BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules

[ttribe]

On 9/8/2023 at 3:33 PM, Calm said:

It wasn’t the Church that was voting and having a say, it was its members, citizens of the US.  The Church as an institution was trying to persuade people, especially its own members, but it had no control over how people voted any more than any activist group does,

Do you feel the same way about activists trying to get people to support their positions and vote their way?

I don’t see a difference in activists trying to get out the vote to alter laws to create the society they want and believe people will be happier in and the Church wanting to do the same.

If you do, please share. 

I think there is a line (somewhere) between forcing your theology into society and joining in to advocate for something that benefits all of society in the long-run. I don't claim to know exactly where that line is, but my gut tells me the Church crossed it in the fight over marriage equality. Nearly every major group which stood in opposition to marriage equality did so for theological reasons, not for secular ideological ones.

Want to preach against it over the pulpit to your members? Fine, that's valid protected speech. Want to hold your own members accountable for following your (the Church's) counsel on the matter? Also fine, and is protected speech. Want to tell one of my neighbors who isn't a member of the Church that he or she cannot legally marry someone of their own sex (or gender) using the force of a (supposedly) secular government? That seems inherently wrong to me.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

I think there is a line (somewhere) between forcing your theology into society

Exercising the constitutionally-granted right to Free Speech = "forcing your theology into society"?  Is that your position?

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

and joining in to advocate for something that benefits all of society in the long-run.

Okay.  What do you think that line is?  Who drew it?  What are its defining attributes?

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

I don't claim to know exactly where that line is, but my gut tells me the Church crossed it in the fight over marriage equality.

I think before we entertain claims of the Church crossing a "line," we need to understand what that line is.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Nearly every major group which stood in opposition to marriage equality did so for theological reasons, not for secular ideological ones.

I respectfully disagree. 

The Church recognizes that marriage is a civic institution, and sought to preserve its previous civic/secular definition. 

That that Church also had "theological reasons" for opposing the re-definition of marriage is not relevant to the discussion.  The only argument you can make for that would be based on the Establishment Clause, and I don't think you can do that.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Want to preach against it over the pulpit to your members? Fine, that's valid protected speech.

The Church speaking in other public venues is also "valid protected speech."  Are you suggesting otherwise?  If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence for such a claim.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Want to hold your own members accountable for following your (the Church's) counsel on the matter? Also fine, and is protected speech.

I think that would be more properly characterized as an exercise of Free Exercise and Free Association.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Want to tell one of my neighbors who isn't a member of the Church that he or she cannot legally marry someone of their own sex (or gender) using the force of a (supposedly) secular government? That seems inherently wrong to me.

You telling the Church, or anyone else, that it has a lesser right to exercise its constitutional rights because it has religious motivations (amongst others) for doing so seems inherently wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think there is a line (somewhere) between forcing your theology into society and joining in to advocate for something that benefits all of society in the long-run. I don't claim to know exactly where that line is, but my gut tells me the Church crossed it in the fight over marriage equality. Nearly every major group which stood in opposition to marriage equality did so for theological reasons, not for secular ideological ones.

Want to preach against it over the pulpit to your members? Fine, that's valid protected speech. Want to hold your own members accountable for following your (the Church's) counsel on the matter? Also fine, and is protected speech. Want to tell one of my neighbors who isn't a member of the Church that he or she cannot legally marry someone of their own sex (or gender) using the force of a (supposedly) secular government? That seems inherently wrong to me.

I don’t have a problem with the line you’ve drawn, but it does seem to be a line drawn based on personal beliefs and individual perspective determined by your beliefs on what is of most benefit to society.  Again, completely acceptable in my book.

But, condemning someone else for essentially doing the same thing (though coming to a different conclusion) seems like a double standard.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Exercising the constitutionally-granted right to Free Speech = "forcing your theology into society"?  Is that your position?

Okay.  What do you think that line is?  Who drew it?  What are its defining attributes?

I think before we entertain claims of the Church crossing a "line," we need to understand what that line is.

I respectfully disagree. 

The Church recognizes that marriage is a civic institution, and sought to preserve its previous civic/secular definition. 

