Proposition 8: Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

[Michael_Newman]

BREAKING NEWS QUOTE:

Proposition 8: Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court, which last year declared the right of gays and lesbians to marry, appeared ready Thursday to uphold the voters' decision to overrule the court and restore the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

"There have been initiatives that have taken away rights from minorities by majority vote" and have been upheld by the courts, said Chief Justice Ronald George. "Isn't that the system we have to live with?"

George wrote the majority opinion in the court's 4-3 ruling in May striking down California's ban on same-sex marriages - which voters, in turn, reversed in November by approving Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

Another member of last year's majority, Justice Joyce Kennard, said the challenge to Prop. 8 brought by advocates of same-sex marriage involved "a completely different issue" from the court's ruling that the marriage laws violated gays' and lesbians' rights to be treated equally and wed the partner of their choice.

"Here we are dealing with the power of the people, the inalienable right, to amend the Constitution," Justice Joyce Kennard said. Speaking to a lawyer for same-sex couples, she said those who want to overturn the voters' decision "have the right to go to the people and present an initiative."

Backing for couples

There were some indications of divisions among the justices on the validity of Prop. 8 during the hearing, which lasted more than three hours at the court's San Francisco headquarters. But on a separate issue, all seven appeared to agree that the 18,000 same-sex couples who married before Prop. 8 passed would remain legally wed.

"When the highest court of the state declares that same-sex couples have the right to marry ... how can one deny the validity of those marriages?" asked Justice Marvin Baxter, who dissented from the May ruling throwing out the opposite-sex-only marriage law.

Relying on that ruling, thousands of gays and lesbians "upended their lives, changed their property responsibilities with their spouses," said Justice Ming Chin, another dissenter from that decision. "Is it really fair to throw that out?"

If the justices' questions were any indication, the court will allow Prop. 8 to ban same-sex marriages as of Nov. 5, the day after it passed with 52 percent of the vote. A ruling is due within 90 days.

The initiative, sponsored by conservative religious groups, amended the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That was the language of a previous law that the court struck down last year as a violation of the state Constitution.

Plaintiffs' case

Prop. 8 was challenged by two groups of same-sex couples and by a group of local governments led by San Francisco. They argued that the measure, though drafted as an amendment to the Constitution, violated that document's core principle of equality and exceeded the voters' initiative powers.

"A guarantee of equality that is subject to exceptions by the majority is no guarantee at all," said Therese Stewart, San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney.

Opponents argued that Prop. 8 was not merely a constitutional amendment, which can be circulated as an initiative for voter approval, but was a revision of the Constitution, which requires approval from either two-thirds of the Legislature or delegates to a constitutional convention to reach the ballot.

Taking away rights

Pressed to define the difference, Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, lawyer for one group of same-sex couples, said that when a majority repeals a fundamental right from a group "historically subject to discrimination," that's a revision.

But George said voters had done just that in ballot measures that restricted school busing for integration and banned affirmative action based on race or sex in government programs.

Kennard said the right to life is at least as fundamental as the right to marry. She noted that the court, after declaring the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972, upheld an initiative that year overturning the ruling.

Minter countered that the death penalty didn't single out one group for different treatment. Justice Carlos Moreno, whose questioning suggested that he might vote to overturn Prop. 8, said the death penalty case "didn't deal with the elimination of constitutional personal rights."

Kenneth Starr, lawyer for Protect Marriage, the sponsor of the ballot measure, argued that Californians have a virtually unlimited power to amend their Constitution.

"Rights are in the power of the people," said Kenneth Starr, law dean at Pepperdine University and formerly the special prosecutor in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

He said past rulings have classified initiatives as constitutional revisions only if they would cause a "far-reaching change in the basic structure of government."

'New to us'

But Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said no previous case had presented the question of whether an initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights. "This is new to us," she said.

