cinepro Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Is that the actual position taken by the LDS Church? Or is that your personal position? Perhaps you could quote the Brethren or a recent topical essay on lds.org which says that. Well, it appears at least one Mormon has been excommunicated for getting gay-married, so it could be considered worse than some of the things he mentioned. 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Here's the dissent by Clarence Thomas. He makes a couple interesting points about dignity not being something that is guaranteed in the constitution, nor something that can be given or taken away by the government. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/clarence-thomas-invokes-comparison-slavery-155758716.html Apparently that line caused a lot of uproar on the social medias. I thought it was masterfully put.
sethpayne Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Apparently that line caused a lot of uproar on the social medias. I thought it was masterfully put. ....... nor something that can be given or taken away by the government. This made me chuckle. I guess the emancipation proclamation and the 14th amendment -- no to mention desegregation (B vs Board of Ed) did nothing to recognize the dignity of black folks. "Yes you are a slave ... but be a DIGNIFIED slave!" 1
ERayR Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 The First Amendment protects the Church against all that. The government can't take the tax exempt status of a church away because they do not accept SSM while granting tax exempt status to a church that accepts SSM. It much treat all religions equally. Who knows what the future will bring. The time may come when the Constitution will hang by a thread and we might have to fight to preserve our rights. If that includes fighting means bloodshed so be it. It would be better to close the temples down than be forced to perform marriages that would defile the Temple. Just a thought. The first amendment was in effect when polygamy was outlawed wasn't it? Just a thought.
bluebell Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 ....... nor something that can be given or taken away by the government. This made me chuckle. I guess the emancipation proclamation and the 14th amendment -- no to mention desegregation (B vs Board of Ed) did nothing to recognize the dignity of black folks. "Yes you are a slave ... but be a DIGNIFIED slave!" I'm guessing that Thomas is using the definition which says that dignity is a sense of pride in oneself, or self-respect. 1
sethpayne Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) I'm guessing that Thomas is using the definition which says that dignity is a sense of pride in oneself, or self-respect. But would you agree that if the government legally classifies you as property, such a policy may present some real problems. Even at the personal level. I'm a classical liberal and so to me, life, liberty, and property are what our social contract is all about. We have to protect them. And in my reading of Locke, the reason the social contract must hold these as absolute is because they are central to the "dignity" and worth of every human being (although Locke doesn't use the term dignity IIRC). A "natural", God-given right. ETA: In fact, classifying human beings as property is a direct violation of the "life" aspect mentioned above. The whole point of our Constitution is to allow all people to freely pursue the life of their own choosing. Utilizing general liberty and property (and I mean this in the Lockean sense, not the real-estate sense) to realize those aims. Anyway, enough with the derail. Edited June 26, 2015 by sethpayne
strappinglad Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I was hoping this decision might end the debate... Boy I am naïve ! 2
jwhitlock Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 But would you agree that if the government legally classifies you as property, such a policy may present some real problems. Even at the personal level. I'm a classical liberal and so to me, life, liberty, and property are what our social contract is all about. We have to protect them. And in my reading of Locke, the reason the social contract must hold these as absolute is because they are central to the "dignity" and worth of every human being (although Locke doesn't use the term dignity IIRC). A "natural", God-given right. ETA: In fact, classifying human beings as property is a direct violation of the "life" aspect mentioned above. The whole point of our Constitution is to allow all people to freely pursue the life of their own choosing. Utilizing general liberty and property (and I mean this in the Lockean sense, not the real-estate sense) to realize those aims. Anyway, enough with the derail. Nice philosophy - but it doesn't bear much relationship to how the government really operates with regard to us in real life. Nor are the platitudes themselves entirely correct. To get back on track, I really enjoyed the dissents written by the four Supremes who skewered today's decision. Excellent points made about what is really happening with these kinds of activist rulings.
Duncan Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 But Duncan, what about all of the pestilence, disease, and social decay that comes with the legalization of gay marriage? I had thought that Canada would be a barren wasteland by now. I mean, socialized medicine AND gay marriage? The horror!!!! pestilence, disease and social decay is in Alberta! the rest of us are okay 1
ERayR Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 pestilence, disease and social decay is in Alberta! the rest of us are okay You do not have them contained. A considerable amount has seeped and gotten south of the border.
