8: Mormon Proposition

[bytor2112]

I though the documentary was well made. I'm pleased to see it among the top dvd sellers of it's genre. I was baptized in the church in the summer of 2008. Soon after Prop 8 passed in California, I became angry with the church leaders becoming involved with the political issue. The thought the video showed the manipulation of what the church leaders wanted it's church members to vote on. Yes, the dvd indicates that the lds church was not the only organization involved. I was outraged that California became the first state to take away "rights" to what was granted to it's citizens. Fortunately, I live in a state that still allows same sex marriage. I have the right to marry my partner if when I choose. The lds church says same-sex marriage disrupts God's plan for marriage and the afterlife. I do not agree with that stance. I KNOW there will never be a same sex marriage conducted in any temple. How does a "mortal only" marriage disrupt God's plan? The (till death do us part) portion of the ceremony goes in effect when a partner passes away. In the afterlife, the couple would not be married. Let the partners find the happiness they want during their mortal probationary time on Earth. I'm ashamed to be affiliated with a church that spent millions of dollars to deny some people their "free will" in choosing how and what they do to bring happiness in their lives. Because of all this, I feel the church is only "man-inspired" and therefore no-longer attend services. I'm thankful there are five different churches in my community that does not see same-sex marriage as a problem.

Yes "False Christ's" abound and there will always be institutions that offer you "salvation" and the opportunity to enjoy your favorite sin. Good luck with that.

[Spencer]

Just one last question then I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.

So you agree that it is ok to take rights away from citizens in order to better fit the views of a church?

[FunkyTown]

Just one last question then I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.

So you agree that it is ok to take rights away from citizens in order to better fit the views of a church?

You haven't established that marriage is a 'right', yet. You've simply stated it.

I have, in my own posts, explained why marriage is not a right.

If you're arguing that marriage is right as a moral imperative, you have to explain why it's morally imperative that marriage be allowed to be between both a man and a man as well as a man and a woman.

[Wingnut]

Just one last question then I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.

So you agree that it is ok to take rights away from citizens in order to better fit the views of a church?

Please demonstrate how the right to marry someone of the same sex is being taken away.

[Spencer]

California legalized same-sex marriage on June 16, 2008, (Right given) but on November 4, 2008, voters passed a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex. (Right taken away)

[FunkyTown]

California legalized same-sex marriage on June 16, 2008, (Right given) but on November 4, 2008, voters passed a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex. (Right taken away)

Law taken away. If same-sex marriage were defined as a right by the Constitution, then the proposition would have taken a right away.

As it was, it rescinded a law.

You still haven't proven that marriage is a right.

[Wingnut]

California legalized same-sex marriage on June 16, 2008, (Right given) but on November 4, 2008, voters passed a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex. (Right taken away)

Was same-sex marriage voted in in the first place in California, or was it legislated? If it was legislated without giving the people a chance to vote on it, then it should have been repealed, because it was instituted incorrectly to begin with.

[MarginOfError]

You never answered the question as to if you had watched the film or not? My point was not that it was given as tithing, but it is very possible that it was collected by the same means. Tithing is what your'e required but there are other boxes on the tithing sheets that request extra money for missionary work, etc.

I cannot prove to you that all the money was donated through this vessel, just as you cannot prove to me it wasn't. But it would be silly not to logically deduce that a vast majority was donated through these means as it is how members are used to giving money.

This is something you'd have to take up with the IRS. The Church reports on all of its donations received, including the category to which it was donated. Detailed and meticulous records are kept to this extent. If the Church had been collecting money to contribute directly to the Yes on 8 groups, it would have been discovered by now.

What the Church did was encourage members to donate to the Yes on 8 groups as individuals. The fact that members did so is validated by the fact that No on 8 groups used the donor lists to harass and threaten the people on those lists.

Also, if you're going to claim that the Church gave more money than what has been reported, you better show your evidence to the California commission that conducted the investigation.

I understand your point of view and what you're trying to accomplish. But the way you approach it makes you look vindictive and childish. Innuendo and unsubstantiated claims are lousy contributions to the political process.

[MarginOfError]

California legalized same-sex marriage on June 16, 2008, (Right given) but on November 4, 2008, voters passed a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex. (Right taken away)

This actually contradicts your claim, as others have pointed out.

