Roe V Wade of Marriage

[omega0401]

Here is an article about Prop 8 and what may happen.

Roe v Wade of Marriage

Now I am really interested in knowing which way the 9th circuit court of appeals are going to rule.

No matter which way they rule, this is going to the US Supreme Court. What are the possibilities that they will not review this case? What will happen then? But I think they will take this case. Too much depends on it.

Now that Kagen is one of them, how will she decide?

[Hemidakota]

Kagen? What a farce. This is why we need term limits for the Supreme Court judges and not for life.

[GaySaint]

I'm actually a little surprised that the strategy of the anti-gay-marriage crowd is to appeal. Currently, from what I understand, this ruling only applies to California. If it is appealed, it will apply to the ninth district, and if appealed then, will apply to the nation.

If Judge Walker's ruling is upheld even by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, gay marriage will come to quite a few states - and if it is upheld by the Supreme court, to the nation.

I'm surprised that the protect marriage crowd is willing to risk losing the entire nation over a decision that only now impacts one state.

Law guys: can you clarify this for me? Is my understanding wrong?

[Soulsearcher]

I'm actually a little surprised that the strategy of the anti-gay-marriage crowd is to appeal. Currently, from what I understand, this ruling only applies to California. If it is appealed, it will apply to the ninth district, and if appealed then, will apply to the nation.

If Judge Walker's ruling is upheld even by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, gay marriage will come to quite a few states - and if it is upheld by the Supreme court, to the nation.

I'm surprised that the protect marriage crowd is willing to risk losing the entire nation over a decision that only now impacts one state.

Law guys: can you clarify this for me? Is my understanding wrong?

I think the concern might be the precedent set. It could be used as the platform to try and over turn similar laws in other states, as long as the win stands it gives the same sex marriage advocates a legal foot hold.

[Hemidakota]

Exactly! This is why the church took it stance in California, along with other major players.

[Soulsearcher]

That being said Hemi, Saint is right. The coalition of churches started prop 8 and brought a fight that didn't exist outside anything more than hypothetical into a political measure. The coalition of churches were the only ones defending the ban in the court and now due to all of their actions they may very well have made this a national issue that leads to exactly what they didn't want. If they had stayed out of it, it might have been seen as tolerating evil, which i know isn't ideal, but now they might have just put the other side in the winning position.

[Dravin]

Honestly I don't think, baring the Second Coming, it is possible for the Church to eventually be anywhere but in the loosing position. I know you are suggesting they've accelerated the timeline by their actions, but it's possible they decided they were going to fight the fight and went for it, knowing that the end result would be having simply established their position clearly and strongly on the subject matter. Putting their money where their mouth is so to speak.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Dravin

[Hemidakota]

Appeal filed over gay-marriage ruling in California | Mormon Times

[Just_A_Guy]

First off, just another random prediction: If the 9th Circuit overrules the district court here, I doubt SCOTUS will want to hear the case. The liberal wing won't want to entertain it until they're sure they've got the votes to make it come out their way, and the conservative wing won't want to tick everyone off.

GaySaint: It's only binding precedent in California, but it's persuasive precedent nationwide and will encourage similar fights in other jurisdictions. Even if you wind up with other districts/circuits upholding anti-gay-marriage legislation, that only leads to what's called a "circuit split". In the long run that puts even more pressure on SCOTUS to decide the issue.

Moreover, the rational-basis footing that the judge used really is (IMHO) a pretty egregious abuse of equal-protection law. I've said this elsewhere; I'll say it again here: federal courts almost never overrule state laws under rational-basis-level scrutiny. Between the whispering campaign that this judge is himself gay, the judge's last-minute rule changing in an attempt to get this hearing televised (which was smacked down on appeal), and his tenuous reasoning here: I don't think the Prop 8 supporters are going to lose. Maybe five or ten years from now, in another case; but not here.

(The due-process claim might get a little more mileage, but I think it's dubious.)

SoulSearcher: Even if we "lose", Mormonism may actually "win". Much as the Amish are given a break from social security taxes because they went "on the record" with their beliefs long ago, the Church's having gone "on the record" regarding gay marriage may provide it a life-saving loophole a generation or two from now when your ideological descendants are trying to use the federal government to crush--legally, professionally, and personally--anyone who continues to assert (in any forum) the "sinfulness" of gay sex.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

GaySaint, you might also want to look at this comment to another blog post. Frankly, I find it unconvincing. To me, this whole "explicit/implicit" dichotomy amounts to verbal sleight of hand--once a court has declared that the Constitution contains a right, it really doesn't matter what the Constitution says anymore--the opinions finding such a right, as binding precedent, will be given at least as much weight as the text of the document itself if they give the court an excuse to make the findings it wants to make.