That that Church also had "theological reasons" for opposing the re-definition of marriage is not relevant to the discussion.  The only argument you can make for that would be based on the Establishment Clause, and I don't think you can do that.

The Church speaking in other public venues is also "valid protected speech."  Are you suggesting otherwise?  If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence for such a claim.

I think that would be more properly characterized as an exercise of Free Exercise and Free Association.

You telling the Church, or anyone else, that it has a lesser right to exercise its constitutional rights because it has religious motivations (amongst others) for doing so seems inherently wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm expressing my not-yet organized thoughts on the matter. It doesn't require a full legal analysis. Get over your endless need to defend every little thing you perceive as a slight, would you?

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t have a problem with the line you’ve drawn, but it does seem to be a line drawn based on personal beliefs and individual perspective determined by your beliefs on what is of most benefit to society.  Again, completely acceptable in my book.

But, condemning someone else for essentially doing the same thing (though coming to a different conclusion) seems like a double standard.

Maybe. I'll think about that.

But, here's at least one thing I can express at this point: Marriage has long had both secular (asset transfer, taxation, official recognition of a private commitment, etc.) and religious (especially true in LDS theology) meaning and benefits. It seems to me, at least in hindsight, that none of the alleged calamitous results many of the more hard-line anti-marriage-equality critics once predicted actually came to fruition. There is no mass movement to expand marriage to include marriage to animals or inanimate objects (singular examples, notwithstanding). Heterosexual people are still getting married and having children and seeking out the traditional family experience. I've seen no evidence of a direct correlation between the expansion of marriage to same sex couples to have had any material deleterious impact on traditional heterosexual marriage; have you? I've simply not encountered a strong secular argument against marriage equality; everything I've seen is based in some theology.

Edited September 12, 2023 by ttribe

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm expressing my not-yet organized thoughts on the matter. It doesn't require a full legal analysis. Get over your endless need to defend every little thing you perceive as a sleight, would you?

Maybe. I'll think about that.

But, here's at least one thing I can express at this point: Marriage has long had both secular (asset transfer, taxation, official recognition of a private commitment, etc.) and religious (especially true in LDS theology) meaning and benefits. It seems to me, at least in hindsight, that none of the alleged calamitous results many of the more hard-line anti-marriage-equality critics once predicted actually came to fruition. There is no mass movement to expand marriage to include marriage to animals or inanimate objects (singular examples, notwithstanding). Heterosexual people are still getting married and having children and seeking out the traditional family experience. I've seen no evidence of a direct correlation between the expansion of marriage to same sex couples to have had any material deleterious impact on traditional heterosexual marriage; have you? I've simply not encountered a strong secular argument against marriage equality; everything I've seen is based in some theology.

I think there are some pretty basic secular arguments against the state spending time and resources validating same sex marriage (though to be clear, I'm fine with SSM being legal personally).  The biggest one was brought up by Justice Peter T. Zarella--

“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry.... As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”

Also, we have studies that show that children do best in homes where they are raised by a married mother and father.

I think there's room to discuss other studies and such and argue the points out for those who want to (though that's been done to death and no conclusions will ever be reached).  My reason for bringing them up was only to show that the arguments against society supporting SSM are not only theological. 

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think there are some pretty basic secular arguments against the state spending time and resources validating same sex marriage (though to be clear, I'm fine with SSM being legal personally).  The biggest one was brought up by Justice Peter T. Zarella--

“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry.... As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”

Also, we have studies that show that children do best in homes where they are raised by a married mother and father.

I think there's room to discuss other studies and such and argue the points out for those who want to (though that's been done to death and no conclusions will ever be reached).  My reason for bringing them up was only to show that the arguments against society supporting SSM are not only theological. 

That argument by Justice Zarella doesn't hold up in any practical way. Gay people are still going to become couples in homosexual relationships even if the state doesn't give its approval. The benefit of marriage to the gay couple is that they have all the same rights as a spouse in a straight marriage (e.g. property rights, healthcare and end of life rights, legal protections, etc.). Saying the state won't allow gay marriage in an effort to support procreation is nonsense; such a prohibition never stopped people from being gay.

