DOMA & Prop 8 is DEAD

[carlimac]

I must confess myself a little curious as to what you did mean, then. Which post in this thread, or on this forum, led you to conclude that it was necessary to remind us all of the importance of respecting the rule of law and legal process? Would you have made that same post had the Court made opposite rulings today?

I mean, did you really think that someone here was fomenting treason? Or were you just hoping to deter criticisms of the Court's decisions right out of the gate, under the guise of respecting authority?

This was my first thought, too. All over the internet we're hearing the nya, nya, tough beans for you reaction from the pro gay marriage set. Hard not to read this into her statement, too.

[bytor2112]

Amid tears of sorrow—our hearts heavy with forebodings—we see evil and crime and carnality covering the earth. Liars and thieves and adulterers and homosexuals and murderers scarcely seek to hide their abominations from our view. Iniquity abounds. There is no peace on earth.-Elder Bruce R. McConkie

Sadly, instead of hearts being heavy with forebodings, we see cheers for the mockery of marriage and people delight in the thought of a man marrying another man or woman marrying another woman and howls of delight as women celebrate the right to kill their unborn children.

-and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

Edited June 26, 2013 by bytor2112

[raven2]

What year was that quote from?

[ElectofGod]

What year was that quote from?

April 1980

the-coming-tests-and-trials-and-glory

[Just_A_Guy]

Because previous topics on this forum sometimes included bashing the judiciary branch of government as if that's the solution.

You mean, like this?

By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates.

Attacking the idea of judicial review or the revocation of unconstitutional law is counterproductive, because that same process is what keeps laws from passing which infringe on our 1st/2nd/etc. Amendment rights (for instance). That's the point I'm trying to make.

I don't disagree with the notion of judicial review; but I think it's highly dangerous to say that that--or any--topic is off-limits. The time may well be fast approaching when the nation wonders whether a nine-member panel of judges or a five-hundred-odd-member Congress is a more effective safeguard against tyranny.

[bytor2112]

What year was that quote from?

Does it matter?

[raven2]

Does it matter?

It mattered to me, because I wanted to know.

Edited June 26, 2013 by raven2

[bytor2112]

It matter to me, because I wanted to know.

It is from a 1980 talk by Elder McConkie and I was expecting a "that comment is not relevant anymore " comment as though somehow the passage of time has made homosexuality less abominable in the eyes of God.

Edited June 26, 2013 by bytor2112

[raven2]

April 1980

the-coming-tests-and-trials-and-glory

ElectofGod,

Thanks for the info.

My following comment is meant to be in general and not all inclusive.

As I have studied modern day comments on iniquity, secret combinations, etc. Many of the more direct comments seem to have started trailing of by the late 1980s. It makes me wonder if Satan had gained such great hold by that time (over government and institutions) that any effort to stop the 'takeover' would no longer be successful. Not saying we can't make changes in our sphere of influence, but Satan's hold was solidified and would remain so until the second coming. This has led to focusing on efforts and teaching of the gospel in areas and ways that can still help bring salvation to as many of Father's children as possible and less focus on stopping evil influences in government and institutions.

Edited June 26, 2013 by raven2

[raven2]

It is from a 1980 talk by Elder McConkie and I was expecting a "that comment is not relevant anymore " comment as though somehow the passage of time has made homosexuality less abominable in the eyes of god.

See comment above for my reason for the date request.

[LittleWyvern]

You mean, like this?

<snip>

It doesn't seem to me that the Church is "bashing the judiciary branch of government" here. It seems like they're disagreeing with the decision of the Supreme Court in that it does not have jurisdiction over the Prop 8 case, but since the Church statement refers to the ruling itself (which I have not fully read yet), I'm don't think I should make conclusions about the Church statement.

I don't disagree with the notion of judicial review; but I think it's highly dangerous to say that that--or any--topic is off-limits.

Did I say it was off-limits?

Attacking the idea of judicial review or the revocation of unconstitutional law is counterproductive,

The time may well be fast approaching when the nation wonders whether a nine-member panel of judges or a five-hundred-odd-member Congress is a more effective safeguard against tyranny.

Well, if there is no concept of judicial review, and new laws can be passed which are inconsistent with existing laws, what's the point of having a written body of law or a constitution in the first place? I guess we could eliminate judicial review by having a bunch-o'-laws-that-aren't-consistent system and solve all conflicts by favoring whichever law was passed most recently, but I don't think that would be effective. Sure, the supreme court and congress could probably be organized differently to allow them to be more effective (and I don't pretend to know the theory of government organization well enough to make suggestions to that point), but I think the concept of judicial review is important because it is one of the strongest safeguards of religious liberty (among other things) we have.

[raven2]

The church has tried very hard to balance its approach to this issue with the following principles:

1. The breaking of the law of chastity is a sin, always has been always will be.

2. People should not have basic right taken from them. (example: right to work, to have shelter, and to have agency - despite your viewpoints)

3. That we should love all people, even if we disagree with their actions.

4. We should support the basic concept of marriage and family as a core principle to the plan of salvation.

I think they are doing a very good job at clarifing this position while balancing all 4 of these things.