Starr also argued that Prop. 8 was a modest measure that left the rights of same-sex couples undisturbed under California's domestic-partner laws and other statutes banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The initiative "does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided," he said, but merely "restores the traditional definition of marriage."

Several justices seemed to agree. Kennard said the voters arguably "took away the label of marriage, but ... left intact most of what this court declared," including unprecedented constitutional protections for gays and lesbians.

Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant in Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, also urged the court to overturn Prop. 8, saying the equality and individual liberty at the heart of last year's ruling were "inalienable rights" that should not be subject to a majority vote.

The court seemed unconvinced.

Justice Carol Corrigan said Krueger appeared to be arguing that people may amend the Constitution "unless they do it in a way that this court doesn't like."

The lead case is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.

Heard at the hearing

"A guarantee of equality that is subject to exceptions by the majority is no guarantee at all." - Therese Stewart, San Francisco chief deputy city attorney, arguing that Prop. 8 violates equal-rights principles in the state Constitution

"The people established the Constitution. As judges, our power is very limited." - Justice Joyce Kennard

"Is it for this court to limit the people's power to amend the Constitution?" - Chief Justice Ronald George

"Proposition 8 does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided" to same-sex couples. - Kenneth Starr, lawyer for Protect Marriage, the sponsor of Prop. 8

"If you're in the marriage business, do it equally. If you're not going to do it equally, then get out of the marriage business." - Michael Maroko, a lawyer for same-sex couples, replying to a question about whether the court should reserve the name "marriage" for religious ceremonies and convert existing civil marriages to civil unions

"It would exceed the power of this court." - Starr, answering the same question

END QUOTE: Source Link

________________________________

[Michael_Newman]

As prophets have said, "The Constitution will hang by a thread" in the latter days. One such state, California, seems to be ground zero in one such cause.

May the California Supreme Court be inspired to uphold the will of the people who righteously voiced their vote through the passage of Proposition 8.

My very best,

Michael

http://www.lds.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=9&pictureid=77

[LittleWyvern]

As prophets have said, "The Constitution will hang by a thread" in the latter days. One such state, California, seems to be ground zero in one such cause.

It's interesting that you say this. Both sides of this argument are appealing to the constitution for support of their arguments (indeed, one of the main arguments is whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional). I don't think either side wants to ignore it.

Also, keep in mind that this is the constitutional of California we're talking about here, not the constitution of the United States.

[Moksha]

As prophets have said, "The Constitution will hang by a thread" in the latter days.

Will this hanging thread be attached to a White Horse?

Whatever the Justices decide will not bring about Armageddon. The restaurant at the end of the Universe will remain open for business as usual.

[hordak]

A guarantee of equality that is subject to exceptions by the majority is no guarantee at all," said Therese Stewart, San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney.

Does anyone know if the Equal protection clause has ever been used to give equal protection based on ones thoughts and actions?

[Maxel]

It's interesting that you say this. Both sides of this argument are appealing to the constitution for support of their arguments (indeed, one of the main arguments is whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional). I don't think either side wants to ignore it.

One side is obviously mistaken in how the Constitution should be interpreted. If the Constitution of the United States is inspired by God, and the individual state constitutions are fashioned after the national Constitution, then there is most definitely a right and wrong way to interpret a state Constitution. In most recent hearing on Proposition 8, each person is arguing their side espouses the correct way to interpret the state Constitution. One side is wrong; each side is trying to prove it's their opponents.

If we ever see the Constitution 'hanging by a thread', it will be in two ways:

1) A natural, economic, or political disaster has rocked America to the point where open rebellion seriously threatens to topple the entire system of law in America. In that case, the American government will largely reduced to the defense of the Constitution: the entire groundwork for the majority of the jurisprudence extant in America.

2) A movement will rise, within the political system, for the legal acceptance of horridly immoral lifestyles and actions (or the removal of the most basic moral institutions in society, such as organized religion). There will be two sides to the argument, and both will look to the Constitution to 'prove' their arguments. One side will be interpreting the Constitution correctly, the other incorrectly.