You may find it more persuasive, though.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[GaySaint]

JAG: I think the only part of that comment I agree with is the part about how gay marriage won't impact religious freedoms. It is my opinion that if/when gay marriage is legalized and gays are equal on a secular footing, that will pretty much be the end of it. I really have no idea what religious freedoms will be stripped from someone if gay marriage were legalized (so yes, I also think putting gay marriage and religious freedoms on the same footing - as in one cannot exist unless the other does not - is a mistake).

That isn't to say that there aren't some crazy activists out there who are going to try to push buttons, but the majority of gay people just want to be able to protect their own families, and have no desire to change anyone's opinions of the "sinfulness" of homosexuality, or interfere with any religious principle or practice. As for the crazy activists? You can bet I'd testify on behalf of, and be highly involved with, the church if they ever tried to do anything stupid :).

[Wingnut]

Now that Kagen is one of them, how will she decide?

Why would Kagan have anything to do with it?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Wingnut

[Moksha]

I wish the Church could exticate itself from this issue. We need not come off the perpetual heavies when it comes to gays. We are not haters.

As far as that Elena Kagan cartoon above, would it change the humor drastically if the name Dew was substituted?

[bytor2112]

I am sure many thought that Noah and Enoch were perpetual heavies......

[RanMan]

That isn't to say that there aren't some crazy activists out there who are going to try to push buttons, but the majority of gay people just want to be able to protect their own families, and have no desire to change anyone's opinions of the "sinfulness" of homosexuality, or interfere with any religious principle or practice. As for the crazy activists? You can bet I'd testify on behalf of, and be highly involved with, the church if they ever tried to do anything stupid :).

Excuse me for saying so, but isn't that the purpose of your participation here, to bring to light your situation and change the view by the religious community? Isn't that pretty much what all of the gay participants of these forums are doing - trying to enlighten other people to the humaness of the gay position?

Not that I am trying to discourage any attempt at everyone getting along with one another, I just don't think this particular statement is accurate.

:)

[omega0401]

JAG: I think the only part of that comment I agree with is the part about how gay marriage won't impact religious freedoms. It is my opinion that if/when gay marriage is legalized and gays are equal on a secular footing, that will pretty much be the end of it....

I'm not so sure. I think many religions are concerned that if Prop 8 fails and homosexuals are allowed to marry the next step could very possibly be that homosexuals will fight for the right to marry in their own churches. Then civil rights will clash with religious rights. I don't know what the precedence has been in the past with those types of cases but I would hope religious right would prevail. But the way things are going, you never know.

[Moksha]

I think many religions are concerned that if Prop 8 fails and homosexuals are allowed to marry the next step could very possibly be that homosexuals will fight for the right to marry in their own churches. Then civil rights will clash with religious rights.

Not to worry, the constitutional protection of the separation of Church and State will protect religious practices, just as the equal protection clause in the constitution has just protected the rights of gays from discrimination.

[Just_A_Guy]

Not to worry, the constitutional protection of the separation of Church and State will protect religious practices, just as the equal protection clause in the constitution has just protected the rights of gays from discrimination.

Spoken like someone who either is ignorant of religious freedom's past and present limitations in this country, or is hoping that his audience is.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

Spoken like someone who either is ignorant of religious freedom's past and present limitations in this country, or is hoping that his audience is.

You are right about the first case being an abridgment of the Mormon Practice of polygamy. I suspect the young American nation was not ready to embrace this principle due to their being part of Western Civilization, their sense of morality and resulting the laws which existed prohibiting bigamy, polygamy and cavorting.

Your present case was flawed because it involved discrimination based of claimed religious values of the defendant, rather than any religious ceremony and practice of a specific religion. This was active discrimination against a customer through his business.

Consider how the Native Americans traditional use of peyote in their religious ceremonies has been upheld, despite the extraordinary desire to apply banning this substance by law enforcement.

Can you think of any relevant case that would in the slightest way be indicative of telling Temple officials of who they must be forced to marry?

