Church Of Jesus Christ Files Amicus Brief In Marriage Redefinition Case

[Scott Lloyd]

This was published two days ago, but I haven't yet seen anything about it on the boards. Perhaps it's in one of the open threads about the federal judge striking down Utah's constitutional provision (I rarely look in on those threads anymore).

 

At any rate the Church and aligned religious groups have filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Utah and Oklahoma cases. LInk here to Newsroom, which in turn contains a link to the filing itself:

 

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/faiths-file-amicus-brief-on-marriage-cases-before-tenth-circuit-court

[Buckeye]

The Church's brief has been discussed a little bit in the "Federal Judge Strikes Down ..." thread that has been running since December. Below are the comments I made in that thread.

 

The Church's brief makes the same indefensible mistake as the State of Utah's. It's primary argument is that marriage should be structured to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents. But both the Church and the State grant marriage rights to adopting heterosexual couples who have no biological bonds to their children. And both the Church and the State would deny marriage rights to homosexual couples even if their children are biologically related to one of the parents. Thus, neither party has a leg to stand on for this assertion. Their own actions conclusively show that their preferred definition of marriage is not tied to biological bonds.

 

The brief's fall-back argument is that children should have both male and female parents. But all of the evidence cited speaks to single-parent and out-of-wedlock situations. None of it addresses married homosexual couples.

 

And the assertion that homosexual marriages are inherently selfish and "adult-focused," as opposed to heterosexual marriages which are "child-focused" and sacrificing, is beyond disingenious. This is particularly true considering that many of the people seeking to overturn the marriage restriction have children that are currently denied a marriage environment simply because of Amendment 3.

[Scott Lloyd]

I noticed also that there is a thread on the general discssions forum started by Stone holm. I didn't click on it before, because the thread title gives no good clue of what it's about. The title is a testy, well-poisoning "What Are We Trying to Accomplish."

 

I'm not inclined to close this thread. The mods may do it if they like.

[jwhitlock]

The title is a testy, well-poisoning "What Are We Trying to Accomplish."

 

 

Yep.

 

I think the church wants to make it crystal clear that it does and will continue to stand for certain things that are the Lord's clear and stated will. There is to be no confusion about the church somehow changing its doctrines concerning the family to be somehow "more in line" with a society that is experimenting socially without boundaries.

[Gray]

Yep.

 

I think the church wants to make it crystal clear that it does and will continue to stand for certain things that are the Lord's clear and stated will. There is to be no confusion about the church somehow changing its doctrines concerning the family to be somehow "more in line" with a society that is experimenting socially without boundaries.

 

Interestingly, the church has not received a single specific/official revelation on the topic of homosexuality. How you could infer that banning gays from marrying is the Lord's will is mysterious to me.

[jwhitlock]

Interestingly, the church has not received a single specific/official revelation on the topic of homosexuality. How you could infer that banning gays from marrying is the Lord's will is mysterious to me.

 

We've been over that in detail on this board. It's very clear what the Lord's will is concerning marriage and how it is to be structured.

[urroner]

We've been over that in detail on this board. It's very clear what the Lord's will is concerning marriage and how it is to be structured.

But jw, the church hasn't received any revelation, let along publish it, within the last 24 hours.  Maybe the Lord has changed his mind.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interestingly, the church has not received a single specific/official revelation on the topic of homosexuality. How you could infer that banning gays from marrying is the Lord's will is mysterious to me.

The biblical standard is indicated here:  Jacob Milgrom, “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality,” Bible Review, 9/6 (Dec 1993), online at http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=9&Issue=6&ArticleID=3 , which brought reader replies in BR 10/2 at http://members.bib-arch.org/search.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=10&Issue=02&ArticleID=01 .

[Robert F. Smith]

The Church's brief has been discussed a little bit in the "Federal Judge Strikes Down ..." thread that has been running since December. Below are the comments I made in that thread.