Also, keep in mind that this is the constitutional of California we're talking about here, not the constitution of the United States.

Again, aren't state Constitutions based off of the United States Constitution? As has been remarked before, this is a case with little precedence- and one that will set the precedence for future cases dealing with this issue. What is decided here will undoubtedly set the stage for what happens next in the national debate. If Proposition 8 is overturned, undoubtedly legislation will be pushed in other states to legally accept gay marriage- after all, if California couldn't find reason to reserve merely the name 'marriage' as between a man and a woman, how could other courts find any reason not to give the full list of traditional marriage rights to homosexual unions?

The Constitution- the national Constitution- is already hanging by a thread as unrighteous men attempt to undermine the moral values of our fathers using incorrect interpretations of the wording of the law. This case in California is merely a sounding board for how to proceed with this particular diabolical issue. Is the current argument for homosexual union strong enough to win in courts, or does it need to be honed before it can be carried to a national scale?

No matter the outcome of California's decision, I'm sure the side that loses will try to appeal to the national Supreme Court.

[Just_A_Guy]

It's always fun to speculate, but I would caution against anyone's getting their heart set on a particular outcome based solely on the judges' demeanors during oral arguments.

Lots of attorneys think they've got the judges on their side, only to receive a very nasty shock when the final opinions issue.

[Maxel]

It's always fun to speculate, but I would caution against anyone's getting their heart set on a particular outcome based solely on the judges' demeanors during oral arguments.

Lots of attorneys think they've got the judges on their side, only to receive a very nasty shock when the final opinions issue.

Fine, killjoy.

Seriously though, good point.

[LittleWyvern]

One side is obviously mistaken in how the Constitution should be interpreted. If the Constitution of the United States is inspired by God, and the individual state constitutions are fashioned after the national Constitution, then there is most definitely a right and wrong way to interpret a state Constitution. In most recent hearing on Proposition 8, each person is arguing their side espouses the correct way to interpret the state Constitution. One side is wrong; each side is trying to prove it's their opponents.

Well, there are two main questions in this case. The first is the "major revision" thing that I've already mentioned. Here's the part of the California Constitution that has this "major revision" clause:

1) The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

2) The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.

3) The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

4) A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.

So in actuality the California Constitution doesn't have a "major revision" clause, just a "revision" one (vs. just amending it, in section 3). And who decides what exactly a "revision" is? The judiciary branch. This is the way it's been since the founding.

The second question is if Prop 8 violates the separation of powers principle as enshrined by the California Constitution. This I don't have a citation for yet, but I'll try to find it.

The Constitution- the national Constitution- is already hanging by a thread as unrighteous men attempt to undermine the moral values of our fathers using incorrect interpretations of the wording of the law. This case in California is merely a sounding board for how to proceed with this particular diabolical issue. Is the current argument for homosexual union strong enough to win in courts, or does it need to be honed before it can be carried to a national scale?

I don't think this case will set a strong precedent in other states, as each state has its own constitution. For example, if a state already has an amendment banning same-sex marriage, and nobody is appealing it, then this argument that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional will have no effect because it isn't unconstitutional in that state. The only way this case will ever set a national precedent is if an amendment was passed into the national Constitution that made such amendments unconstitutional (as the national Constitution is the supreme law of the land), which may be easier if this case moves to the federal supreme court.

Anyway, it's interesting how we have wildly different outlooks on this case. When I see this case I see the Constitution still going strong, as we're following the procedures to the letter, all is going according to the law, and there is no civil violence.

[Michael_Newman]

Ezra Taft Benson, Prophet

(President Benson also served under President Dwight D Eisenhower as Secretary of Agriculture.)

"I am grateful that the God of heaven saw fit to put his stamp of approval upon the Constitution and to indicate that it had come into being through wise men whom he raised up unto this very purpose.

