Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

You did indeed change the meaning of my statement.  I stand by what I actually said, not what you decided take it upon yourself to change.

"Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights."

I still don't agree, but even your statement as you express it does not respond to USU78's question. It is, in fact, begging the question.

 

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

No, what he said was "Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights." When you alter what he said use the word "in essence" you're changing the substance of his comment. Classic straw man. Equal protection under the law is well established.

 

Yes, by all means, question the reasoning of the SCOTUS decision. I think their Citizens United decision was disastrous. SCOTUS is not infallible, but their process is at least substantive.

 

SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of laws, and laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional. SCOTUS has done exactly this sort of thing from the beginning.

Scott understood my post just fine.

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I take strong exception to their ruling. i do this for the reason so well articulated by Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion.

You mean that which amounted to " a big, arms-crossed “harumph.” ?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You mean that which amounted to " a big, arms-crossed “harumph.” ?

 

It is a routine matter when there is a non-unanimous decision in a SCOTUS ruling for one or more dissenting opinions to be published.

I'm amazed that this should be news to you, let alone that it would provoke your derision.

By the way, Huffington Post, both in its journalistic professionalism and its ideological group-think, shares with CNN the lowest of the nether regions in my esteem, so your quoting it to me does not impress me in the least.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is a routine matter when there is a non-unanimous decision in a SCOTUS ruling for one or more dissenting opinions to be published.

I'm amazed that this should be news to you, let alone that it would provoke your derision.

It provoked my what?  I remembered someone calling it a arms crossed harrumph, so I quoted and put a smiley.  How that says it was news to me or that it provoked my derision is beyond me, Scott.  All I get out of his nine pages is that he didn't think the court should have ruled as it did because it took away the people's voice.  It feels like he dissented, on those grounds, by missing the point of the whole case.  His nine pages felt like a political appeal to conservative America, which was kind of weird. 

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It provoked my what?  I remembered someone calling it a arms crossed harrumph, so I quoted and put a smiley.  How that says it was news to me or that it provoked my derision is beyond me, Scott.  All I get out of his nine pages is that he didn't think the court should have ruled as it did because it took away the people's voice.  It feels like he dissented, on those grounds, by missing the point of the whole case.  His nine pages felt like a political appeal to conservative America, which was kind of weird. 

I'm amazed you so blithely dismiss the matter of taking away the people's voice. That's a pretty serious offense in my book.

Scalia is saying here that this should have been a matter to come before the legislative branch of the government, not judges pretending to be lawmakers. You can label that as "weird" and "conservative" all you like, but it is a valid concern. We can't have the judiciary overstepping its bounds.

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm amazed you so blithely dismiss the matter of taking away the people's voice. That's a pretty serious offense in my book.

Scalia is saying her that this should have been a matter to come before the legislative branch of the government, not judges pretending to be lawmakers. You can label that as "weird" and "conservative" all you like, but it is a valid concern. We can't have the judiciary overstepping its bounds.

 

I don't blithely dismiss the matter of taking away the people's voice.  I objected to the letter of dissension which argued that which I disagreed with--that this somehow resulted in taking away the people's voice.  I don't think that was the issue.  the issue, it seems to me, was well-argued in that the issue was whether a minority should have rights granted to the majority.  It maybe that the majority was opposed to allowing the minority the rights that were sought, but if that's the case, the minority will always be held back. 

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I understand why some Mormons oppose gay marriage.  The proclamation on the family tells why marriage is good between opposite sex couples.  I am also am pro family.  I believe that strong families are good for any society.  I support a call upon all citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures to strengthen the family as a fundamental unit of society.  Where is the conflict here?  Straight couples should marry someone of the opposite sex.   

But the proclamation on the family doesn't tell us ANYTHING about why same sex couples should not marry.  In fact, the document is all about strengthening marriage.  The only way a gay couple can have a strong marriage is by marring someone of the same sex.  Anything less than that weakens the family unit.  That is something the church found out all too well when they were going around telling gay men that God wants them to marry a woman and making the false promise using the name of God, that if they would do that they would become straight.  Do you see that as something that strengthened families?  Because the vast majority of those marriages ended in heartbreak, sorrow and divorce.  Not really a pro family solution.