[Tacenda]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:04 PM, Nofear said:

Quite agreed. I adopt the faith assumption that as celestial beings we have ultimate control over our physiology -- that we can make it whatever we want it to be (e.g. if I wanted to have blond hair, fuller lips, be an inch shorter, etc. etc. if I were a celestialized being I would have the ability to make it so). I further adopt the position that in many respects exaltation is the ultimate freedom -- that my existence is not tossed to and fro by the dictates of nature but that I would have ultimate control over my being no matter what*. Given that level of mastery and control, the question might be asked why our celestial parents "chose" a sexual binary for their and their children's existence as opposed to another scenario. Why, why do that? I do have a hypothesis but it is not an idea that I can test and so much be taken on faith for the time being. It (my unnamed, unexplained hypothesis) makes reasonable sense to me, but, again still a faith based personal hypothesis.

* Having a society of omnipotent beings could/would be disastrous if they were ever at odds with each other. Thus, rules were placed by the gatekeepers of omnipotent abilities that would only allow others that same level of power (ie exaltation) to those that had fully and completely internalized social norms/behaviors/ideals that allow for peaceful and harmonious coexistence with other** omnipotent beings.

** That opens up a whole 'nother thread of questions as why would an omnipotent being or couple, possessing perfect felicity, choose to expand their existence to others? We know that we give our Heavenly Parents all kinds of grief and sorrow because of our sometimes bad choices. Why bother? They are happy. Why bother with the "nuisance" of having kids?

Well, from the teachings I believe they don't raise them they go to a planet as spirits born into another family. So there you go. 😊

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

That argument by Justice Zarella doesn't hold up in any practical way. Gay people are still going to become couples in homosexual relationships even if the state doesn't give its approval. The benefit of marriage to the gay couple is that they have all the same rights as a spouse in a straight marriage (e.g. property rights, healthcare and end of life rights, legal protections, etc.). Saying the state won't allow gay marriage in an effort to support procreation is nonsense; such a prohibition never stopped people from being gay.

As I said, I'm sure there are arguments to be made from all sides, (and many from the side that you are opposed to that have said that your arguments also don't hold up in practical ways from their perspectives.  Which is as much the key to their interpretation, as it is to yours). 

But the point of Zarella's argument wasn't about stopping people from being gay.  He wasn't arguing that being gay should be illegal after all.  He was arguing that there was a fundamental biological difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships and that difference was why it made sense for the state to sanction one and not the other.

Civil unions would have also provided the exact same rights as marriage (all the rights you listed above and more), but without placing relationships that are unable to produce and rear children in the best possible circumstances equal in every way in the eyes of the state to those that could not do such.  However, many gay and lesbian citizens (very reasonably) recognized that marriage sanctioned by the state was about more than equal rights and legal protections.  Those were a benefit for sure but they were not the ultimate benefit that was being sought.  What was being sought was placing same sex marriage on equal ideological terms with heterosexual relationships, not just equal legal terms.

Zarella (and others) argued that the state wasn't in the business of sanctioning marriage for ideological reasons.  The state validated marriage because of biological reasons, and specifically because of the benefit that the biology of heterosexual marriages provided to the state (which same sex marriages could not provide).

That is a reasonable secular point, even if some disagree with it.

[smac97]

On 9/11/2023 at 5:52 PM, ttribe said:

I'm expressing my not-yet organized thoughts on the matter.

I am also expressing my thoughts.

On 9/11/2023 at 5:52 PM, ttribe said:

It doesn't require a full legal analysis.

It kind of does.  We are, after all, discussing a legal issue, one which you raised.

On 9/11/2023 at 5:52 PM, ttribe said:

Get over your endless need to defend every little thing you perceive as a slight, would you?

I was merely attempting to be civil.  You are speaking of legal issues, and you are characterizing the Church as having done something wrong.  I am trying to figure out what it is you have in mind.