"He (God of Heaven) asked the Saints, even in the dark days of their persecution and hardship to continue to seek for redress from their enemies "According," he said, "to the laws and constitution . . . which I have suffered to be established and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh." (D&C 101:77.)

"And then He made this most impressive declaration: "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:80.)

__________________________

"In connection with the attack on the United States, the Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith there would be an attempt to overthrow the country by destroying the Constitution. Joseph Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution would hang as it were by a thread, and at that time, "this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction." (Journal History, Jul 4, 1854.)"

"Modern-day prophets for the past several decades have been warning us that we have been rapidly moving in that direction. Fortunately, the Prophet Joseph Smith saw the part the elders of Israel would play in this crisis. Will there be some of us who won't care about saving the Constitution, others who will be blinded by the craftiness of men, and some who will knowingly be working to destroy it? He who has ears to hear and eyes to see can discern by the Spirit and through the words of God's mouthpiece that our liberties are being taken. "

"The warning of this hour should resound through the corridors of every American institution—schools, churches, the halls of Congress, press, radio, and TV, and so far as I am concerned it will resound—with God's help.

"Wherever possible I have tried to speak out. It is for this very reason that certain people in Washington have bitterly criticized me. They don't want people to hear the message. It embarrasses them. The things which are destroying the Constitution are the things they have been voting for."

Source link

_______________________

No one can deny we live in the times as our prophets have warned of.

Yes, the California Constitution is but a small reservoir which is upheld by the will of good and moral people. Poke a hole in it, and this small reservoir will spread across the country - state by state - to jeopardize our US Constitution.

We need to rally our supporters in defending what our Heavenly Father has deemed for us to defend. The battle is in California and any other state which is in jeopardy.

My prayers to all to recognize your calling,

Michael

http://www.lds.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=9&pictureid=77

[Palerider]

Will this hanging thread be attached to a White Horse?

Whatever the Justices decide will not bring about Armageddon. The restaurant at the end of the Universe will remain open for business as usual.

Pale had to stop and look to see what color the Horse is that he is riding......thought you were talking about me...:lol:

[Jasmin]

I was going to vote NO on prop 8 until I saw the LDS message about the prop. I wasn't even interested in the church at that time. It made me vote yes.

[Michael_Newman]

I was going to vote NO on prop 8 until I saw the LDS message about the prop. I wasn't even interested in the church at that time. It made me vote yes.

Jasmine,

Thank you so much for posting that! It is wonderful to hear of how people choose the morally correct course because of the influence our church.

You may not know it, but our church leaders generally have no official position on political measures unless they are inspired by God to warn the people in a public manner. In this case, it was definitely a warning. And for me - I am glad you were made aware of this important issue.

If ever you need help in any other area, please feel free to ask. (I was born and raised in Southern California before moving to the mountains, and became a member of this church when I was an adult).

My very best,

Michael

http://www.lds.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=9&pictureid=78

(First LDS Romance Novel I read as a new convert)

[LittleWyvern]

Yes, the California Constitution is but a small reservoir which is upheld by the will of good and moral people. Poke a hole in it, and this small reservoir will spread across the country - state by state - to jeopardize our US Constitution.

Oh, I'm not trying to say that Benson was wrong or that such a thing won't happen, I just don't see what Benson is describing yet. Why? Both parties of this debate are following the procedures of the California Constitution, there is no civil violence, and the Constitution is being upheld and revered by both sides. Just because the system, as described by the Constitution, makes one decision I disagree with, doesn't mean (to me) that the entire system is immoral and corrupt. The political process is amoral. That's the way it's always been. I think in order for the Constitution to be destroyed, the judicial system would have to be destroyed, since their only job is to uphold the constitution.

[Michael_Newman]

I think in order for the Constitution to be destroyed, the judicial system would have to be destroyed, since their only job is to uphold the constitution.

Thank you for your view.

