Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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..

Is it a requirement to want children in order to be married in the temple?  Can a couple be denied entrance if they choose to not want children?  Is everyone in the celestial kingdom required to have billions of children?  What if you just want to live where God lives, but have no desire to populate billions of planets?

7 hours ago, kllindley said:

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

Isn't your argument faulty asf well?  Aren't you totally viewing things sexually?  Wouldn't your argument be a lazy argument?

Oddly enough, I have never mentioned sex.  I have this crazy notion that the most important thing in a marriage relationship is not centered around sex.  I have this idea that human companionship, finding someone to share a full and happy life with, is more important than whether the couple wants or can have children.  I actually find it a bit sad that Bobbies and Kllindley's marriage is only about sex.  That if they choose not to have children, then their marriage is worthless and should have never taken place.  

If not being able to have children is really the only thing wrong with gay marriage, then would you call every married couple that doesn't want children apostates?  Should the church be refusing entrance to church membership to anyone who does not commit to having children? 

[california boy]

10 hours 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 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.

So I would like to understand your position better since you seem to be standing completely on the idea that the electorate or elected representatives of the majority has the right to vote on anyones rights.  When Governor Boggs issued the extermination order to Mormon living in the state of Missouri, did he have every right as a elected representative to do that?  After all, your premise is completely built upon an elected representative's right to control a minorities guaranteed rights under the constitution.  

How about if the people of Missouri had a Prop 1 where they decided that no Mormons could live in their state?  Do the majority of the people of Missouri have the power to do that?  And if that proposition passed, would the Mormons have no recourse under the courts to appeal that injustice?  Would the Supreme Court be legislating from the bench if the justices repealed that law using the rights guaranteed in the constitution?  Since Mormonism was not around when the Constitution was written, would the Supreme Court be creating new rights that never existed before?   If the rights guaranteed by the constitution can be voted away, could a state vote to eliminate the right of religion guaranteed in the first amendment?  If not, why not.  Is it because those rights are guaranteed in the first amendment instead of the 14th?  

When equal protection under the laws of this country for everyone is a guaranteed right of the 14th amendment, then it means just that,  You can not pick and choose what group you want to give equal protection to any more than you can pick and choose what religion you want to allow to practice in this country.  And thank goodness that is how our government works.  

Be careful what you wish for Scott.

Edited July 8, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

So I would like to understand your position better since you seem to be standing completely on the idea that the electorate or elected representatives of the majority has the right to vote on anyones rights.  When Governor Boggs issued the extermination order to Mormon living in the state of Missouri, did he have every right as a elected representative to do that?  After all, your premise is completely built upon an elected representative's right to control a minorities guaranteed rights under the constitution.  

How about if the people of Missouri had a Prop 1 where they decided that no Mormons could live in their state?  Do the majority of the people of Missouri have the power to do that?  And if that proposition passed, would the Mormons have no recourse under the courts to appeal that injustice?  Would the Supreme Court be legislating from the bench if the justices repealed that law using the rights guaranteed in the constitution?  Since Mormonism was not around when the Constitution was written, would the Supreme Court be creating new rights that never existed before?   If the rights guaranteed by the constitution can be voted away, could a state vote to eliminate the right of religion guaranteed in the first amendment?  If not, why not.  Is it because those rights are guaranteed in the first amendment instead of the 14th?  

Be careful what you wish for Scott.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and other civil liberties had long been enshrined in the Constitution when Boggs issued the Extermination Order, though the 14th Amendment had not yet come into being.

Quote

When equal protection under the laws of this country for everyone is a guaranteed right of the 14th amendment, then it means just that,  You can not pick and choose what group you want to give equal protection to any more than you can pick and choose what religion you want to allow to practice in this country.  And thank goodness that is how our government works.

Under this logic, the 14th Amendment could be pressed into service to justify practically anything: marriage between owner and pet, between owner and a robot, between siblings, between parent and offspring. 

Or maybe you're OK with those things as well.

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Can't sleep, Scott?

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Is it a requirement to want children in order to be married in the temple?  Can a couple be denied entrance if they choose to not want children?  Is everyone in the celestial kingdom required to have billions of children?  What if you just want to live where God lives, but have no desire to populate billions of planets?

Isn't your argument faulty asf well?  Aren't you totally viewing things sexually?  Wouldn't your argument be a lazy argument?

Oddly enough, I have never mentioned sex.  I have this crazy notion that the most important thing in a marriage relationship is not centered around sex.  I have this idea that human companionship, finding someone to share a full and happy life with, is more important than whether the couple wants or can have children.  I actually find it a bit sad that Bobbies and Kllindley's marriage is only about sex.  That if they choose not to have children, then their marriage is worthless and should have never taken place.  