[Just_A_Guy]

Your present case was flawed because it involved discrimination based of claimed religious values of the defendant, rather than any religious ceremony and practice of a specific religion. This was active discrimination against a customer through his business.

Then you should have clarified your statement by saying "religious practices by duly recognized religious entities", while acknowledging my point that there is an active movement afoot to define away an individual's right to actually practice their religion once they've walked out of the chapel doors.

Consider how the Native Americans traditional use of peyote in their religious ceremonies has been upheld, despite the extraordinary desire to apply banning this substance by law enforcement.

Bingo. No court has acknowledged a First Amendment right for Native Americans to smoke peyote. It remains legal for Indian use because there was a groundswell of public support for the practice, which led to Congress passing an amended statute preserving the Indians' rights.

Gay-rights supporters are trying to make Mormonism the KKK of gay rights. When they've succeeded, twenty or thirty years down the line--do you see a groundswell of support for Mormonism if and when government turns its sights against us? Or do you see more carping and moaning about how Mormon "closed-mindedness" leads to suicide and emotional trauma, making the religion a social menace and its adherents unstable and unfit parents? Be honest here.

And, there's one more thing to bear in mind--especially where LDS opponents of Prop 8 are concerned. When you troll through the "bloggernacle"--the edgier sites, as well as those like By Common Consent that purport to be more mainstream--you come to realize that many of these people don't think gay sex is sinful. Some of those at the forefront of the fight--Andrew Callahan, for example--are also essentially pushing to have temple ordinances opened up to the public for the amusement of non-Mormon spectators. Others express their views that even non-celibate gays should be eligible for all of the ordinances of the gospel, up through and including sealings. Like latter-day Godbeites, they do want the Church to change--and more than a few of them are quite willing to bring federal pressure to bear to make that happen.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

Gay-rights supporters are trying to make Mormonism the KKK of gay rights. When they've succeeded, twenty or thirty years down the line--do you see a groundswell of support for Mormonism if and when government turns its sights against us? Or do you see more carping and moaning about how Mormon "closed-mindedness" leads to suicide and emotional trauma, making the religion a social menace and its adherents unstable and unfit parents? Be honest here.

Good question. We are currently experiencing negative publicity for our leading this anti-gay marriage crusade. If we persist, your scenario of it being worse in twenty or thirty years is probably dead on accurate. Decades past 1978, we are still seeing condemnation for us being perceived as on the opposing side of the civil rights issue for so long. I think such negative perceptions will hamper our reaching out to lend the Gospel message to the world.

It is not our place to pick up the hammer of Jerry Falwell when there is so much good to be done in the world.

[Soulsearcher]

Good question. We are currently experiencing negative publicity for our leading this anti-gay marriage crusade. If we persist, your scenario of it being worse in twenty or thirty years is probably dead on accurate. Decades past 1978, we are still seeing condemnation for us being perceived as on the opposing side of the civil rights issue for so long. I think such negative perceptions will hamper our reaching out to lend the Gospel message to the world.

It is not our place to pick up the hammer of Jerry Falwell when there is so much good to be done in the world.

Problem is at one point there were people who were just as concerned about any church being forced to go through the fights that seem to be the point of this concern. One of the best sources the church has to help overcome the fall out of what happened before 1978 is the very strong and supportive testimonies of the black people with in the church, and the defenses they have given before and since. After the way the church went about prop 8, a great deal of the support they might have got from the other side vanished. They might not have wanted the support of a bunch of gay's, but having the support could have been a political asset if it was needed, now that door is closing very quickly. People who might have been indifferent or very against taking anything away from churches are now leaning the other way, not all but some and that number will probably only grow depending on how much keeps getting blown out of proportion. Might sound silly, but if you paint an entire culture one way, some day the views and understanding of that culture can change, and sometimes their support can make a lot of difference.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[Just_A_Guy]

GDecades past 1978, we are still seeing condemnation for us being perceived as on the opposing side of the civil rights issue for so long.

Once again, you prove me right.

The Church wasn't officially on any side of the civil rights issue. But it did have the temerity to maintain a politically incorrect doctrine. That was enough.