You may wish to read the quotes I posted above from our prophet, President Benson. He also mentions that Joseph Smith said the same thing, that our Constitution would hang by a thread.

None of he prophets have said the thread would be broken, or the constitution would be destroyed. Our Heavenly Father will prevent that.

What President Benson did say, was to encourage all to prevent the Constitution being destroyed (to prevent the thread from being broken). We have seen evidence of that in the passage of Proposition 8. We also see evidence of that in the defeat of the ER amendment in the past.

A wise man once said,

"If you drifting in a canoe with one paddle, don't wait until you are 50 feet from Niagara Falls before you yell for help! There may not be enough time to gather the forces to help you."

Again, thanks for you post,

Michael

[LittleWyvern]

You may wish to read the quotes I posted above from our prophet, President Benson. He also mentions that Joseph Smith said the same thing, that our Constitution would hang by a thread.

None of he prophets have said the thread would be broken, or the constitution would be destroyed. Our Heavenly Father will prevent that.

I did read the your quotes, but I apologize for the incorrect wording. I think all we really disagree on is timing. :)

[Maxel]

Oh, I'm not trying to say that Benson was wrong or that such a thing won't happen, I just don't see what Benson is describing yet. Why? Both parties of this debate are following the procedures of the California Constitution, there is no civil violence, and the Constitution is being upheld and revered by both sides. Just because the system, as described by the Constitution, makes one decision I disagree with, doesn't mean (to me) that the entire system is immoral and corrupt. The political process is amoral. That's the way it's always been. I think in order for the Constitution to be destroyed, the judicial system would have to be destroyed, since their only job is to uphold the constitution.

Oftentimes, it is loopholes in the letter of the law with which those seeking to destroy the spirit of the law accomplish their goal.

The argument that Prop 8 is a 'major revision' to the Constitution revolves around one's belief that homosexual marriage is an inalienable right given to homosexuals. We know this to be false and an immoral view. If the Constitution was inspired of God to protect the just and righteous of this land, then accepting the aforementioned 'right' of homosexual marriage as valid is actually going against the spirit of the law. Unfortunately, men and women with agendas are attempting to twist the letter of the law around to conquer the spirit of the law. If Prop 8 is overturned on the grounds of your second earlier point- that it violates the separation of powers- I can see a case being made for the strict Constitutionality of the proceeding. However, the fact that we've gotten to the point that the true exercise of the original Constitution protects immorality is startling and perhaps more unnerving than the former scenario.

Remember that Satan's plan was still couched in terms of spiritual salvation, sin and repentance, agency, etc.- even though his plan was directly opposed to the most fundamental aspects of those principles. Apparently, Satan's presentation of his plan was seductive enough to persuade 1/3 of the hosts of heaven- spiritual beings in the presence of God!- to follow him. The cunning lawyers and people of Ammonihah pretended to abide by the law, yet were planning to overthrow it in their hearts. (Alma 8:11-13, 17) Again, we see the wicked attempting to overthrow the spirit of the law- the law's foundation and true purpose- by means of the letter of the law. Wording is always imperfect, and a cunning person can twist any sentence around to make it seem to mean something other than what it is intended to say.

One more thing- the political process is not amoral- our entire system is based upon the Constitution and the processes set up by the founding fathers. If they were inspired of God in the creation of the former (and therefore, most likely the latter), how can the end result be amoral? There's a separation of church and state- not morality and state. The former is God-ordained; the latter is Satan-contrived.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Maxel

[LittleWyvern]

The argument that Prop 8 is a 'major revision' to the Constitution revolves around one's belief that homosexual marriage is an inalienable right given to homosexuals.

This is slightly inaccurate. The holding of the California supreme court in overturning Prop 22 was that marriage in general is a right given to people in general, and that we should not discriminate based on race, religion, social status, sexual orientation, or any factor other than age and other restrictions already passed into law (more specifically, restrictions must pass the strict scrutiny test).