On 9/11/2023 at 5:52 PM, ttribe said:

Quote

I don’t have a problem with the line you’ve drawn, but it does seem to be a line drawn based on personal beliefs and individual perspective determined by your beliefs on what is of most benefit to society.  Again, completely acceptable in my book.

But, condemning someone else for essentially doing the same thing (though coming to a different conclusion) seems like a double standard.

Maybe. I'll think about that.

But, here's at least one thing I can express at this point: Marriage has long had both secular (asset transfer, taxation, official recognition of a private commitment, etc.) and religious (especially true in LDS theology) meaning and benefits.

Sociological benefits are also a big part of the equation, and some to straddle the distinction you are drawing here.

On 9/11/2023 at 5:52 PM, ttribe said:

It seems to me, at least in hindsight, that none of the alleged calamitous results many of the more hard-line anti-marriage-equality critics once predicted actually came to fruition.

We're only a few years into this radical experiment.  Time will tell, I suppose.

Meanwhile, here is a link to some comments about the intended effects of re-defining marriage (compiled in 2013) :

Quote

Death of marriage = "progress"
1. "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."
-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,
Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University

Who needs marriage anymore
2. "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
-- David Vakalis

Redefine the institution
3.  "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
-- Michelangelo Signorile,
OUT magazine, December/January 1994

We are advocating destruction
4.  "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."
-- Ryan Conrad

Next step: Abolish
5.  "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
-- Sally Kohn,
Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

The death of marriage
6.  "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens."
-- Alex Gabriel, 
Politics.co.uk

Stoke the flames
7.  "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
-- National Conference on Organized Resistance

Marriage erodes "freedom"
8.  "Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes."
-- David McGee

A moral revolution
9.  "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
-- Paul Varnell,
Chicago Free Press

Abolish the family
10.  "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,
London, 1971, revised 1978

Transform society
11. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source]
-- Paula Ettelbrick
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Marriage should not exist
12. "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
-- Masha Gessen, journalist
During a pannel discussion at the Sydney Writers Festival

(link)

It's a complex topic, though.  I think more data are required.

On 9/11/2023 at 5:52 PM, ttribe said:

There is no mass movement to expand marriage to include marriage to animals or inanimate objects (singular examples, notwithstanding).

Which, legally speaking, ought not matter that much.

On 9/11/2023 at 5:52 PM, ttribe said:

Heterosexual people are still getting married and having children and seeking out the traditional family experience.  I've seen no evidence of a direct correlation between the expansion of marriage to same sex couples to have had any material deleterious impact on traditional heterosexual marriage; have you?

I'd like to see more sociological data on this.

On 9/11/2023 at 5:52 PM, ttribe said:

I've simply not encountered a strong secular argument against marriage equality; everything I've seen is based in some theology.

Mr. No-True-Scotsman, your table is ready.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2023 by smac97

[Nofear]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

Heterosexual people are still getting married and having children and seeking out the traditional family experience.  I've seen no evidence of a direct correlation between the expansion of marriage to same sex couples to have had any material deleterious impact on traditional heterosexual marriage; have you?

I'd like to see more sociological data on this.

Not directly answering the question, but potentially of some relevance.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/13/in-places-where-same-sex-marriages-are-legal-how-many-married-same-sex-couples-are-there/

But lots not getting married too:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/28/a-record-high-share-of-40-year-olds-in-the-us-have-never-been-married/

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Not directly answering the question, but potentially of some relevance.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/13/in-places-where-same-sex-marriages-are-legal-how-many-married-same-sex-couples-are-there/

But lots not getting married too:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/28/a-record-high-share-of-40-year-olds-in-the-us-have-never-been-married/

Given these data, it'd be hard to make an argument for any type of correlation, let alone argument for a causal link. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Given these data, it'd be hard to make an argument for any type of correlation, let alone argument for a causal link. 

I personally believe lower rates of marriage is more about cultures becoming more individualistic and less collective over time, including a decrease in the perceived need to provide a social legacy where there is less a sense of a duty to provide children and it’s more about personal likes or dislikes both in having children and in being willing to make long term commitments to an intimate partnership which requires massive sacrifices/adjustments to make it work overtime as well as concerns of capability.