If not being able to have children is really the only thing wrong with gay marriage, then would you call every married couple that doesn't want children apostates?  Should the church be refusing entrance to church membership to anyone who does not commit to having children? 

It should be abundantly clear to each and every man and women whose marriage is sealed in the temple that the ultimate purpose of that sealing is to make a most sacred covenant before God, while kneeling around a holy alter, that both the man and the woman are willing to keep God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and that the promise be fruitful and multiply extends into eternity even after the resurrection. So yes, the blessings of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, spoken of so prominently in the temple, pertain to having children either in this life or in eternity. And while sexual relations are a part of the process, the most important thing by far is not fleeting physical pleasure but giving birth to the sons and daughters of God.

Does the fact that there are billions of human beings already on this planet make the child who is being born at this very moment any less sacred?

If what some gay people want is close companionship without sexual relations playing an important role, they were perfectly able to legally achieve that status prior to the radical step of the redefinition of marriage.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

It should be abundantly clear to each and every man and women whose marriage is sealed in the temple that the ultimate purpose of that sealing is to make a most sacred covenant before God, while kneeling around a holy alter, that both the man and the woman are willing to keep God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and that the promise be fruitful and multiply extends into eternity even after the resurrection. So yes, the blessings of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, spoken of so prominently in the temple, pertain to having children either in this life or in eternity. And while sexual relations are a part of the process, the most important thing by far is not fleeting physical pleasure but giving birth to the sons and daughters of God.

Does the fact that there are billions of human beings already on this planet make the child who is being born at this very moment any less sacred?

If what some gay people want is close companionship without sexual relations playing an important role, they were perfectly able to legally achieve that status prior to the radical step of the redefinition of marriage.

You completely ignored my questions.  Want to try again?  Or are you unable to given your mindset. 

Quote

Is it a requirement to want children in order to be married in the temple?  Can a couple be denied entrance if they choose to not want children?  Is everyone in the celestial kingdom required to have billions of children?  What if you just want to live where God lives, but have no desire to populate billions of planets?

 

[USU78]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and other civil liberties had long been enshrined in the Constitution when Boggs issued the Extermination Order, though the 14th Amendment had not yet come into being.

Under this logic, the 14th Amendment could be pressed into service to justify practically anything: marriage between owner and pet, between owner and a robot, between siblings, between parent and offspring. 

Or maybe you're OK with those things as well.

 

When desire by anybody with an ax to grind is the basis for SCOTUS decisions, and nobody can articulate a logical, ethical or moral basis for determining which ax will be permitted to fell which tree, and which one won't, we are not living in a logical, ethical or moral society based on discernable laws, and everybody's a criminal.

I don't much like that.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and other civil liberties had long been enshrined in the Constitution when Boggs issued the Extermination Order, though the 14th Amendment had not yet come into being.

You are going to have to help me out a little more if you want me to understand your position.  Are you saying that Governor Boggs was within his rights as an elected official to order the extermination of Mormons?  I hope you will take the time to answer my questions more completely than some cursory dismissive answer.  

And you didn't address the majority of what I was asking here.

How about if the people of Missouri had a Prop 1 where they decided that no Mormons could live in their state?  Do the majority of the people of Missouri have the power to do that?  And if that proposition passed, would the Mormons have no recourse under the courts to appeal that injustice?  Would the Supreme Court be legislating from the bench if the justices repealed that law using the rights guaranteed in the constitution?  Since Mormonism was not around when the Constitution was written, would the Supreme Court be creating new rights that never existed before?   If the rights guaranteed by the constitution can be voted away, could a state vote to eliminate the right of religion guaranteed in the first amendment?  If not, why not.  

I didn't specify a time period.  So lets say they voted on Prop 1 after  the 14th amendment was added to the constitution.

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Under this logic, the 14th Amendment could be pressed into service to justify practically anything: marriage between owner and pet, between owner and a robot, between siblings, between parent and offspring. 

Or maybe you're OK with those things as well.

 

I don't think any of the constitution applies to family pets or robots.  We are talking about consenting adults here.  So that pretty much makes pets and robots not really a part of this discussion.  

Siblings and offspring fall into a different category.  There has been shown that there are issues with birth defects when DNA is too similar.  It might be possible for someone to challenge this law, but so far no one seems to be interested in doing so.  If someone did challenge those laws, then I would think that DNA would be a consideration the court might take into account.   