We know this to be false and an immoral view. If the Constitution was inspired of God to protect the just and righteous of this land, then accepting the aforementioned 'right' of homosexual marriage as valid is actually going against the spirit of the law. Unfortunately, men and women with agendas are attempting to twist the letter of the law around to conquer the spirit of the law. If Prop 8 is overturned on the grounds of your second earlier point- that it violates the separation of powers- I can see a case being made for the strict Constitutionality of the proceeding. However, the fact that we've gotten to the point that the true exercise of the original Constitution protects immorality is startling and perhaps more unnerving than the former scenario.

The constitution does not judge classes based on the opinion of any certain religion (the 1st amendment restricts the government from respecting any religion or religions over another), it judges classes based on ability to be a contributing member of society. This was a key point in the overturning of Prop 22: that there was no reason to discriminate marriage based on sexual orientation as there was no proof that these couples could not be contributing members of society, and thereby such restrictions did not pass the strict scrutiny test. I realize that our religion feels that such couples are immoral, but not all religions do.

One more thing- the political process is not amoral- our entire system is based upon the Constitution and the processes set up by the founding fathers. If they were inspired of God in the creation of the former (and therefore, most likely the latter), how can the end result be amoral? There's a separation of church and state- not morality and state. The former is God-ordained; the latter is Satan-contrived.

I wasn't saying that the Constitution or the law was amoral (indeed, there are a lot of ideas in the Constitution that can be traced back to the moral economy movement in the 1600's), but that the process is amoral. The process cannot hold the morals of one person over those of another (again, 1st amendment), so it necessarily must not decide cases based on morals.

Edited March 8, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[Maxel]

This is slightly inaccurate. The holding of the California supreme court in overturning Prop 22 was that marriage in general is a right given to people in general, and that we should not discriminate based on race, religion, social status, sexual orientation, or any factor other than age and other restrictions already passed into law (more specifically, restrictions must pass the strict scrutiny test).

I cede that your wording is more complete than mine, and I appreciate you pointing to the Proposition 22 ruling. I still think how I said it more accurately reflects the real issue at hand here, but I agree it's not the best way to describe the situation.

The constitution does not judge classes based on the opinion of any certain religion (the 1st amendment restricts the government from respecting any religion or religions over another), it judges classes based on ability to be a contributing member of society.

Of course not. The issue here (should be) the morality of the issue; not the religious affiliation or doctrine of the attendant sides. Morals exist outside of organized religion. Frankly, a homosexual couple cannot contribute as much to society as a heterosexual couple. They cannot have children. The possibility is not there.

This was a key point in the overturning of Prop 22: that there was no reason to discriminate marriage based on sexual orientation as there was no proof that these couples could not be contributing members of society, and thereby such restrictions did not pass the strict scrutiny test. I realize that our religion feels that such couples are immoral, but not all religions do.

The recasting of the traditional family and parentage in 'progressive', gender-blind ideology does damage to the very foundation of society. Frankly, the judges were wrong in their ruling. That, or the wording of previous jurisprudence was insufficient to maintain the standards that ought to be maintained.

One could argue that that's 'just the way I see it', or 'that's just my religious views', and they would be right. The real question is: from what source do I draw my opinions and views? Do the reflect an absolute truth of God, or a relative truth of man? There's a reason this debate can't be solved through purely logical means: 'pure logic' is insufficient to understand the meaning of life and, therefore, the most correct way to live.

I wasn't saying that the Constitution or the law was amoral (indeed, there are a lot of ideas in the Constitution that can be traced back to the moral economy movement in the 1600's), but that the process is amoral. The process cannot hold the morals of one person over those of another (again, 1st amendment), so it necessarily must not decide cases based on morals.

Okay, I see what you meant. My apologies, and I agree that the political process should be not value various personal ideologies over one another.