Duncan Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 The Church has never issued a statement. They sidestep it by talking about the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman, or by stating that any sex outside of that kind of marriage is against the commandments. But, they have never come straight out and stated that homosexual behaviour is a sin (at least not in modern times). The General Authorities know that the very moment they do so, things will change for the Church in this world, and not for the better. They will delay being clear on the subject as long as it's possible. It's easy to address an issue by remaining silent about it, but that will not satisfy the liberal activists who will eventually demand a clear and specific statement on the Church's position, not on marriage but whether "gay" marriage is a right (as the US Suppreme Court) has just declared that it is. In Canada, to be silent on the issue would be seen as being against the "gay" community. It would take exactly two questions to discover how you really felt. The first would be "Do you support marriage rights for gays?". Meet that with silence and it would be met with a follow-up as to why you wouldn't answer the first. There is no winning answer to the second question. Already, in the area of abortion rights, the leader of the national Liberals has stated that every member of his party must accept the right to abortions without conditions. Look it up. That's what's coming down the line for questions about sexual behaviour, not only with regard to homosexuals but to other kinds of deviant behaviour. And for any who take acception to the term "deviant behaviour", well I guess that kind of makes my point.Anyway, not my job to convince anyone to change their opinion on this matter. Just wondered how long the LDS Church will be able to hold out. I live in Canada, I breath Canada, I buy my American stuff in Canada. I went to a very liberal university and SSA and SSM was still a hotly debated topic. SSA and abortion are two different things and the Church is grey on that. But the Liberals will never get into power again in Canada anytime soon anyways so who cares what trudeau says anyways. As you know the Canadian public wasn't consulted on SSM anyways it was voted by Parliament
Duncan Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 You do not have them contained. A considerable amount has seeped and gotten south of the border. hahahahahhahahaha! are you reffering to Pres. N. Eldon Tanner and Hugh Brown?!
jwhitlock Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I've heard similar sentiments before.... Still waiting for the communists to take over since that was, apparently, the entire point of the civil rights movement -- at least according to Elder Ezra Taft Benson. Have you been asleep? The communists have taken over, my boy. The influence of Frank Marshall Davis was pivotal in making that happen. 1
bluebell Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) But would you agree that if the government legally classifies you as property, such a policy may present some real problems. Even at the personal level.I would. I'm a classical liberal and so to me, life, liberty, and property are what our social contract is all about. We have to protect them. And in my reading of Locke, the reason the social contract must hold these as absolute is because they are central to the "dignity" and worth of every human being (although Locke doesn't use the term dignity IIRC). A "natural", God-given right. I do agree to a point. I think there is room to argue that someone does not have to have all of their beliefs or actions legally supported by the government in order to be treated with dignity, or to have dignity. I think that is what Thomas is trying to say. That dignity transcends what is legal or illegal. ETA: In fact, classifying human beings as property is a direct violation of the "life" aspect mentioned above.And yet, slavery was ruled constitutional by the supreme court in the past. Edited June 26, 2015 by bluebell
sethpayne Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Nice philosophy - but it doesn't bear much relationship to how the government really operates with regard to us in real life. Nor are the platitudes themselves entirely correct. Do you really think "life, liberty, and property" are "platitudes?" They seem to be pretty darn important and not just meaningless overused words.
jwhitlock Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Murder, stealing and false witness are still crimes. No they aren't. They're privileges for the people in power.
sethpayne Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 And yet, slavery was ruled constitutional by the supreme court in the past. Indeed. No branch of government is perfect. And frankly, I wish this could have been resolved through the legislature rather than the courts. But it is what it is. That's the great thing about the Constitution. We can always overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional Amendment if that is the will of the people. I don't imagine that efforts to do so will all of a sudden stop. Advocacy for that approach will remain. Although I don't expect such efforts to gain much traction. People just don't tend to be concerned about this issue and so I think getting enough popular support would be a very very difficult task.
sethpayne Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 No they aren't. They're privileges for the people in power. Is that you Noam Chomsky?