It doesn't matter whether I am OK with those things or not.  We are talking about what is legal, not what I think of those relationships. 

Since gay couples can't have children and since their DNA is not close, that was not part of the consideration for legalizing gay marriage.

[Kenngo1969]

California Boy:

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) was a unanimous decision. Conversely, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. _____ (2015) was a 5-4 decision.  Since you obviously don't think much of my legal acumen ("How dare he disagree with the obviously brilliant Obergefell majority!" ) ...  ... can you explain to me ... other than, "Well, duh!  The Obergefell minority got it wrong!" ... why the Brown court was unanimous while the Obergefell court was so deeply divided?  And, while I admire your sanguineness, can you also explain to me, particularly in light of the recent personnel change and given the distinct possibility of future personnel change on the Court, how it is that you can be so sure that a 5-4 decision is forever set in stone?

Thanks for gracing us with your brilliant, incisive, penetrating legal acumen.

-Ken

Edited July 8, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/7/2017 at 0:03 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

So what?

There are many, many marriages in which no children will result naturally. Are all of those marriages counterfeit? The elderly? The sterile? Just try to be consistent. If you oppose SSM because they can't have children, then you should oppose any marriage in which natural child bearing is not possible. It's kind of an ugly position to take, though.

Whatever the reason or the circumstance why any given opposite-sex couple is not able to have children, such reasons and circumstances are indeed lamentable.  I've known such couples, and I sorrow with them.  And, to a certain extent, I can even understand why gay or lesbian couples might lament the inability to conceive a child together.  However, whatever the reasons underlying childlessness for opposite-sex couples, lack of biological complementarity between the partners is not among them.  I believe The Family: A Proclamation to the World is Divinely Inspired, including what it says about the Divinely Appointed roles and relationships between husbands and wives and parents and children.  And, as lamentable as the inability to conceive and to bear children might be in any given case, I believe that biological complementarity being a sin qua non for the conception, bearing, and rearing of children also is Divinely Appointed.  

For biologically-complementary couples, the inability to have children is simply a part of living in a fallen world, while, for couples who are not biologically complementary, I believe such inability (per The Family: A Proclamation to the World) is by Divine Design.  I can understand why a gay or lesbian couple might think such a state of things is unfair, but part of long-run success in mortality is being able to understand that, as unfair as any circumstance we might confront here might be, part of mortality's test is being able to accept unfair circumstances in the present without allowing such acceptance to destroy our faith in a glorious future hereafter.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify, and I know you will accept my additional explanation in the spirit in which it is intended without imputing any "ugly" motives to me.

Thanks.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Can't sleep, Scott?

Sleep is for sissies! 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sleep is for sissies! 

 

Actually I was quite sleepy last night. 

But I was up late teaching one of my offspring how to drive. (Utah requires that  a learner log 40 hours of time behind the wheel, including 10 hours after sunset, before he can apply for a full-fledged license.)

Then, I got absorbed in a new computer game, Train Simulator 2017. Since I don't have room in my house for my first love, model railroading, I find that is the next best thing. 

Before going to bed, I decided to look in on this board and, well, you know where that can lead. 

Finally, as I do on irregular occasions, I Googled my name out of curiosity. One of the hits took me to the Mormon Defamation Board, where I found that I was the object of a new mob attack by some of the denizens there, stemming initially from something I posted on this very thread. To my dismay, I saw that one of the participants in the pile-on was a regular contributor to this message board. (Right, "candygal"?)

E're I was aware, it was 4 a.m. and calm was gently chiding me for being up so late. That was when I stumbled, bleary-eyed, off to bed. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually I was quite sleepy last night. 

But I was up late teaching one of my offspring how to drive. (Utah requires that  a learner log 40 hours of time behind the wheel, including 10 hours after sunset, before he can apply for a full-fledged license.)

Then, I got absorbed in a new computer game, Train Simulator 2017. Since I don't have room in my house for my first love, model railroading, I find that is the next best thing. 

Before going to bed, I decided to look in on this board nd, well, you know where that can lead. 

Finally, as I do on irregular occasions, I Googled my name out of curiosity. One of the hits took me to the Mormon Defamation Board, where I found that I was the object of a new mob attack by some of the denizens there, stemming initially from something I posted on this very thread. To my dismay, I saw that one of the participants in the pile-on was a regular contributor to this message board. (Right, "candygal"?)

E're I was aware, it was 4 a.m. and calm was gently chiding me for being up so late. That was when I stumbled, bleary-eyed, off to bed. 