 

The Church's brief makes the same indefensible mistake as the State of Utah's. It's primary argument is that marriage should be structured to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents. But both the Church and the State grant marriage rights to adopting heterosexual couples who have no biological bonds to their children. And both the Church and the State would deny marriage rights to homosexual couples even if their children are biologically related to one of the parents. Thus, neither party has a leg to stand on for this assertion. Their own actions conclusively show that their preferred definition of marriage is not tied to biological bonds.

 

The brief's fall-back argument is that children should have both male and female parents. But all of the evidence cited speaks to single-parent and out-of-wedlock situations. None of it addresses married homosexual couples.

 

And the assertion that homosexual marriages are inherently selfish and "adult-focused," as opposed to heterosexual marriages which are "child-focused" and sacrificing, is beyond disingenious. This is particularly true considering that many of the people seeking to overturn the marriage restriction have children that are currently denied a marriage environment simply because of Amendment 3.

It may well be that the General Authorities feel that the LDS Church must go through the motions on this legal issue, if only because at the inevitable end of the day, homosexual marriage will become the supreme law of the land -- and implications are clear for other marriage patterns -- and the GAs don't want the LDS Church to be accused of secretly cultivating an interest in the final outcome, which will allow polygyny in America.

 

For, after all, Mormon polygyny was prohibited by the US Supreme Court for just such specious and selective traditional social reasons.  Shades of Dredd Scott.  I have yet to see a discussion on this board which takes into account the broader social and constitutional issues.  How ironic that Mormons are denying to others the very constitutional rights which they once held so dear!

[jwhitlock]

 How ironic that Mormons are denying to others the very constitutional rights which they once held so dear!

 

I wasn't aware that Mormons had the power to deny others their constitutional rights.

 

Nor was I aware that gays didn't have the exact same constitutional rights that everyone else has.

[california boy]

I wasn't aware that Mormons had the power to deny others their constitutional rights.

 

Nor was I aware that gays didn't have the exact same constitutional rights that everyone else has.

Perhaps that is why you don't feel gays have the right to marry.  You don't understand what the constitution guarentees in the 14th amendment.  Thank goodness you are not a federal judge.  Fortunately they do understand the constitution.  And we know how they have ALL been ruling.

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps that is why you don't feel gays have the right to marry.  You don't understand what the constitution guarentees in the 14th amendment.  Thank goodness you are not a federal judge.  Fortunately they do understand the constitution.  And we know how they have ALL been ruling.

 

Since gays have the same right to marry as anyone else - and many gays avail themselves of that same right - you don't have a point.

 

I don't know what's so difficult about this concept. We all have the same rights. No one is being denied a right that others have. That should be absolutely clear to anyone.

[california boy]

Since gays have the same right to marry as anyone else - and many gays avail themselves of that same right - you don't have a point.

 

I don't know what's so difficult about this concept. We all have the same rights. No one is being denied a right that others have. That should be absolutely clear to anyone.

Yeah we have heard it all before haven't we.  And just how well is that argument working in the courts these days?  How well did it work when arguing against inter racial marriage?  Fortunately, gay marriage has the constitution on it's side.  I don't know why you keep repeating this silly statement.  Do you feel that if you present it enough times, someone, anyone. will agree with you?

 

If women have the right to marry men, then wny don't men have the right to marry men??  There you go.  Work on that for a while.  I wll meet you on the gradeschool playground and we can discuss.

[Gray]

We've been over that in detail on this board. It's very clear what the Lord's will is concerning marriage and how it is to be structured.

 

That's a matter of opinion, but we have no claimed modern revelation on the topic. The current stance toward gays does run contrary to John 7:17 

[Gray]

The biblical standard is indicated here:  Jacob Milgrom, “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality,” Bible Review, 9/6 (Dec 1993), online at http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=9&Issue=6&ArticleID=3 , which brought reader replies in BR 10/2 at http://members.bib-arch.org/search.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=10&Issue=02&ArticleID=01 .

 

Only Paul even addressed the subject of homosexuality, although it's not entirely clear what he meant. And of course no scripture mentions gay marriage.

 

Certainly there are a lot of things said by Paul that the church ignores.

