course, these are anecdotal but the BYU surveys on non-discrimination and civil unions are not. And those surveys show shifting attitudes among LDS.

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment

The definition arguments don't add much substance to the discussion, but are great fall back punts.

What in the world are you talking about? NM.

Link to comment

What in the world are you talking about? NM.

People complaining that we have mangled the word Marriage and preserving the word Marriage has some significance legally when people are struggling over whether to extend Constitutional rights to a minority group. When you can't come up with a substantive argument, then fall back upon the sanctity of a definition in a culture.

Link to comment

I think there are a number of reasons why the prophets are against the legalization of gay marriage. I suppose these taxation issues come into play somewhat and are perhaps a slice of the pie. I also suspect they have other reasons for it, reasons that likely stem from prophetic vision. And maybe they just don't bother to explain it in full but are satisfied with each individual understanding it better when that individual arrives at the same knowledge. "God hath not revealed anything to Joseph but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them."

Edited by CMZ
Link to comment

I think there are a number of reasons why the prophets are against the legalization of gay marriage. I suppose these taxation issues come into play somewhat and are perhaps a slice of the pie. I also suspect they have other reasons for it, reasons that likely stem from prophetic vision. And maybe they just don't bother to explain it in full but are satisfied with each individual understanding it better when that individual arrives at the same knowledge. "God hath not revealed anything to Joseph but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them."

You have articulated pretty clearly how thin the argument is for the churches stand against gay marriage.  Trust the prophets cultural prejudice.  We can always apologize 100 years later.

Link to comment

People complaining that we have mangled the word Marriage and preserving the word Marriage has some significance legally when people are struggling over whether to extend Constitutional rights to a minority group. When you can't come up with a substantive argument, then fall back upon the sanctity of a definition in a culture.

The funny thing is that I can't find a substantive argument why we should redefine marriage. If you want civil unions I have no issues with that. Funny thing is that Wade has presented several valid reason not to do it and so have I. You and others just ignore them for emotional reasons. Oh well.

 

We have been over this all before no reason to rehash it. I mean constituionally speaking there is nothing in the constitution about marraige so saying that we define marraige a certain way is not "unconstitutional". When it comes to the states they are free to do what they want. One example is out lawing hand guns in Chicago. That at it's essance goes against the 2nd amendment on so many levels. Yet those laws are not changed no ACLU law suits are brought up. On a state level they should be free to define what ever they want how they want. Oh well I doubt we will come to any agreement as we seem to have a fundemental difference of understanding what the constitution is.

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Link to comment

The funny thing is that I can't find a substantive argument why we should redefine marriage. If you want civil unions I have no issues with that. Funny thing is that Wade has presented several valid reason not to do it and so have I. You and others just ignore them for emotional reasons. Oh well.

 

We have been over this all before no reason to rehash it. I mean constituionally speaking there is nothing in the constitution about marraige so saying that we define marraige a certain way is not "unconstitutional". When it comes to the states they are free to do what they want. One example is out lawing hand guns in Chicago. That at it's essance goes against the 2nd amendment on so many levels. Yet those laws are not changed no ACLU law suits are brought up. On a state level they should be free to define what ever they want how they want. Oh well I doubt we will come to any agreement as we seem to have a fundemental difference of understanding what the constitution is.

 

The constitutionality of gay marriage is argued under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.  Section 1 reads:  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (emphasis added)

 

The case being made is that gay couples do not receive "equal protection of the law" because their unions are not granted the same recognition and legal privilege.

 

I understand that not everyone here agrees and that there is a counter argument.  I'm just stating the constitutional case that seems to be most often used in these court and legislative battles.

Link to comment

The constitutionality of gay marriage is argued under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.  Section 1 reads:  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (emphasis added)

 

The case being made is that gay couples do not receive "equal protection of the law" because their unions are not granted the same recognition and legal privilege.

 

I understand that not everyone here agrees and that there is a counter argument.  I'm just stating the constitutional case that seems to be most often used in these court and legislative battles.

Yeah I have heard this all before.  First off you understand that this should be handled on a state by state basis? 2nd what if I was for civil unions were they recieved the same benefits as marriage couples, how would that not give them "equal protection under the law" which we could argue just on that alone, but for the sake of the argument I am giving it a pass? 3rd gay marriage is not illegal and as far as I have heard was never illegal. Meaning that if you married some one of the same sex you would not be thrown in jail. This has more to do with "euqal protection of the law".  As far as I can tell allwoing civil unions and treating these relationships as far as all the benefits and legal stuff that come with a marriage I am not sure what the issue is other than there is a deeper agenda here.

 

 

I look at CA. They had civil unions and they were afforded every benefit that a tradional marraige was affored from a legal perspective but they wanted more. It was not about being "treated the same". And this is were the special protection for a certain class comes in. Oh well. I doubt what I have to say will change your mind.

