Invented Constitutional "Rights"

[Timpman]

I don't personally think they should be banned, but i don't think they should be the beginning and the end of the discussion. I think considering the whole context of american history explains why religion shouldn't be the only aspect of the discussion.

That's a good point. However, there may be some situations where we simply follow the prophet even though the pure secularists won't buy any of our logical arguments.

[Soulsearcher]

That's a good point. However, there may be some situations where we simply follow the prophet even though the pure secularists won't buy any of our logical arguments.

The thing being it's ok to follow the prophet but would you bow down to the pope ? Would you bow down to any other prophet of any other faith? Expecting those who don't share your faith to be ok with being confined by it will have much the same answer you'd have if you were forced to follow a decree by the pope outlawing temple marriage. The 11th article of faith to me covers this in some ways. Setting the precedent of ruling through religious moral majority should worry those who belong to any minority, even a religious minority, what happens if that morally superior eye turns on you and all of a sudden you're found wanting to their morals? this is when, to me, it's good to know there is something out side religion keeping an eye on the rule of law.

[Timpman]

The thing being it's ok to follow the prophet but would you bow down to the pope ? Would you bow down to any other prophet of any other faith? Expecting those who don't share your faith to be ok with being confined by it will have much the same answer you'd have if you were forced to follow a decree by the pope outlawing temple marriage.

I am talking about following the prophet like the members in California did (a family in my ward moved here to Utah from California after their kids were ridiculed and abused in school because their ward organized a door-to-door campaign in favor of Proposition 8). In that case, we joined the voices of many other people. I don't want to force my religion - I want to voice my opinion even if it's based on religious morals and hope that the majority of people agree.

It is very true that the majority should not seek to take rights away from others, and no rights were violated by passing Prop 8! People should be able to have anyone visit them in the hospital and/or have power of attorney. People can be with anyone they choose. But they should not force us to condone their relationships. Those who want to marry another of the same sex want what they have not had previously, therefore we are not taking anything away. We are also not withholding protections as long as stupid hospital rules and tax laws are fixed.

[Vort]

The thing being it's ok to follow the prophet but would you bow down to the pope ?

Does someone here bow down to the prophet?

[Soulsearcher]

I am talking about following the prophet like the members in California did (a family in my ward moved here to Utah from California after their kids were ridiculed and abused in school because their ward organized a door-to-door campaign in favor of Proposition 8). In that case, we joined the voices of many other people. I don't want to force my religion - I want to voice my opinion even if it's based on religious morals and hope that the majority of people agree.

It is very true that the majority should not seek to take rights away from others, and no rights were violated by passing Prop 8! People should be able to have anyone visit them in the hospital and/or have power of attorney. People can be with anyone they choose. But they should not force us to condone their relationships. Those who want to marry another of the same sex want what they have not had previously, therefore we are not taking anything away. We are also not withholding protections as long as stupid hospital rules and tax laws are fixed.

Actually Prop 8 did remove the right california same sex couples already had to marry their partners. this is one of the main reasons that judge walkers ruling was up held on appeal. Prop 8 took away what was already given under law.

Also as already said you have the right to religious opinion and even hoping most agree, but as also said at some point if we let religion be the guiding light those who don't conform to what the religious majority want are possibly at risk. That's why i say religion can and even should be considered when contemplating law, but it can not be the main or only factor, there must be a balance. also there were stories on both sides of prop 8, if you think there were no gay bullying incidents i'm sure i can pull up a few stories, neither side presented their best face during the whole mess. Also one point about joining many voices. more than a few christians said they really didn't care to be working with the mormons, but valued their money. If you're only as good as your money, what happens when they don't need your money any more? religion can be just as dividing as it can be a force for good, that's why balance needs to be applied.

[Soulsearcher]

Does someone here bow down to the prophet?

metaphorically speaking yes, LDS do. The vast number of mormons who say the prophet should never be questioned and will speak no wrong show that they bow to the prophets words and tend not to question or in some cases even think for them selves. I know blind obedience isn't exactly something that's required, as confirmation of the spirit should also be sought from time to time, but more than a few members seem to skip this and just blindly bow to the wishes of the prophet. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that it is as has been commented on many times on this forum.

[Vort]

Actually Prop 8 did remove the right california same sex couples already had to marry their partners.

This simply is not true. For over a hundred years, the law in California was perfectly well understood to mean that a man and a woman could marry -- not a man and another man or a woman and another woman. Only very recently has that bizarre interpretation been applied to the existing law. So to pretend that that's what the law meant is dishonest.

Proposition 8 was an attempt to clarify exactly what the law meant -- a clarification that was never necessary before, because everyone already assumed it. It violated no preexisting precept of the California constitution, and you cannot honestly argue that it did unless you seriously believe that its 19th-century authors had homosexual unions in mind.