Right.  I spoke with honesty and with a kind of hope that we could know you better outside of DN's.  I care about you Scott.  I feel the same way Johnny Cake feels.  We have great respect for you and I hope that someday you will meet for lunch!!  There was a time when I was having great difficulty with dealing with my father and his relationship with me.  Someone mentioned that they would be willing to talk to him...and I mentioned you.

Would love to get to know you outside this board and your job.  Best to you..Jeanne/Candygal.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Whatever the reason or the circumstance why any given opposite-sex couple is not able to have children, such reasons and circumstances are indeed lamentable.  I've known such couples, and I sorrow with them.  And, to a certain extent, I can even understand why gay or lesbian couples might lament the inability to conceive a child together.  However, whatever the reasons underlying childlessness for opposite-sex couples, lack of biological complementarity between the partners is not among them.  I believe The Family: A Proclamation to the World is Divinely Inspired, including what it says about the Divinely Appointed roles and relationships between husbands and wives and parents and children.  And, as lamentable as the inability to conceive and to bear children might be in any given case, I believe that biological complementarity being a sin qua non for the conception, bearing, and rearing of children also is Divinely Appointed.  

For biologically-complementary couples, the inability to have children is simply a part of living in a fallen world, while, for couples who are not biologically complementary, I believe such inability (per The Family: A Proclamation to the World) is by Divine Design.  I can understand why a gay or lesbian couple might think such a state of things is unfair, but part of long-run success in mortality is being able to understand that, as unfair as any circumstance we might confront here might be, part of mortality's test is being able to accept unfair circumstances in the present without allowing such acceptance to destroy our faith in a glorious future hereafter.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify, and I know you will accept my additional explanation in the spirit in which it is intended without imputing any "ugly" motives to me.

Thanks.

Your post made think of something Elder Marion D. Hanks said to me in an interview many years ago. He said, "To believe in God is to know that all the rules are fair and there will be wonderful surprises."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Right.  I spoke with honesty and with a kind of hope that we could know you better outside of DN's.  I care about you Scott.  I feel the same way Johnny Cake feels.  We have great respect for you and I hope that someday you will meet for lunch!!  There was a time when I was having great difficulty with dealing with my father and his relationship with me.  Someone mentioned that they would be willing to talk to him...and I mentioned you.

Would love to get to know you outside this board and your job.  Best to you..Jeanne/Candygal.

Whatever your stated intent here, your post there (and I'll acknowledge yours was one of the less vitriolic on that thread) was in the context of contempt and calumny to which you seemed to give tacit if not implied consent. 

But I'll say no more about it, as I won't turn this into a thread about me, and I recall that the board rules prohibit personalizing threads anyway. 

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

California Boy:

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) was a unanimous decision. Conversely, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. _____ (2015) was a 5-4 decision.  Since you obviously don't think much of my legal acumen ("How dare he disagree with the obviously brilliant Obergefell majority!" ) ...  ... can you explain to me ... other than, "Well, duh!  The Obergefell minority got it wrong!" ... why the Brown court was unanimous while the Obergefell court was so deeply divided?  And, while I admire your sanguineness, can you also explain to me, particularly in light of the recent personnel change and given the distinct possibility of future personnel change on the Court, how it is that you can be so sure that a 5-4 decision is forever set in stone?

Thanks for gracing us with your brilliant, incisive, penetrating legal acumen.

-Ken

Given your sarcastic tone, I am not really sure if you really want an answer or if you just want me to say something that you can attack.  I will choose to believe that you want a a sincere answer, so I will gladly respond.  

When the Supreme Court rules in favor of something that an individual is against, then it is quite easy to dismiss their ruling and believe that the opposing brief was the correct brief.  Scott did this exact thing.  You are hanging your hat on the fact that the ruling was not unanimous.  The question is, can you defend the opposing brief if it is an issue that you can identify with.  A coulee of pages ago, Scott quoted Scalia's opposing brief.  You can review it if it helps.  This is how Scott summed up that briefing.

Quote

 

Scott

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.

 

 

 

I tried to understand Scott's point of view by relating Scalia's opposing brief to something Scott would relate to.  This is what I asked.

Quote

 

So I would like to understand your position better since you seem to be standing completely on the idea that the electorate or elected representatives of the majority has the right to vote on anyones rights.  When Governor Boggs issued the extermination order to Mormon living in the state of Missouri, did he have every right as a elected representative to do that?  After all, your premise is completely built upon an elected representative's right to control a minorities guaranteed rights under the constitution.  

