Nofear Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) An article that discusses what some of the advocates of SSM are really after. Even among LDS SSM allies, these goals are somewhat antithethical to the purposes of the Plan of Happiness. http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/ Here is an editorial about efforts that will probably be needed to counter the above. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/06/26/supreme-court-marriage-equality-decision-unadulterated-judicial-activism/S3w8eDx94vIJ01Yd7JijUI/story.html Of course one can say, oh, this is a bad hullabaloo about nothing. The watchmen on the towers have raised a voice of warning though. I suspect the above is part of the cause for their concern. What say you? Is this just Mormons (and others) getting a wedgie over nothing or is there real cause for alarm? Edit: Fixed link (thanks Buckeye for pointing it out) Edited July 1, 2015 by Nofear
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I don't support guy marriage, I just see no way to legally consistently make or keep it illegal. Apparently the USSC agrees. We heard the same dire predictions from the Loving v Virgina Case.
Buckeye Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Nofear, I think the link to your first article is wrongly applied. Here's what I believe you were trying to link to: http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/. If I'm correct, I'll just point out that this is an article published over a year ago. The central theme is: "Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage." Ironically, the author seems to have missed the most pressing threat to civil marriage: religiously conservative county clerks. Since the SCOTUS decision, a number of clerks have decided to deny everyone marriage licenses - gay or straight (e.g., http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Texas-County-Clerk-Refuses-To-Issue-Same-Sex-Marriage-Licenses-310958821.html) Thus, straight couples in Massachussets have full marriage rights; straight couples in Texas - not so much.
Buckeye Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I don't support guy marriage, I just see no way to legally consistently make or keep it illegal. Apparently the USSC agrees. We heard the same dire predictions from the Loving v Virgina Case. I'm not disputing this, but I'd love to have a source.
Storm Rider Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The second article seems to be an appropriate reaction to those are against the ruling. The comparison to the response to the Roe v Wade decision also seems to provide guidance for what can be done when the Supreme Court has made a decision that does not set well with a significant percentage of the citizenry. Thank you linking to it.
Tsuzuki Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The real cause for alarm is that polygamy will be acceptable in the eyes of the general public, further legitimizing Mormon breakaway groups as alternatives.
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I'm not disputing this, but I'd love to have a source. SEE http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htmSEE http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395SEE http://www.hpenews.com/news/x43877339/Controversy-about-religious-objection-to-marriage-once-focused-on-race 1
Calm Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) never mind...thanks, buckeye Edited July 1, 2015 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The second article seems to be an appropriate reaction to those are against the ruling. The comparison to the response to the Roe v Wade decision also seems to provide guidance for what can be done when the Supreme Court has made a decision that does not set well with a significant percentage of the citizenry. Thank you linking to it. About 60% of the public approve of allowing SSM and over 80% approve of allowing for abortion. Even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints allows for it under some circumstances.
Buckeye Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The second article seems to be an appropriate reaction to those are against the ruling. The comparison to the response to the Roe v Wade decision also seems to provide guidance for what can be done when the Supreme Court has made a decision that does not set well with a significant percentage of the citizenry. Thank you linking to it. Agreed. If someone is genuinely convinced of that their position is correct, they should trust that, over time, most others will come to the same view by looking at the same evidence. The future of SSM should depend on the fruit such marriages (and families) produce. Also, in order for someone to expect that others to approach the issue by looking at the evidence, they must first be willing to take that approach themself. One cannot say "you should look at the evidence, but I'll decide based on authority." 1
Nofear Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 One cannot say "you should look at the evidence, but I'll decide based on authority."Quite agreed. While religion may inform our positions, our public advocacy should be based on sound, secular reasoning. It's also important to not let the message be controlled (e.g. against SSM = hates gays). So far, the Adversary has done a much better job at controlling the message. So far, we have not been doing a very good job at being as "wise as serpents". 1
Derl Sanderson Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 At the ballot box, people in 38 states rejected gay marriage. For more than two centuries, the 10th amendment has, among other things, established marriage as a matter for states to regulate. Gay marriage (which is not in the constitution) has now been declared a constitutional right. Freedom of religion (which is in the constitution) is now meeting social restrains which have the potential of becoming legal restraints. I guess we'll see ... 1
The Nehor Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The watchmen on the towers have raised a voice of warning though. I suspect the above is part of the cause for their concern. What say you? Is this just Mormons (and others) getting a wedgie over nothing or is there real cause for alarm?It is the wedgie one. The watchmen on the tower in the usual meaning from scripture are the church leaders who have not taught this slippery slope thinking.This slippery slope idea comes from secular sources.
The Nehor Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Quite agreed. While religion may inform our positions, our public advocacy should be based on sound, secular reasoning.Mine are only sometimes based on reasoning of any kind, sound and secular or not.
PeterPear Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 It's called the Equal Rights Amendment has finally been passed. It just took longer to do so by using the Court system vs the Amendment process back in the 70s which failed.So they snuck it in by snookering the Public and using convoluted logic in the Supreme Court.You'll now have same-sex public bathrooms, insurance agencies unable to provide life, etc., policies based on gender forcing higher premiums overall, for example, and of course the attacks on religion, specifically Christian churches for refusal to recognize or perform SSM.Bathroom issues:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/transgender-bathrooms/You see, SSM now allows you to define your gender. And anything that differentiates gender is considered discriminatory. Even traditional marriage.
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 It's called the Equal Rights Amendment has finally been passed.It just took longer to do so by using the Court system vs the Amendment process back in the 70s which failed.So they snuck it in by snookering the Public and using convoluted logic in the Supreme Court.You'll now have same-sex public bathrooms, insurance agencies unable to provide life, etc., policies based on gender forcing higher premiums overall, for example, and of course the attacks on religion, specifically Christian churches for refusal to recognize or perform SSM.Bathroom issues:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/transgender-bathrooms/You see, SSM now allows you to define your gender. And anything that differentiates gender is considered discriminatory. Even traditional marriage. See what giving women the franchise did.
Storm Rider Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) About 60% of the public approve of allowing SSM and over 80% approve of allowing for abortion. Even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints allows for it under some circumstances. Your abortion figures is incorrect. Almost everyone has a limitation that prefer when it comes to abortion. Are you aware of anyone that supports abortion after 36 weeks? Edited July 2, 2015 by Storm Rider
Zakuska Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) You'll now have same-sex public bathrooms, insurance agencies unable to provide life, etc., policies based on gender forcing higher premiums overall, for example, and of course the attacks on religion, specifically Christian churches for refusal to recognize or perform SSM.Bathroom issues:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/transgender-bathrooms/You see, SSM now allows you to define your gender. And anything that differentiates gender is considered discriminatory. Even traditional marriage. They already have this... its called a unisex bathroom. link to unisex bathroom sign .jpg Edited July 2, 2015 by Zakuska
The Nehor Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 See what giving women the franchise did. If only we had listened:
Recommended Posts