Or perhaps you are speaking of a more modern, recent addition to the California constitution that directly addresses homosexual "marriage" and that Proposition 8 defied. If so, please enlighten me.

[Vort]

metaphorically speaking yes, LDS do.

No, we do not, metaphorically or otherwise.

[Soulsearcher]

This simply is not true. For over a hundred years, the law in California was perfectly well understood to mean that a man and a woman could marry -- not a man and another man or a woman and another woman. Only very recently has that bizarre interpretation been applied to the existing law. So to pretend that that's what the law meant is dishonest.

Proposition 8 was an attempt to clarify exactly what the law meant -- a clarification that was never necessary before, because everyone already assumed it. It violated no preexisting precept of the California constitution, and you cannot honestly argue that it did unless you seriously believe that its 19th-century authors had homosexual unions in mind.

Or perhaps you are speaking of a more modern, recent addition to the California constitution that directly addresses homosexual "marriage" and that Proposition 8 defied. If so, please enlighten me.

From wikipedia

On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22). The Court's ruling also established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect, making California the first state in the United States to set such a strict standard.[3] On June 4, 2008, the court denied the request for rehearing by the same 4-3 majority while unanimously denying a petition for a stay, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled.[4] The Writ of Mandate directing the State Registrar of Vital Statistics and all County Clerks to comply with the ruling was issued by the Superior Court on June 19, 2008.[5]

[Vort]

From wikipedia

This is judicial legislation in its purest and most unadulterated form. Any Californian, or for that matter any American, who cares about separation of powers should weep in shame reading that. I think you have established my point: The California constitution simply did not say anything that could call Proposition 8 into question.

[Timpman]

In a super majority of states, it would be giving them something they haven't had.

People had it for a short time in California before Prop 8 came along due to some wicked judges legislating from the bench. But I really should have said that in MOST states, same-sex marriage is not an option..

Edited April 21, 2012 by Timpman

[annewandering]

Does someone here bow down to the prophet?

I would be honored to anoint the feet of a prophet. Sometimes we downplay the role of the prophet to be more in keeping with the world but he is the representative of God here on earth. A prophet is just a man but he is a man that God has chosen to direct His people through.

In this day and age we do not bow down to anyone but the respect I feel for a prophet's calling would make me not feel wrong to honor him.

Why are we not 'allowed' to do this without mockery? Honoring is not the same as blind obedience. We know who we follow and we follow Him by loving and respecting those He choses.

[Just_A_Guy]

This is judicial legislation in its purest and most unadulterated form. Any Californian, or for that matter any American, who cares about separation of powers should weep in shame reading that. I think you have established my point: The California constitution simply did not say anything that could call Proposition 8 into question.

I've sort of got to agree with this. If my five-year-old sneaks a piece of cake off the table, and I catch her and insist she put it back, her screaming "HEY! THAT WAS MINE! isn't going to make much of an impression with me.

With all due respect, Soulsearcher, gay marriage opponents view the legal acknowledgement of some "right to marry" in the wake of the Prop 22 cases as, essentially, a privilege stolen by a judiciary that exceeded its authority. They have no problem with taking back what they would argue (forgive my bluntness) was never legitimately yours to begin with. To them, a gay-rights advocate's playing semantical games about "taking away" rights and presenting gay marriage as some kind of pre-existing, time-honored, hallowed natural right is just going to seem dishonest.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Timpman]

I'll post a summary of my position and then go live a life:

1. Same-sex marriage is NOT a right, just as healthcare and broadband internet are not rights. No protections are being withheld by opposing same-sex marriage. Saying otherwise is twisting the Constitution into something it is not.

2. Arguments based on religious morals should CONTINUE to be admissible when considering laws of the land.

3. I would have followed Adam, Noah, Moses, John the Baptist, Peter, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Spencer W. Kimball and I will follow President Monson and any future prophets without fear of being lead astray. That is not a sign of, nor will it cause, lower intellect. If a referendum similar to Prop 8 comes up in Utah or the whole country and we are counseled to support it, I surely will.

[Soulsearcher]

I've sort of got to agree with this. If my five-year-old sneaks a piece of cake off the table, and I catch her and insist she put it back, her screaming "HEY! THAT WAS MINE! isn't going to make much of an impression with me.

With all due respect, Soulsearcher, gay marriage opponents view the legal acknowledgement of some "right to marry" in the wake of the Prop 22 cases as, essentially, a privilege stolen by a judiciary that exceeded its authority. They have no problem with taking back what they would argue (forgive my bluntness) was never legitimately yours to begin with. To them, a gay-rights advocate's playing semantical games about "taking away" rights and presenting gay marriage as some kind of pre-existing, time-honored, hallowed natural right is just going to seem dishonest.

the only issue i have with the cake analogy is it wasn't the 5 year old who took it, mom gave it to her and dad takes it away.