[Just_A_Guy]

Problem is at one point there were people who were just as concerned about any church being forced to go through the fights that seem to be the point of this concern. One of the best sources the church has to help overcome the fall out of what happened before 1978 is the very strong and supportive testimonies of the black people with in the church, and the defenses they have given before and since. After the way the church went about prop 8, a great deal of the support they might have got from the other side vanished. They might not have wanted the support of a bunch of gay's, but having the support could have been a political asset if it was needed, now that door is closing very quickly. People who might have been indifferent or very against taking anything away from churches are now leaning the other way, not all but some and that number will probably only grow depending on how much keeps getting blown out of proportion. Might sound silly, but if you paint an entire culture one way, some day the views and understanding of that culture can change, and sometimes their support can make a lot of difference.

Pardon me for saying so, Soulsearcher, but this sounds an awful lot like "submit yourselves to our rule, and maybe we'll be nice." I agree that much of the rhetoric coming out of the Prop 8 side was counterproductive, but your protestations that gay-rights activists yet-unborn would have been merciful had we just played nicely, doesn't resonate with me.

Moksha has just shown why, regardless of the actual political position the Church takes, it will never see gays springing to its aid in any palpable manner. There may be individual gays such as yourself (and GaySaint, whom I find to be eminently reasonable) who would be willing to cut such a deal, but I doubt that will be the case for long. That's the trouble with liberalism's inexorable march leftwards--today's moonbats are tomorrow's mainstream progressives.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

Pardon me for saying so, Soulsearcher, but this sounds an awful lot like "submit yourselves to our rule, and maybe we'll be nice." I agree that much of the rhetoric coming out of the Prop 8 side was counterproductive, but your protestations that gay-rights activists yet-unborn would have been merciful had we just played nicely, doesn't resonate with me.

Moksha has just shown why, regardless of the actual political position the Church takes, it will never see gays springing to its aid in any palpable manner. There may be individual gays such as yourself (and GaySaint, whom I find to be eminently reasonable) who would be willing to cut such a deal, but I doubt that will be the case for long. That's the trouble with liberalism's inexorable march leftwards--today's moonbats are tomorrow's mainstream progressives.

The question to ask is why it won't be the case for long? What is it that might change peoples stance so dramatically to all of a sudden go from a neutral or supportive stance to the other side? Unborn gay right activists are taught. Just like unborn mormons are taught. How we interact with people and groups isn't in born, it comes from the things our cultures teach. Yes there are fringe groups in both christianity and the more liberal activists, but if we don't feed them or give them rallying points, then it's possible for the moderates to try and teach a more moderate view with out being out shouted by the fringe. If the large base of a group teaches the next generations to respect religion and see the separation then it might not guarantee something, but it's a start. If a said is taught that no matter what they are never going to be anything but a group that's expected to do something, then why should they do different, it's what they are expected to do and no one will have any faith they might be different.

As for taking it as "submit or else" It's nothing of the sort, it's more stop throwing stones and when you need help we might not throw stones back. A lot of the fear tactics used in the campaign were just that. if it had been a battle of fact with no fear used on either side then i think moderates on both sides would have not gotten as involved and there might not be the ripple effect that will come on both sides in the future.

We both have to realize we don't trust the other side. You said my opinion doesn't resonate with you. I feel the same. Neither side trusts the other because neither side have ever been straightforward and completely upfront. We've both used arguments that do nothing but damage the credibility of the other side. This has been going on since long before prop 8, but that was the most public showing. A large part of what made prop 8 worse i think is who we made the choice to stand beside. The moderate quite side of the gay element stood beside the stereo types, the loudest most arrogant people who lost site of what this was all about a long time ago. The LDS stood beside people who didn't have moral objections, but truly hate gays, who were there just out of hate and fear. It didn't help either side but we are associated with the worst elements and from that point we can't shake the stigma.

I'm not one to go out and campaign, I'd vote on the issue but i wouldn't go all out and make it a crusade. I speak what i believe and i do try to be respectful, i can get heated about it just like anyone can get when it's a very personal topic. That being said even before i became as vocal as i am now, some people here linked me to the fringe just because of the orientation, not because of who i am. I've tried to show I'm not one of the lunatics, lol but that might not work so well all the time. There are some lds who hear gay and all think instantly liberal fanatic with out even knowing who we are, because of the public battles. There are also those liberals who see Christians standing next to people shouting death to gays and never being unable to unlink that image in their minds. Both sides are going to teach the next generation, shouldn't both sides maybe strive just a lil higher in what we teach them about how to treat people period?

Edited August 8, 2010 by Soulsearcher