 

 

The current stance toward gays runs contrary to John 7:17 

[jwhitlock]

That's a matter of opinion, but we have no claimed modern revelation on the topic. The current stance toward gays does run contrary to John 7:17 

 

We have revelation on marriage. The fact that you dismiss it is your opinion and irrelevant. In addition, your reference to John 7:17 makes absolutely no sense.

 

Of course, I'm used to SSM supporters ignoring clear evidence that contradicts their claims concerning "rights" and revelation. It requires a substantial departure from reality to find a basis for SSM in the way it's being done.

[jwhitlock]

Yeah we have heard it all before haven't we.  And just how well is that argument working in the courts these days?  How well did it work when arguing against inter racial marriage?  Fortunately, gay marriage has the constitution on it's side.  I don't know why you keep repeating this silly statement.  Do you feel that if you present it enough times, someone, anyone. will agree with you?

 

If women have the right to marry men, then wny don't men have the right to marry men??  There you go.  Work on that for a while.  I wll meet you on the gradeschool playground and we can discuss.

 

Your last statement is the only feeble attempt I've heard to rationalize SSM as a "right" that others have that gays don't have. Of course, the fact that many gay men commit to mixed gender marriages is something that you try to ignore, because it makes it very clear that gays have the same rights as everyone else and they exercise those rights within the same structure.

 

It's become very apparent that the only tactic you have in responding to me is to demonize me and dismiss me. You really don't give a cogent defense in your post. Over time it has become very clear that the main method of SSM supporters is to demonize and dismiss - or D&D, as I call it. Works far better in appealing to the National Enquirer reading masses who don't think particularly deeply about such things, doesn't it.

 

Such hatred on your part. Not a very pretty thing, is it.

[jwhitlock]

But jw, the church hasn't received any revelation, let along publish it, within the last 24 hours.  Maybe the Lord has changed his mind.

 

I can understand why Scott (as he mentioned) finds dealing with SSM to be frustrating enough to avoid it. Between having to listen to members of the church rationalize why the church is out of step for not supporting SSM, and being on the receiving end of people who hate you and go out of their way to demean you because of reasoned opposition to SSM, it gets pretty tedious and frustrating.

 

However, back to the topic of the OP. This is rank speculation on my part, and I don't think the church would ever say it this way, but in filing a brief in support of marriage, the church is essentially saying (and the wording is all mine): 

 

Look, the U.S. courts in the 19th century persecuted us for our practice of polygamy. Your court system disenfranchised us, jailed us, confiscated our property, and threatened to destroy us as a religion if we did not stop the practice. We did what you demanded and now the spiritual descendants of corrupt 19th century judges are changing the rules again. Since you bludgeoned us then, there's no reason to think that you won't do the same thing in our day. So this is a reminder of the inconsistency and arbitrary nature of your rulings. We're making it clear where we stand so that there is no question about it when you get around to deciding to persecute us again.

 

It's very clear where the church stands on this, and it's also very clear that if this is a church led by prophets who receive guidance from the Lord, then this is His will in the matter.

[Gray]

We have revelation on marriage. The fact that you dismiss it is your opinion and irrelevant. In addition, your reference to John 7:17 makes absolutely no sense.

 

Of course, I'm used to SSM supporters ignoring clear evidence that contradicts their claims concerning "rights" and revelation. It requires a substantial departure from reality to find a basis for SSM in the way it's being done.

 

We have no revelation on marriage that addresses homosexuality.

 

John 7:17 states that the truthfulness of a teaching can be determined by living it. From this we can conclude that the requirement for gay people to remain celibate or to marry the opposite sex is not of God, as it generally results in unhappiness, and often in suicide.

 

Gay members who in committed same sex relationships find the same kind of happiness that their straight brothers and sisters find in committed, opposite-sex relationships.

[Gray]

Your last statement is the only feeble attempt I've heard to rationalize SSM as a "right" that others have that gays don't have. Of course, the fact that many gay men commit to mixed gender marriages is something that you try to ignore, because it makes it very clear that gays have the same rights as everyone else and they exercise those rights within the same structure.