Read the entire Proclaimatiom again, focusing on the precise meaning that the words convey, and when you're finished honestly ask yourself if it embraces anything other than male-female marriages and father-mother families.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't blithely dismiss the matter of taking away the people's voice.  I objected to the letter of dissension which argued that which I disagreed with--that this somehow resulted in taking away the people's voice.  I don't think that was the issue.  the issue, it seems to me, was well-argued in that the issue was whether a minority should have rights granted to the majority.  It maybe that the majority was opposed to allowing the minority the rights that were sought, but if that's the case, the minority will always be held back. 

It's not a "letter of dissension." Don't marginalize it.

It is a dissenting opinion, and it is standard in cases where the Supreme Court cannot arrive at a unanimous decision. It does not carry the rule of law that the majority opinion does, but it is nonetheless a formal and legal document.

Scalia is saying that SCOTUS, a judicial, not a lawmaking, body cannot take it upon themselves to create new law (recognition of marriage between people of the same sex) that was never intended by those who formulated the 14th Amendment. Congress and/or the state legislatures may do that, but not the courts.

Edited to add: Here's a snippet from a Wikipedia entry about the role and purpose of a dissenting opinion in a court case:

Quote

Dissenting opinions are normally written at the same time as the majority opinion and any concurring opinions, and are also delivered and published at the same time. A dissenting opinion does not create binding precedent nor does it become a part of case law. However, they can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive authority in subsequent cases when arguing that the court's holding should be limited or overturned. In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the law, and a later case may result in a majority opinion adopting a particular rule of law formerly advocated in dissent. As with concurring opinions, the difference in opinion between dissents and majority opinions can often illuminate the precise holding of the majority opinion.

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not when they endeavor to make laws instead of adjudicating existing laws. Again, they are not a law-making body and should not act like one. Nor should any lower court, for that matter.

 

Adjudicating existing laws is exactly what they did.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Scott understood my post just fine.

Yes, so did I.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Adjudicating existing laws is exactly what they did.

Read Scalia's dissent.

What the SCOTUS ruling did was remove the issue from the political deliberative process, where it belonged and where it could and should have been eventually decided by a vote from the electorate or their elected representatives, and made it a matter of judicial edict, in effect creating new law that homosexual "marriage" would be recognized where no such law had existed before or had even been contemplated by those who formulated the Constitution and its amendments.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, so did I.

If you did, you would realize CB was begging the question.

 

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Read Scalia's dissent.

What the SCOTUS ruling did was remove the issue from the political deliberative process, where it belonged and where it could and should have been eventually decided by a vote from the electorate, and made it a matter of judicial edict, in effect creating new law that homosexual marriage where no such law had existed before or had even been contemplated by those who formulated the Constitution and its am3endments.

The majority don't get to vote to decide what civil rights minorities are entitled to - that's a longstanding constitutional principle. Scalia's dead wrong. SCOTUS was right to overturn unconstitutional marriage laws that privileged the majority.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you did, you would realize CB was begging the question.

 

He actually wasn't, but the strawman version of CB may have done just that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

ttribe the omniscient mind-reader has spoken.

All hail, ttribe.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

He actually wasn't, but the strawman version of CB may have done just that. 

Begging the question is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true with no other evidence than the statement or claim itself. CB committed the fallacy of begging the question.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

The majority don't get to vote to decide what civil rights minorities are entitled to - that's a longstanding constitutional principle. Scalia's dead wrong. SCOTUS was right to overturn unconstitutional marriage laws that privileged the majority.

They were not unconstitutional, because when they were formulated, no one even dreamed that homosexual "marriage" would even be contemplated, much less enshrined in law.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Read the entire Proclaimatiom again, focusing on the precise meaning that the words convey, and when you're finished honestly ask yourself if it embraces anything other than male-female marriages and father-mother families.

I thought I addressed that with my opening line. " I understand why some Mormons oppose gay marriage"  

Reread what I wrote.  You aren't really responding to my response. Which is fine if you don't wish to.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I thought I addressed that with my opening line. " I understand why some Mormons oppose gay marriage"  

Reread what I wrote.  You aren't really responding to my response. Which is fine if you don't wish to.

How does your opening line address what is stated in the proclamation?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How does your opening line address what is stated in the proclamation?