jwhitlock Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Do you really think "life, liberty, and property" are "platitudes?" They seem to be pretty darn important and not just meaningless overused words. They certainly are meaningless, overused words. They are meaningless in an unqualified or absolute context (am I really entitled to liberty no matter what I do?) and they are certainly meaningless in the context of how the government treats us. And the platitude "The whole point of our Constitution is to allow all people to freely pursue the life of their own choosing." is absolutely incorrect when taken as an absolute social contract. Such an emphasis on individual "rights" without regard to the impact of that individual's actions on others is unrealistic.
jwhitlock Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Is that you Noam Chomsky? Noam wasn't wrong on everything - just a lot of things.
sethpayne Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 They certainly are meaningless, overused words. They are meaningless in an unqualified or absolute context (am I really entitled to liberty no matter what I do?) and they are certainly meaningless in the context of how the government treats us. And the platitude "The whole point of our Constitution is to allow all people to freely pursue the life of their own choosing." is absolutely incorrect when taken as an absolute social contract. Such an emphasis on individual "rights" without regard to the impact of that individual's actions on others is unrealistic. I respectfully disagree. There is a very qualified context for these words. The work of social contract theorists. By no means are you entitled to liberty no matter what you do and I think reading the phrase this way is very problematic. There is a whole lot wrapped up in those words and they cannot be divorced from their meaning within social contract theory. "Life, liberty and property" isn't Anarchy. And it isn't even Libertarianism. I don't know of any social contract theorist who views it that way. There isn't so much an emphasis on individual rights as there is the simple recognition that at its most basic level, government cannot infringe on life, liberty, and property. But of course, there are exceptions to this because we all have to live together and have a functional society. None of us has the right to infringe the life, liberty, and property of others. We give up these rights to be part of the social contract. So of course there is always give and take. The contract is under constant renegotiation.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Just a thought. The first amendment was in effect when polygamy was outlawed wasn't it? Just a thought.Exactly. It wasn't only Reynolds v United States, but also Dred Scott. Both were justified by sophistry (lies), but those chickens have come home to roost. The thing is, even if we are more likely to have reasonable rulings nowadays, what does it say that we can only get a 5 - 4 decision in the SSM case? 1
california boy Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I would.I do agree to a point. I think there is room to argue that someone does not have to have all of their beliefs or actions legally supported by the government in order to be treated with dignity, or to have dignity. I think that is what Thomas is trying to say. That dignity transcends what is legal or illegal. And yet, slavery was ruled constitutional by the supreme court in the past. I don't think that anyone is saying the courts are perfect. Are you suggesting that approving of slavery is comparible to upholding equal protection clause? If not, what is your point in bringing up Dred Scott?
Teancum Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Nice philosophy - but it doesn't bear much relationship to how the government really operates with regard to us in real life. Nor are the platitudes themselves entirely correct.To get back on track, I really enjoyed the dissents written by the four Supremes who skewered today's decision. Excellent points made about what is really happening with these kinds of activist rulings.They may have "skewered" it perhaps but they lost as did other opponents of marriage equality.Oh and your comment about "activist" rulings us better said "I don't like what the constitutional process resulted in so I will label it something other than what it really was." Edited June 26, 2015 by Teancum
jwhitlock Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I respectfully disagree. There is a very qualified context for these words. The work of social contract theorists. By no means are you entitled to liberty no matter what you do and I think reading the phrase this way is very problematic. There is a whole lot wrapped up in those words and they cannot be divorced from their meaning within social contract theory. "Life, liberty and property" isn't Anarchy. And it isn't even Libertarianism. I don't know of any social contract theorist who views it that way. There isn't so much an emphasis on individual rights as there is the simple recognition that at its most basic level, government cannot infringe on life, liberty, and property. But of course, there are exceptions to this because we all have to live together and have a functional society. None of us has the right to infringe the life, liberty, and property of others. We give up these rights to be part of the social contract. So of course there is always give and take. The contract is under constant renegotiation. Yet that's a very different tone than how it's usually presented. There's always an emphasis on the individual, and their rights without any regard to responsibilities. At this point, there is no contract when it comes to the government. There is no negotiation. There is only what the government decides you're "allowed", and the constraints it places on what you are "allowed". The SCOTUS ruling today is the very embodiment of that government attitude. As Scalia put it in his dissent: “t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
Recommended Posts