Add to those a feeling that this is not a good world to raise children in that many have, in part because increased awareness (improved communication because of internet) of crime, corruption, disasters, hardships as well as greater knowledge about mental and physical health issues (ignorance of such means a perception of less problems and more possible control over life) and some are not having children because they believe it would be cruel.  
 

Those with the negative outlook of the future may instead adopt children in order to help those already born have better lives.  Someone also may avoid marriage as they have seen the pain a bad marriage causes and they don’t want to do that to others.  So it’s not always self centeredness that contributes to these positions.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Calm

[Malc]

On 9/11/2023 at 8:39 PM, bluebell said:

I think there are some pretty basic secular arguments against the state spending time and resources validating same sex marriage (though to be clear, I'm fine with SSM being legal personally).  The biggest one was brought up by Justice Peter T. Zarella--

“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry.... As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”

Also, we have studies that show that children do best in homes where they are raised by a married mother and father.

I think there's room to discuss other studies and such and argue the points out for those who want to (though that's been done to death and no conclusions will ever be reached).  My reason for bringing them up was only to show that the arguments against society supporting SSM are not only theological. 

If Justice Zarella's view were valid, would we not expect the state to take steps to ensure that responsible procreation was a likely outcome of any state-approved union?

I don't see the state discouraging marriages between heterosexual couples who are beyond the age of responsible procreation; or checking the fertility of couples who are within a reasonable age; or asking if the couple intend on having children, and offering them only a civil union if the answer is no. If a couple fail to procreate within a specified period, should their marriage perhaps be annulled? It seems that some states would like to ban contraception, but is that really a reasonable idea?

What about irresponsible procreation - assuming that we could settle on a definition for such. Other than for rape or incest, I don't see the state penalizing irresponsible parents, or, for example, preventing from having more children after having been convicted of irresponsibility.

Is there a good reason for a present-day society to be bound by an ancient definition of marriage that may no longer fit?

Am I just being too simplistic here?

Another thought - if you have ever indulged, either within or outside of marriage, in a sexual practice that cannot result in procreation, are you OK with the state pursuing charges against you for denying society the primary good that Zarella says is the justification for "marriage as the union of one man and one woman"?

[Stormin' Mormon]

22 minutes ago, Malc said:

If Justice Zarella's view were valid, would we not expect the state to take steps to ensure that responsible procreation was a likely outcome of any state-approved union?

I don't see the state discouraging marriages between heterosexual couples who are beyond the age of responsible procreation; or checking the fertility of couples who are within a reasonable age; or asking if the couple intend on having children, and offering them only a civil union if the answer is no. If a couple fail to procreate within a specified period, should their marriage perhaps be annulled? It seems that some states would like to ban contraception, but is that really a reasonable idea?

The state still derives normative value from heterosexual couples that remain childless.

[Malc]

39 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The state still derives normative value from heterosexual couples that remain childless.

Could you please explain what you mean by the state deriving normative value.

Does it also derive normative (or other) value from irresponsible procreation?

Edited September 14, 2023 by Malc

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 minutes ago, Malc said:

Could you please explain what you mean by the state deriving normative value.

Does it also derive normative (or other) value from irresponsible procreation?

If the state derives value from stable heterosexual relationships, it will also derive value from normalizing those relationships--making them not just "normal," but something to be aspired to.  Childless couples, by modeling heterosexual relationships to younger generations, provide that model of what is normal and what they should aspire to.  

Irresponsible procreation is gonna happen regardless of any marriage laws or customs in place.  Marriage at least places legal responsibilities on the procreators that would not otherwise exist.  

[smac97]

On 9/8/2023 at 4:29 PM, ttribe said:

I just don't get why you think the Church should have any say in how non-members live their lives. That makes no sense to me.

I don't understand.  Do you think the Church should be deprived of constitutional rights that are available to other groups and individuals?  Any of them can have a say in how others live their lives.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 9/11/2023 at 6:54 PM, ttribe said:

Quote

I think there are some pretty basic secular arguments against the state spending time and resources validating same sex marriage (though to be clear, I'm fine with SSM being legal personally).  The biggest one was brought up by Justice Peter T. Zarella--

“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry.... As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”

Also, we have studies that show that children do best in homes where they are raised by a married mother and father.