This is what Bobbie wrote

Quote

Read the entire Proclaimatiom again, focusing on the precise meaning that the words convey, and when you're finished honestly ask yourself if it embraces anything other than male-female marriages and father-mother families.

This is my first line

Quote

I understand why some Mormons oppose gay marriage"  

I obviously understand that the church embraces only male=female marriage and father-mother families.  

This was the issue that Bobbie didn't address.

Quote

 

But the proclamation on the family doesn't tell us ANYTHING about why same sex couples should not marry.  In fact, the document is all about strengthening marriage.  The only way a gay couple can have a strong marriage is by marring someone of the same sex.  Anything less than that weakens the family unit.  That is something the church found out all too well when they were going around telling gay men that God wants them to marry a woman and making the false promise using the name of God, that if they would do that they would become straight.  Do you see that as something that strengthened families?  Because the vast majority of those marriages ended in heartbreak, sorrow and divorce.  Not really a pro family solution.

 

I just point out that for all the talk about how important a family is, the proclamation on the family doesn't address how gay couples can participate in this wonderful institution of marriage that is so central to Mormon beliefs.  The church just writes gays off and tells them that marriage is so important for everyone else.  But if you are gay, you can't participate in this important institution.  You are gay.  You aren't allowed the same happiness as the rest of us.  You are gay, so sit on the sidelines and watch while we have full rich lives with the one we love.  What kind of God would want His children to be married and have these special bonds that will carry into eternity unless of course, you happen to be gay.  For you, there is no plan of happiness.  Sit in the corner and watch.  

 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I just point out that for all the talk about how important a family is, the proclamation on the family doesn't address how gay couples can participate in this wonderful institution of marriage that is so central to Mormon beliefs.  The church just writes gays off and tells them that marriage is so important for everyone else.  But if you are gay, you can't participate in this important institution.  You are gay.  You aren't allowed the same happiness as the rest of us.  You are gay, so sit on the sidelines and watch while we have full rich lives with the one we love.  What kind of God would want His children to be married and have these special bonds that will carry into eternity unless of course, you happen to be gay.  For you, there is no plan of happiness.  Sit in the corner and watch.  

 

Again, this argument is faulty. You are relying on the same false, totalizing view of sexuality. It's a lazy argument. 😕

[USU78]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you did, you would realize CB was begging the question.

Precisely. 😎

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I thought I addressed that with my opening line. " I understand why some Mormons oppose gay marriage"  

Reread what I wrote.  You aren't really responding to my response. Which is fine if you don't wish to.

The Family Proclamation doesn't have to directly address why gay marriage doesn't fit into the Lord's design for marriage and family. The mere fact that in a marriage between two men there can be no offspring (vice versa for married women) is enough to prohibit such arraignments.from being a part of the Lord's program. Since the Proclamation calls for loyal and committed husbands and wives to stand at the head of each family, why contort the plain meaning of words to try imagine that husband/husband and wife/wife unions can somehow legitimately fulfill what can only be accomplished by a union between a man and a woman?

Instead of futilely attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole, why not just admit the Church's positions on marriage and family and the gay lobby's are wholely at odds with each other and cannot ever be reconciled? Why not just live and let live? The only thing that seems to make sense of your quixotic quest is that you still know in your heart the Church is true and you're trying to find some way to deal with cognitive dissonance. I say this with genuine sympathy because I can't imagine how difficult it must be for you to deal with the tribulations you're passing through..

Edited July 8, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[sunstoned]

15 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I wouldn't be so dogmatic in claiming the above.  For instance the well argued piece sanctioned by the Church as official about Race and the Priesthood said, "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah" and we know the justifications for the restrictions were most often offered by those at the top, and were given as official and revelatory.  Thus, in a way the attempt is to dismiss the explanations for the restriction, at least, as being governed by popular opinion.  Interestingly enough when the ban was lifted and McConkie did an about face, if you will, he said, "We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."  So they spoke authoritatively but in ignorance--basing the explanations for the ban on what was at one time, popular opinion.  I don't know how assuring that is when trying to describe the church as never having been governed by popular opinion, political pressure or even threat of mass apostasy.  But at some point popular opinion got the Church to change. 

From my perspective so much of what has directed the Church is not so much revelation but the Church trying to stick close to the conservative wing of Christianity. 

^this^