What's more, the courts thus far have asserted that it is the right of the people to define what groups may or may not have the option of marrying.

[Spencer]

Are you asserting that marriage of heterosexuals is not a right?

[MarginOfError]

Are you asserting that marriage of heterosexuals is not a right?

It isn't in California.

But now you're playing at sophistry because you can't directly address anything that has already been presented to you. This would be one reason Soulsearcher is a much better representative to your cause than you are.

[Spencer]

Man and woman cannot marry in California?

[FunkyTown]

Are you asserting that marriage of heterosexuals is not a right?

Nope. In my opinion, the government should just step out of the marriage business entirely to keep arguments like this in the scrap heap, where they belong.

Marriage does bestow rights and privileges upon those who enter in to the partnership, but it is not a right by itself. Those rights and privileges are being offered to be granted via another venue.

[Spencer]

It isn't in California.

But now you're playing at sophistry because you can't directly address anything that has already been presented to you. This would be one reason Soulsearcher is a much better representative to your cause than you are.

I'm not the only one who has avoided questions in this thread.

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples

[MarginOfError]

Man and woman cannot marry in California?

Whether or not a man and woman can marry in California has nothing to do with whether or not it is a right. It is legal for a man and woman to marry in California, as defined by California's constitution.

If you wanted, you could put up a proposition that limited the definition of marriage such that no man could marry a woman. If you were able to get it through a popular vote, it would no longer be legal for a man and a woman to marry. As I said before, the people of California have the right to define who may and may not marry any way they please.

[MarginOfError]

I'm not the only one who has avoided questions in this thread.

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples

What's to be avoided? Proposition 8 changed the definition in a manner that rendered that ruling obsolete (for lack of a legal term), and so far, the new definition has been upheld. That is to say, the current definition of marriage in California has so far not been ruled to violate the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.

[Spencer]

So lets not call it a right, tho I believe it should be, marriage is not in the constitution period. Thus move on.

You believe you should have more, benefits we will call them, then that of someone of a different sexual orientation.

[FunkyTown]

So lets not call it a right, tho I believe it should be, marriage is not in the constitution period. Thus move on.

You believe you should have more, benefits we will call them, then that of someone of a different sexual orientation.

Absolutely not. And the benefits are being offered under a separate name. All the same benefits, different name.

[bytor2112]

So lets not call it a right, tho I believe it should be, marriage is not in the constitution period. Thus move on.

You believe you should have more, benefits we will call them, then that of someone of a different sexual orientation.

You mean than some one with a different sexual proclivity? I am fairly certain that there are only two sexes...male and female..... unless homosexuals have now been designated as a new species....or as some newly discovered gender.

In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.- President Gordon B Hinckley AKA: Prophet

Edited August 3, 2010 by bytor2112

[GaySaint]

I think it is important to have the facts before we discuss legal, secular, issues. Obviously in regards to the LDS viewpoint, Bytor is right.

But if we are discussing whether marriage for same-sex couples is or was a RIGHT in CALIFORNIA, then we need to know what the court rulings all said.

This link is to the original May 2008 ruling of the California Supreme Court, which defines marriage as a right for same sex couples in the state of California:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s147999.pdf

So in regards to prop 8, yes, it did strip away the right to marriage [in California] as defined by the ruling.

However, FEDERAL marriage rights are only guaranteed to suspect classes, of which sexual orientation is not at this point (although the federal DOMA case has brought this under higher scrutiny).

Perhaps Just-A-Guy could clarify further, particularly if I'm wrong...

[Soulsearcher]

I'm going to respectfully disagree and say i do not think the documentary is anti mormon. It truthfully presents the church's view on a subject. The issue becomes what facts are provable and which aren't. While the thread has turned into another pro/anti gay marriage thread, it started about a film. I'm not saying everyone watching will appreciate the film, but that being said i think everyone will get something out of it. LDS might not like some things said, some might be spun and some might be dead on, but if you really support the prophet then you won't argue with anything said in here that might seem seedy on the part of the church. I found it might not be happy with the church, but i couldn't really find any glaring lies and yes i was looking. The way they presented the actual beliefs of the church was close, but i found it a lil off, just some minor things. Yes it's not all lovey about the church, but i didn't find any lies myself. As i said earlier, it's listening to the people near the end of the film. The testimonies of people affected by all this, not just prop 8 but some of the conflicting stances of the members of the church on how to treat gays. Watch it for the sake of the last 20-30 min and i think you will find it worth it. You can pretty much ignore up to that point if you want, but i do think everyone needs to hear the people as they talk.