How about if the people of Missouri had a Prop 1 where they decided that no Mormons could live in their state?  Do the majority of the people of Missouri have the power to do that?  And if that proposition passed, would the Mormons have no recourse under the courts to appeal that injustice?  Would the Supreme Court be legislating from the bench if the justices repealed that law using the rights guaranteed in the constitution?  Since Mormonism was not around when the Constitution was written, would the Supreme Court be creating new rights that never existed before?   If the rights guaranteed by the constitution can be voted away, could a state vote to eliminate the right of religion guaranteed in the first amendment?  If not, why not.  Is it because those rights are guaranteed in the first amendment instead of the 14th?  

When equal protection under the laws of this country for everyone is a guaranteed right of the 14th amendment, then it means just that,  You can not pick and choose what group you want to give equal protection to any more than you can pick and choose what religion you want to allow to practice in this country.  And thank goodness that is how our government works.  

Be careful what you wish for Scott.

 

Scott choose not to respond.  Perhaps you would be willing to see if Scalia's brief would work for something you believe in.  I hope that is helpful to you.

[Kenngo1969]

California Boy,

If you would like to respond to anything Scott writes, by all means, do so.  I'm not Scott, and he is perfectly capable of defending positions he stakes out.  For now, I'll simply note your continuing silence when asked to explain why the Court in Brown v. Board of Education was unanimous, on the one hand, while the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges was so deeply divided, on the other hand.

Thanks,

-Ken

P.S.: And my point holds even if the majority is not unanimous.  Earlier in the thread, someone linked to an NPR news story about Missouri Department of Natural Resources v. Trinity Lutheran Preschool.  That decision was a 7-2 decision.  If you'd like, rather than comparing Obergefell v. Hodges to Brown v. Board of Education, you can compare Obergefell to Missouri Department of Natural Resources.  Either way, my point still stands: Why was there such a strong majority in the latter but not in the former?

Edited July 9, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

California Boy,

If you would like to respond to anything Scott writes, by all means, do so.  I'm not Scott, and he is perfectly capable of defending positions he stakes out.  For now, I'll simply note your continuing silence when asked to explain why the Court in Brown v. Board of Education was unanimous, on the one hand, while the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges was so deeply divided, on the other hand.

Thanks,

-Ken

P.S.: And my point holds even if the majority is not unanimous.  Earlier in the thread, someone linked to an NPR news story about Missouri Department of Natural Resources v. Trinity Lutheran Preschool.  That decision was a 7-2 decision.  If you'd like, rather than comparing Obergefell v. Hodges to Brown v. Board of Education, you can compare Obergefell to Missouri Department of Natural Resources.  Either way, my point still stands: Why was there such a strong majority in the latter but not in the former?

What am I suppose to say here?  If you are wondering why 4 justices voted against Obergefell, then you should read the dissenting  opinion that Scalia wrote, which is why I directed you to what Scott wrote.  If you agree with the dissenting opinion and wonder why that reasoning is flawed and the majority of the court voted in favor of Obergefell, then by answering the questions that I posed to Scott would be helpful.  Perhaps by relating Scalia's reasoning with something you can relate to, it will give you insight as to why the majority of Justices ruled in favor of Obergefell.  

Just trying to help here.  I don't really need any reason to defend their decision.  They seemed to do a pretty good job of doing that themselves.  You can read their opinion for more understanding on this issue.

[Gray]

On 7/7/2017 at 4:13 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

This argument is a straw man, because you keep misrepresenting CB's argument in order to more easily refute it.

[Gray]

On 7/7/2017 at 4:16 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

The constitutionality of laws is not based on the foresight or imagination of lawmakers. Your "argument" is invalid.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

What am I suppose to say here? ...

Nothing, if you choose not to.  That's certainly your prerogative.  I think your silence says quite a lot by itself, but perhaps I'm alone in that.  It wouldn't be the first time. Good day.  

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

... When the Supreme Court rules in favor of something that an individual is against, then it is quite easy to dismiss their ruling and believe that the opposing brief was the correct brief.  ...

Yes, it is, isn't it?  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

This argument is a straw man, because you keep misrepresenting CB's argument in order to more easily refute it.

USU78, who posed the question, agrees with me that the answer was not responsive. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The constitutionality of laws is not based on the foresight or imagination of lawmakers. Your "argument" is invalid.

 

 

The constitutionality is based on the intent of the lawmakers at the time the law was enacted. Otherwise, the judicial body in effect becomes a legislative body, thus overstepping its bounds. 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

USU78, who posed the question, agrees with me that the answer was not responsive. 

USU78 is taking the same tack you are. That is to say, ignoring the substance of his response to the question about a legal justification for gay marriage. The answer being equal protection under the law.