However, I must stress that one should not use 'moral' equivocally: morals are not organized religion. Organized religion as the main vessel (besides the family) through which doctrine teaching morals is carried from generation to generation. The vehicle is not the passenger. The 1st amendment mentions nothing about values or morals: only organized religion. Because we believe in God and absolute truth, we have a framework from which to move forward and judge certain ideas and actions 'right' or 'wrong'. Indeed, without such a framework, the political process would come to a halt the moment any conflict of opinion is brought to the courts. The source of America's greatness is its Constitution, which we know to be inspired of God- therefore, it is based in fundamental moral principles.

I think we might have to agree to disagree on some of the points I brought up.

[Michael_Newman]

Frankly, a homosexual couple cannot contribute as much to society as a heterosexual couple. They cannot have children. The possibility is not there.

Unfortunately, Maxel, many female homosexual couples do want and do have children through sperm banks, especially with the new science available to them that was not available a generation ago.

We have men surgically becoming females, and females surgically becoming men. It will not surprise me to see that someday - before the Second Coming - that science will be able to implant into a male the ability to give birth.

All of this perverse experimentation with God's gift sickens me. And as more and more homosexual classes of people take advantage of immoral scientific crusades, we will probably see more constitutional challenges to accept their "species" as a protected group to have equal rights.

Although OctaMom (the young woman who gave birth to eight children last month through embryo implantation) is not a known lesbian, she is a self-proclaimed single woman who now has 14 children of her own choosing with no intentions of seeking a heterosexual relationship.

And although I agree that most homosexual couples cannot contribute as much in a heterosexual community, you may find there are, in fact, homosexual communities that contribute quite a bit to each other. The entertainment industry is one such community where homosexual relationships flourish.

A sad moment for many of us,

Michael

[LittleWyvern]

I think we might have to agree to disagree on some of the points I brought up.

Indeed. We have quite different views on "contribute", for starters.

One could argue that that's 'just the way I see it', or 'that's just my religious views', and they would be right. The real question is: from what source do I draw my opinions and views? Do the reflect an absolute truth of God, or a relative truth of man? There's a reason this debate can't be solved through purely logical means: 'pure logic' is insufficient to understand the meaning of life and, therefore, the most correct way to live.

I couldn't help but post this quote after I read that paragraph:

The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

[Maxel]

Michael_Newman:

I agree 110% with everything you said. I'm not going to write out a full reply though, as it would be the start of a tangent I don't really want to get into.

[Elphaba]

Jasmine,

Thank you so much for posting that! It is wonderful to hear of how people choose the morally correct course because of the influence our church.

You may not know it, but our church leaders generally have no official position on political measures unless they are inspired by God to warn the people in a public manner. In this case, it was definitely a warning. And for me - I am glad you were made aware of this important issue.

If ever you need help in any other area, please feel free to ask. (I was born and raised in Southern California before moving to the mountains, and became a member of this church when I was an adult).

My very best,

Michael

You need glasses.

Elphaba

[De_Wallen]

I hope not to offend anyone, but may I please ask why so many here believe that Homosexual marriage will bring an end to the country? My country has allowed this from 2001, and we are still quite in tact. Also several other countries allow this, even your neighbor Canada, and yet they are still lovely places. Even some of your own states already allow this I believe, such as Massachusetts yes?

Please, I do not wish to offend. I only ask because I have never heard this like of thinking before, and this issue is close to me.

[Maxel]

I hope not to offend anyone, but may I please ask why so many here believe that Homosexual marriage will bring an end to the country? My country has allowed this from 2001, and we are still quite in tact. Also several other countries allow this, even your neighbor Canada, and yet they are still lovely places. Even some of your own states already allow this I believe, such as Massachusetts yes?

Please, I do not wish to offend. I only ask because I have never heard this like of thinking before, and this issue is close to me.

It's not so much that the legalization of homosexual marriage will bring an 'end to the country', but that it is a step in the wrong direction. It is a symptom of the degeneration of civilized society, and we are commanded by Christ to halt the flow as much as we are able.