[Just_A_Guy]

So in regards to prop 8, yes, it did strip away the right to marriage [in California] as defined by the ruling.

However, FEDERAL marriage rights are only guaranteed to suspect classes, of which sexual orientation is not at this point (although the federal DOMA case has brought this under higher scrutiny).

Perhaps Just-A-Guy could clarify further, particularly if I'm wrong...

It's been a while since I looked at the case law on this, but the 2008 ruling was based on the state constitution and not the federal one. Once the determinative part of the state constitution has been changed (as it was under Prop 8), any rulings based on the old language lose their application.

The bit about "taking rights away" is, IMHO, semantics--Prop 8 supporters could (and, I think, did) rightly reply that it was about a state court "taking away" the people's right to define the state-sponsored institution of marriage. (I think that's already come up in this thread, actually.)

I'm not sure anyone has a "right" to marriage at all, from a federal standpoint. What members of certain classes have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, is a right to be free from discrimination based solely on their membership in that class. Virginia doesn't necessarily have to offer its citizens an institution called "marriage", but if it elects to do so it cannot do so in such a way as to discriminate against members of particular classes (race, gender, religion, age . . .)--it can't attach rules for marriage that are designed to maintain racial purity, or whatever the statute in Loving was about. But state practices discriminating against gays don't get the same level of review--they get (IIRC) "intermediate scrutiny" rather than the "strict scrutiny" that other class-based discrimination gets. (I'm grossly over-simplifying; see Wikipedia's write-up here.)

I could be off, but I think DOMA cases had nothing to do with equal protection. I believe it was decided under 10th Amendment/federalism concerns--the idea that defining marriage is a state's prerogative, and the federal government is bound to honor whatever institution the state has established.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

I cannot prove to you that all the money was donated through this vessel, just as you cannot prove to me it wasn't. But it would be silly not to logically deduce that a vast majority was donated through these means as it is how members are used to giving money.

Ah, yes. The kernel for conspiracy theories everywhere.

[GaySaint]

Thank you JAG. I think we are on the same page. I knew that the California court ruling dealt with California only, and not any federal entity. That was the point I was trying to get across – that just because marriage is a right in California doesn’t necessarily mean it is a federal right. I also understand that while the opinion of the court hasn’t changed (that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in California), the constitution has simply changed to allow the state to discriminate, or remove that fundamental right (but maybe we are saying the same thing with different words).

And you are right about DOMA as well, that the decision threw out the equal protection section of the lawsuit (or at least it was never considered because the decision was and could have been made without it).

Not to derail the thread, and I won’t continue on this tangent again, but I am curious about your opinion of Perez v. Lippold (which was quoted a lot in the California ruling I posted).

“The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, ‘We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man’ (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.)…

“…Since the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice, a statute that prohibits an individual from marrying a member of a race other than his own restricts the scope of his choice and thereby restricts his right to marry. It must therefore be determined whether the state can restrict that right on the basis of race alone without violating the equal protection of the laws clause of the United States Constitution."

http://faculty.law.miami.edu/zfenton/documents/Perez.pdf

Doesn’t this ruling define marriage as a civil right (marriage itself, not just the benefits) federally? And if so, how can someone argue that gays AREN’T being discriminated against in this regard (although I will be the first to admit that such discrimination is legal)?

It seems to me the position of “Yes, gays are discriminated against in this regard because marriage is a fundamental right, but such discrimination is legal and constitutional” would be a more honest position to take. Instead, it seems people want to claim marriage can be denied to anyone society says because marriage isn’t a right – but that position seems dishonest to me. What are your views based on your life, as well as legal, experience?

[GaySaint]

... I thought it was pretty proven that 60-75% of the funds donated to Yes on 8 came from members of the church.

Isn't the proof in the film? If not I might have to find those stats...

Although, for the record, I don't really have much of a problem with all the money being donated from members of the church. I think the church, itself, could have handled the whole situation more tactfully (and the church lobbyist who I talk to quite often agrees with me), but I think the gay community could have handled the backlash more tactfully as well.