 

It's become very apparent that the only tactic you have in responding to me is to demonize me and dismiss me. You really don't give a cogent defense in your post. Over time it has become very clear that the main method of SSM supporters is to demonize and dismiss - or D&D, as I call it. Works far better in appealing to the National Enquirer reading masses who don't think particularly deeply about such things, doesn't it.

 

Such hatred on your part. Not a very pretty thing, is it.

 

I'm a straight man. I don't have the right to marry a man, just based on gender. That's gender discrimination. 

[jwhitlock]

We have no revelation on marriage that addresses homosexuality.

 

John 7:17 states that the truthfulness of a teaching can be determined by living it. From this we can conclude that the requirement for gay people to remain celibate or to marry the opposite sex is not of God, as it generally results in unhappiness, and often in suicide.

 

Gay members who in committed same sex relationships find the same kind of happiness that their straight brothers and sisters find in committed, opposite-sex relationships.

 

We have revelations defining the structure of marriage as male and female. It doesn't include anything else. That's very clear. It's an unsupported rationalization to claim that just because SSM isn't mentioned in D&C 132 doesn't mean that the Lord's will isn't clear as to what He will and will not condone as far as marriage is concerned.

 

Your interpretation of John 7:17 in this manner is tenuous. Your last statement about unhappiness and suicide is a personal conjecture not borne out by any real world data. Your methodology of interpreting scripture means that any scripture can be broadly interpreted to mean just about anything you want it to, as long as you can make some kind of connection, no matter how weak it is.  I don't buy it.

 

Finally, your claim that gays in SS relationships have the same kind of happiness that mixed gender couples do is entirely subjective and cannot be proven. However, I will note that male-male relationships function very, very differently than male-female relationships, no matter how they're structured. To claim that there is no difference between a gay relationship and a mixed gender relationship is simply false. Men and women are very different and those differences can complement each other very effectively in a healthy mixed gender marriage. That simply does not occur in a gay marriage relationship, which is very different in the way it functions, in the perceptions of the partners towards each other, and in how that relationship is structured. Since they are not the same, it is invalid to claim that they have the "same kind of happiness". In addition, your use of "committed" in the context of this discussion does not apply in the same way between both types of relationships. Healthy mixed gender marriages that are truly committed are fully monogamous, including full sexual fidelity, and they last until death. It is very rare to find a gay relationship of any kind, including those in SSM, where the same can be said. This especially concerns sexual fidelity, where the concept of "monogamish" has been introduced in order to downplay the importance of that full fidelity.

 

It is clear that the relationships are very different and cannot be considered equivalent for that reason. 

[jwhitlock]

I'm a straight man. I don't have the right to marry a man, just based on gender. That's gender discrimination. 

 

Claims of discrimination are overused (such as here) and are not applicable in this case. As I noted above, men and women are very different and form complementary relationships. Same gender relationships are not the same. It's overly simplistic to base a claim of being denied a "right" using this rationalization.

[Gray]

Claims of discrimination are overused (such as here) and are not applicable in this case. As I noted above, men and women are very different and form complementary relationships. Same gender relationships are not the same. It's overly simplistic to base a claim of being denied a "right" using this rationalization.

 

What is it about the differences between men and women that justification this type of discrimination?

[Gray]

We have revelations defining the structure of marriage as male and female. It doesn't include anything else. That's very clear. It's an unsupported rationalization to claim that just because SSM isn't mentioned in D&C 132 doesn't mean that the Lord's will isn't clear as to what He will and will not condone as far as marriage is concerned.

 

Your interpretation of John 7:17 in this manner is tenuous. Your last statement about unhappiness and suicide is a personal conjecture not borne out by any real world data. Your methodology of interpreting scripture means that any scripture can be broadly interpreted to mean just about anything you want it to, as long as you can make some kind of connection, no matter how weak it is.  I don't buy it.