I think there's room to discuss other studies and such and argue the points out for those who want to (though that's been done to death and no conclusions will ever be reached).  My reason for bringing them up was only to show that the arguments against society supporting SSM are not only theological. 

That argument by Justice Zarella doesn't hold up in any practical way.

I think it holds up quite well.

On 9/11/2023 at 6:54 PM, ttribe said:

Gay people are still going to become couples in homosexual relationships even if the state doesn't give its approval.

True, but not responsive to the point made by Justice Zarella.  In fact, you sort of prove his point.  "{H}omosexual relationships" have, biologically speaking, a 0.00% chance of procreation.  That's biology, not bigotry. 

Incentivizing and/or facilitating the procreation of children and their nurturing environment was previously the State's justification for regulating marriage.  Now, the State's interest supposedly derives from some sort of hippy-dippy (and, perhaps, potentially dangerous) prattle about "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

On 9/11/2023 at 6:54 PM, ttribe said:

The benefit of marriage to the gay couple is that they have all the same rights as a spouse in a straight marriage (e.g. property rights, healthcare and end of life rights, legal protections, etc.).

Most (though, admittedly, not all) of those could have been achieved without radically re-defining the bedrock institution of society.

Most of the "benefits" to marriage are derivative and downstream from the generalized purpose of the State regulating marriage: incentivizing and/or facilitating the procreation of children and their nurturing environment.  

On 9/11/2023 at 6:54 PM, ttribe said:

Saying the state won't allow gay marriage in an effort to support procreation is nonsense;

Your say-so, without evidence or explanation, is not persuasive.  Could you elaborate?

On 9/11/2023 at 6:54 PM, ttribe said:

such a prohibition never stopped people from being gay.

That seems quite a non sequitur and deviation from the comment "basic secular arguments against the state spending time and resources validating same sex marriage."  Nobody said the purpose in defining marriage as being between a man and a woman was to "{stop} people from being gay."

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think the Church should be deprived of constitutional rights that are available to other groups and individuals?  Any of them can have a say in how others live their lives.

I think the gist is we should all be allowed to live with our constitutional rights intact. And that no group should attempt to take away another’s constitutional rights. Especially for non-shared (e.g. religious) reasons. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Now, the State's interest supposedly derives from some sort of hippy-dippy (and, perhaps, potentially dangerous) prattle about "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Sounds more religious than hippy to me.

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Malc said:

If Justice Zarella's view were valid, would we not expect the state to take steps to ensure that responsible procreation was a likely outcome of any state-approved union?

No, we would not.  There is a substantial, even gaping, distinction between the State incentivizing/facilitating "responsible procreation" and ensuring it ("ensure" as in "to secure or guarantee" or "to make sure or certain").  The latter would seemingly entail compulsion by the State.  Nobody has that in mind.

19 hours ago, Malc said:

I don't see the state discouraging marriages between heterosexual couples who are beyond the age of responsible procreation;

Justice Zarella wasn't speaking of the state discouraging marriages (nor had anyone else), so this doesn't really work.

19 hours ago, Malc said:

or checking the fertility of couples who are within a reasonable age;

Respectfully, I think you are arguing from the margins. 

If I say "Dogs are quadrupeds," you can't negate that statement by pointing to this:

Exceptions to the rule do not negate the rule.

19 hours ago, Malc said:

or asking if the couple intend on having children, and offering them only a civil union if the answer is no.

I don't think that matters.  The State is not in the business of compelling or requiring the procreation and optimized rearing of children.  Just incentivizing and facilitating these behaviors.

19 hours ago, Malc said:

If a couple fail to procreate within a specified period, should their marriage perhaps be annulled?

No.

Did Justice Zarella say anything to that effect?  Also no.

19 hours ago, Malc said:

It seems that some states would like to ban contraception, but is that really a reasonable idea?

I'm going to issue a CFR on this.  Please provide documentation for your claim that "some states would like to ban contraception."