Link to comment

Yeah I have heard this all before.  First off you understand that this should be handled on a state by state basis? 2nd what if I was for civil unions were they recieved the same benefits as marriage couples, how would that not give them "equal protection under the law" which we could argue just on that alone, but for the sake of the argument I am giving it a pass? 3rd gay marriage is not illegal and as far as I have heard was never illegal. Meaning that if you married some one of the same sex you would not be thrown in jail. This has more to do with "euqal protection of the law".  As far as I can tell allwoing civil unions and treating these relationships as far as all the benefits and legal stuff that come with a marriage I am not sure what the issue is other than there is a deeper agenda here.

 

 

I look at CA. They had civil unions and they were afforded every benefit that a tradional marraige was affored from a legal perspective but they wanted more. It was not about being "treated the same". And this is were the special protection for a certain class comes in. Oh well. I doubt what I have to say will change your mind.

 

I understand the logic behind the "state by state" argument.  But with federal recognition of marriage (something we've had for a long time), it becomes problematic.

 

As long as there are civil unions and marriages, it opens up opportunities for the two to be treated differently.  You could, of course, put it in the law that they must be treated the same (as CA had done) but then you are into "separate but equal" territory.  It would also need to be done at a national level to be truly equivalent to marriage.

Link to comment

You have articulated pretty clearly how thin the argument is for the churches stand against gay marriage.  Trust the prophets cultural prejudice.  We can always apologize 100 years later.

 

Ah, but I never said their prophetic vision is the only reason. But, you're right, I guess we should never trust the prophets. We should always assume that their decisions are based on cultural prejudice.

Link to comment

Ah, but I never said their prophetic vision is the only reason. But, you're right, I guess we should never trust the prophets. We should always assume that their decisions are based on cultural prejudice.

I agree.  Through the ages, prophets have had many instances where they have expressed their opinion on various cultural issues. We have learned that those opinions are just that, opinions.  In my opinion, when there is no claim of revelation from God, then they are simply opinions of leaders of the church trying to guide the church in the best human way they possibly can.  I am not saying that their opinions don't matter, but we have learned that those opinions are not always the will of God.

Link to comment

The funny thing is that I can't find a substantive argument why we should redefine marriage. If you want civil unions I have no issues with that. Funny thing is that Wade has presented several valid reason not to do it and so have I. You and others just ignore them for emotional reasons. Oh well.

 

We have been over this all before no reason to rehash it. I mean constituionally speaking there is nothing in the constitution about marraige so saying that we define marraige a certain way is not "unconstitutional". When it comes to the states they are free to do what they want. One example is out lawing hand guns in Chicago. That at it's essance goes against the 2nd amendment on so many levels. Yet those laws are not changed no ACLU law suits are brought up. On a state level they should be free to define what ever they want how they want. Oh well I doubt we will come to any agreement as we seem to have a fundemental difference of understanding what the constitution is.

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

For several years I argued that the government should get out of the marriage business and only have civil unions for straights and gays, and that we should leave marriages to the Churches, but that the marriages would have no legally enforceable obligations. That would have left the Churches free to conform to their beliefs and eliminated the Constitutional wrangling. But at this point we have travelled down the road so far this is no longer a viable response.

Link to comment

Stoneholm, not to beat a dead horse, but what has changed? Just wondering what you mean and why it has changed?

Prop 8 changed everything a pushed the tide of opinion so far in favor of not telling the gays and lesbians who they could marry that it is now impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. The culture war has been lost on the issue, so there is no reason to pursue that option. I have rarely seen a public relations issue handled so badly.

Link to comment

I understand the logic behind the "state by state" argument. But with federal recognition of marriage (something we've had for a long time), it becomes problematic.

As long as there are civil unions and marriages, it opens up opportunities for the two to be treated differently. You could, of course, put it in the law that they must be treated the same (as CA had done) but then you are into "separate but equal" territory. It would also need to be done at a national level to be truly equivalent to marriage.

The "states' rights" argument fails because of the Full Faith and Credit clause. No one argues thst marriage should be decided "state by state" when it comes to the religion or race of the couples in question. Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment

The "states' rights" argument fails because of the Full Faith and Credit clause. No one argues thst marriage should be decided "state by state" when it comes to the religion or race of the couples in question.

Not sure that no one does, the Administration's brief came pretty close. It basically said that if a State gave gays and lesbians substantially every other right they had to let them marry, but not necessarily if they hadn't. That left the door open for the Confederates which still discriminate against LGBT to refuse the right to marry. But neither the right nor the left liked that compromise. Although of course, given the DOMA ruling if the SCOTUS fails to accept the 14th Amendment right, the action will return to the States where the rising generation will change the law by State legislation, and those States which have State Constitutional bans will find themselves politically isolated and subject to a variety of economic boycotts until they are hurt sufficiently that they cave. So whichever way the Court rules, the culture war is lost. It's just now a matter of how much self inflicted damage a State wants to eventually endure.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...