From what i understand from earlier in the conversation, the main rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 3 rights which seem quite broad, but are somewhat defined in other places. Now from what i've read, until the supreme court ruled in the 1900 hundreds on cases involving marriage, marriage wasn't considered a right directly granted. It was kind of taken for granted. To this day some people still say there really no right to marriage or so i've heard arguments for(usually for the opponents of gay marriage). Again I'm working with a limited understanding of the american constitution never mind different constitutions from state to state. I get the arguments that say just because it's not prohibited doesn't make it a right, and i do agree to that logic as mixed with common sense. i also do get the earlier comments commenting on the difference between rights and privileges. That being said if people are given freedoms not specifically set out or prohibited then honestly i'm not sure what the major issue is here. i've never said there is an inherent right to marry, just that i'm not sure i've seen anything that blocks it? I'm not sure why judges might be praised if they blocked gay marriage for upholding the constitution, but are tarred and feathered for standing by how they read such a document. It was my understanding that the high court of america were supposed to be used to help settle disputes over questions of the constitution, but all i ever seem to see is that everybody thinks they have no reason or "right" to do so, so i must admit i'm a little confused as to why these issues ever go to the courts if it's not their job to make the tough choices. Is it legitimate that they are over stepping their authority and really shouldn't be doing things or is it that people don't like the results. If the results were different would the same people be upset at the outcome or would they praise it? serious questions because sometimes i do get confused on the american system.

[annewandering]

if it is played as constitutional then it actually should be something against the constitution.

[Timpman]

Darn it, I forget to write something that wanted to include:

4. When a significant change is to be made in society, the onus is on those seeking the change to make a case for it. Same-sex marriage proponents have not made a sufficient case for making the rest of society acknowledge such unions. Opponents of same-sex marriage do not have to justify the status quo until a better case is made.

[Just_A_Guy]

the only issue i have with the cake analogy is it wasn't the 5 year old who took it, mom gave it to her and dad takes it away.

Well, it might be more apropos to say that the child asked Mom, Mom said "no", the child spent the next few decades cajoling Dad (or, better yet, the child took an active role in arranging for the introduction of a new father figure more amenable to the child's demands), Dad finally broke down and said "yes" , Mom walked back in and said "what the flip are you doing? You know what the rule has always been!" and restored the status quo, and then the child cried foul.

It was my understanding that the high court of america were supposed to be used to help settle disputes over questions of the constitution, but all i ever seem to see is that everybody thinks they have no reason or "right" to do so, so i must admit i'm a little confused as to why these issues ever go to the courts if it's not their job to make the tough choices. Is it legitimate that they are over stepping their authority and really shouldn't be doing things or is it that people don't like the results. If the results were different would the same people be upset at the outcome or would they praise it? serious questions because sometimes i do get confused on the american system.

If prop 22 were struck down according to long-established state constitutional canons, that would be one thing. But it strikes me as entirely another thing to establish new constitutional interpretations merely for the purpose of striking down a statute that a court happens to disagree with for primarily political reasons.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Alright, so I've been reading this thread for the past few days, and I wasn't going to jump in, but I have a couple questions for you all. To me, the gay marriage debate comes down to this:

First, are you for or against gay couples having the exact same rights/freedoms/benefits that married couples currently have?

And then, are you for or against having that union be defined as marriage by the government?

From what I'm seeing, the discussion in this thread generally disagrees on the second point rather than the first, but I'm finding it difficult to tell. Maybe it's obvious and I missed it, but I think clarifying that might help a bit.

As for my personal opinion, while I'm here, I believe they should have the same rights and benefits, but I don't think that it needs to be considered marriage. But I also don't believe that heterosexual couples need their union to be recognized as marriage by the government either. I just don't see why the government needs to be involved. The only possible benefit of that would be trying to send a stronger message about what marriage is and isn't. But in my opinion, it's not worth it - there are better ways to do that.

[Jamie123]

In this day and age we do not bow down to anyone...

Actually that's not quite true; I can think of at least two examples of bowing in the modern world: (i) In graduation ceremonies, graduates are expected to bow (or curtsy) to the chancellor of the university when receiving a degree. (ii) In karate school (and presumably in other martial arts schools also) students are taught to bow to their opponent, to their sensei and (in tournaments) to the referee. Of course, these are both throwbacks to the traditions of earlier and more gracious ages, so you're quite right - literal "bowing and scraping" isn't commonplace in today's world.