19 hours ago, Malc said:

What about irresponsible procreation - assuming that we could settle on a definition for such.

This seems like a strawman. 

Justice Zarella said: "{T}he primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation."

19 hours ago, Malc said:

Other than for rape or incest, I don't see the state penalizing irresponsible parents,

I would encourage you to give this more thought and study.  Any lawyer with any appreciable experience in criminal defense and/or juvenile court and/or family law would readily disagree with you.  There are all sorts of laws that penalize misconduct/neglect by parents toward their children.

19 hours ago, Malc said:

or, for example, preventing from having more children after having been convicted of irresponsibility.

"{C}onvicted of irresponsibility"?  What does that mean?

Moreover, you are again substantially deviating from the point made by Justice Zarella.  He said nothing about the State preventing citizens from "having more children."

19 hours ago, Malc said:

Is there a good reason for a present-day society to be bound by an ancient definition of marriage that may no longer fit?

Yes.  Many reasons.  Justice Zarella identified the kernel of it: “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry.... As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”

19 hours ago, Malc said:

Am I just being too simplistic here?

I think you are not properly construing or applying the comment by Justice Zarella (which, I should note, is a recitation of longstanding jurisprudential thought, not just his personal opinion).

19 hours ago, Malc said:

Another thought - if you have ever indulged, either within or outside of marriage, in a sexual practice that cannot result in procreation, are you OK with the state pursuing charges against you for denying society the primary good that Zarella says is the justification for "marriage as the union of one man and one woman"?

This is pretty unserious.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Do you think the Church should be deprived of constitutional rights that are available to other groups and individuals?  Any of them can have a say in how others live their lives.

I think the gist is we should all be allowed to live with our constitutional rights intact.

All well and good, but not responsive to my question: Do you think the Church should be deprived of constitutional rights that are available to other groups and individuals? 

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And that no group should attempt to take away another’s constitutional rights.

Sure.  But that presupposes what "constitutional rights" are.

There was nothing illegal or unethical in the Church's efforts relative to Prop 8.  None.  It had as much a right to speak in favor of that issue as you or any other individual or group had to speak against it.

I am concerned about the (seemingly implicit) suggestion that the Church should be deprived of constitutional rights that are available to other groups and individuals.  Hence my question about that.

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Especially for non-shared (e.g. religious) reasons. 

Wow.  Are you sure about this?  The only "reasons" whereby a person exercises Free Speech are those that are shared by every other member of society?  Is that what you are saying here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Now, the State's interest supposedly derives from some sort of hippy-dippy (and, perhaps, potentially dangerous) prattle about "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Sounds more religious than hippy to me.

The State - via a bare majority of the Nine Enrobed Ones - should not be making "religious" pronouncements, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that presupposes what "constitutional rights" are.

Kind of like the blip on the radar that is the right to whatever religion one chooses? I’m free to advocate for a constitutional amendment that removes that right, but I don’t think people should do so. Even worse if such an action was taken for reasons like “God told me.” It’s always ugly when the majority works to take away the rights of persecuted minorities. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

But that presupposes what "constitutional rights" are.

Kind of like the blip on the radar that is the right to whatever religion one chooses?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m free to advocate for a constitutional amendment that removes that right,

Yes, you are.

I also note that the "right" to Free Exercise is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified through various legislative processes.  The "will of the people" and all that.

I am markedly less comfortable with constitutional "rights" fabricated by unelected judges, particularly as to matters that are better left to the legislative/political process.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

but I don’t think people should do so.

You are free to think that, too.

Prop 22 was, as a practical matter, the will of the people.  It was overturned by a bare majority of unelected judges.  So along came Prop 8, which - unlike the Constitutional-Rights-By-Judicial-Fiat mechanism - was also the will of the people.  And it too was overturned, again by a bare majority of unelected judges.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even worse if such an action was taken for reasons like “God told me.”

How so?  

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s always ugly when the majority works to take away the rights of persecuted minorities. 

Constitutional rights don't belong to "minorities," persecuted or otherwise.  They belong to all of us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2023 by smac97