 

Finally, your claim that gays in SS relationships have the same kind of happiness that mixed gender couples do is entirely subjective and cannot be proven. However, I will note that male-male relationships function very, very differently than male-female relationships, no matter how they're structured. To claim that there is no difference between a gay relationship and a mixed gender relationship is simply false. Men and women are very different and those differences can complement each other very effectively in a healthy mixed gender marriage. That simply does not occur in a gay marriage relationship, which is very different in the way it functions, in the perceptions of the partners towards each other, and in how that relationship is structured. Since they are not the same, it is invalid to claim that they have the "same kind of happiness". In addition, your use of "committed" in the context of this discussion does not apply in the same way between both types of relationships. Healthy mixed gender marriages that are truly committed are fully monogamous, including full sexual fidelity, and they last until death. It is very rare to find a gay relationship of any kind, including those in SSM, where the same can be said. This especially concerns sexual fidelity, where the concept of "monogamish" has been introduced in order to downplay the importance of that full fidelity.

 

It is clear that the relationships are very different and cannot be considered equivalent for that reason. 

 

D&C 132 is mostly an expired revelation, and not within the scope of this discussion, since its focus is on a form of marriage the church now considers invalid. 

 

There is plenty of data to support my statement about gays and suicide and in what situations that is more likely to occur. 

 

 

"Men and women are very different and those differences can complement each other very effectively in a healthy mixed gender marriage. "

 

 

Gay same-gendered people also complement each other very effectively in a healthy same-gender marriage.

 

"That simply does not occur in a gay marriage relationship, which is very different in the way it functions, in the perceptions of the partners towards each other, and in how that relationship is structured."

 

 

That's your opinion only.

 

"Healthy mixed gender marriages that are truly committed are fully monogamous, including full sexual fidelity, and they last until death. It is very rare to find a gay relationship of any kind, including those in SSM, where the same can be said."

 

 

Even if that were true, the best solution would be to encourage monogomy by encouraging gay marriage.

 

"It is clear that the relationships are very different and cannot be considered equivalent for that reason"

 

 

Special pleading. 

[california boy]

We have revelations defining the structure of marriage as male and female. It doesn't include anything else. That's very clear. It's an unsupported rationalization to claim that just because SSM isn't mentioned in D&C 132 doesn't mean that the Lord's will isn't clear as to what He will and will not condone as far as marriage is concerned.

 

Your interpretation of John 7:17 in this manner is tenuous. Your last statement about unhappiness and suicide is a personal conjecture not borne out by any real world data. Your methodology of interpreting scripture means that any scripture can be broadly interpreted to mean just about anything you want it to, as long as you can make some kind of connection, no matter how weak it is.  I don't buy it.

 

Finally, your claim that gays in SS relationships have the same kind of happiness that mixed gender couples do is entirely subjective and cannot be proven. However, I will note that male-male relationships function very, very differently than male-female relationships, no matter how they're structured. To claim that there is no difference between a gay relationship and a mixed gender relationship is simply false. Men and women are very different and those differences can complement each other very effectively in a healthy mixed gender marriage. That simply does not occur in a gay marriage relationship, which is very different in the way it functions, in the perceptions of the partners towards each other, and in how that relationship is structured. Since they are not the same, it is invalid to claim that they have the "same kind of happiness". In addition, your use of "committed" in the context of this discussion does not apply in the same way between both types of relationships. Healthy mixed gender marriages that are truly committed are fully monogamous, including full sexual fidelity, and they last until death. It is very rare to find a gay relationship of any kind, including those in SSM, where the same can be said. This especially concerns sexual fidelity, where the concept of "monogamish" has been introduced in order to downplay the importance of that full fidelity.

 

It is clear that the relationships are very different and cannot be considered equivalent for that reason. 

Love your chastisement of Grey for personal conjecture and then you go on for paragraphs with your own personal conjecture of what you think gay relationships are like and how they differ from heterosexual relationships. 

 

I actually am one of the few on this board that has been in a long term heterosexual relationship and a long term homosexual relationship.  I can tell you with authority that a gay relationship is much more fulfilling and brings me significantly more happiness.  And while me and my wife did come from different perspectives on many matters, the exact same thing is true with my current boyfriend.  No two people are alike.  Each brings something unique to any relationship.  Your personal conjecture could not be more completely wrong.