[Just_A_Guy]

It doesn't seem to me that the Church is "bashing the judiciary branch of government" here.

They came right out and said there are "troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates." What, in your view, is the difference between doing that and "bashing the judiciary branch of government"?

Did I say it was off-limits?

[quotation]

With all due respect, LW: you cited the twelfth article of faith, on a Mormon-oriented forum. I think your intent was a little more than simply saying that entertaining a particular line of legalistic inquiry might be "counterproductive".

Well, if there is no concept of judicial review, and new laws can be passed which are inconsistent with existing laws, what's the point of having a written body of law or a constitution in the first place? I guess we could eliminate judicial review by having a bunch-o'-laws-that-aren't-consistent system and solve all conflicts by favoring whichever law was passed most recently, but I don't think that would be effective. Sure, the supreme court and congress could probably be organized differently to allow them to be more effective (and I don't pretend to know the theory of government organization well enough to make suggestions to that point), but I think the concept of judicial review is important because it is one of the strongest safeguards of religious liberty (among other things) we have.

At some point, "judicial review" becomes an excuse for bald-faced (pardon the cliche) legislating from the bench. The key, of course, is balance and a meaningful separation of three truly equal branches of government.

But I think you're putting your faith in the wrong entity if you look to the judiciary to safeguard your religious liberty. This is the institution that ignored the confiscation of Mormon properties in Missouri, and later gave us Reynolds. This is the institution that, more recently made it necessary for Congress to enact RFRA after it held that no, religious freedom is no excuse for individual behavior that contravenes prevailing social mores. This is the institution that has looked the other way while opponents to gay marriage have nevertheless been compelled to participate in those ceremonies by providing photographs, baked goods, etc. This is the institution that yanked Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status because the University's (admittedly execrable) policies, which they deemed to be Biblically-based, did not line up with the Court's preferred notions of "equality". This is the institution that bold-faced lied to the American people, back in its Lawrence decision, about where it intended to go with the precedents it was in the process of establishing. (See the Scalia quote from his dissent today, which I posted earlier in the thread.)

No, LW. The Court has never been a truly reliable friend to the religious. And the joy of this "living constitution" some people keep going on about is, it doesn't matter what's written in the First or Second Amendments. If the popular will decides we're not worthy of protection--it's only a matter of time before SCOTUS follows suit.

[jerome1232]

As I understand it Prop 8 isn't quite dead.

SCOTUS Marriage Decision - Confusion Reigns - Alliance Defending Freedom

[LittleWyvern]

They came right out and said there are "troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates." What, in your view, is the difference between doing that and "bashing the judiciary branch of government"?

Precisely the difference between "I think the federal court should have the authority of judicial review over the Prop 8 case and not have it left to decision of the California state court" and "judicial review is bad."

With all due respect, LW: you cited the twelfth article of faith, on a Mormon-oriented forum. I think your intent was a little more than simply saying that entertaining a particular line of legalistic inquiry might be "counterproductive".

I didn't mean quoting the scripture as the proverbial "doctrinal trump card." I quoted the scripture to state that all our efforts should honor the law as it now stands (including the parts that make DOMA unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court), then used that basis to suggest that attacking judicial review isn't the most productive way to respond to this ruling. Since the 12th article of faith mentions nothing judicial review, my suggestion is clearly not doctrinal in any way and I'm fully aware my suggestion may be wrong. You seem to assume, in assuming my intent is more than a suggestion, that I meant my suggestion as a doctrinal proclamation, which is obviously wrong.

At some point, "judicial review" becomes an excuse for bald-faced (pardon the cliche) legislating from the bench. The key, of course, is balance and a meaningful separation of three truly equal branches of government.

And I agree with you here,believe it or not, to some extent (but I stop short of thinking that legislating from the bench is the purpose of judicial review). The way for DOMA supporters to go now is strike out of the law or amend out of the Constitution the parts of both that the Supreme Court thinks makes DOMA unconstitutional. Once that is completed (if such a thing is practical the way Congress is running), the Supreme Court would be powerless to stop another DOMA from becoming and staying law, because they would base their judicial review off the newly changed law and/or Constitution.

But I think you're putting your faith in the wrong entity if you look to the judiciary to safeguard your religious liberty.

<snip a bunch of stuff about the Court system>

I'm not putting my faith in an entity, but a specific concept that happens to be one of that entity's responsibilities. Don't confuse my support of judicial review for a support of the Supreme Court.

As I understand it Prop 8 isn't quite dead.

SCOTUS Marriage Decision - Confusion Reigns - Alliance Defending Freedom

That's a good catch. If anything, this ruling is a victory for State's Rights and breathes life back into any state-level push for a ban on gay marriage. Something like Prop 8 may still be viable if their supporters address the constitutionality challenges, but this ruling means the worst fear of traditional marriage supporters--that gay marriage bans will be revoked on a federal level and hence will be forcibly revoked in all states--is now no longer an issue. Anti-federalists (and maybe some libertarians too) have a lot to be happy about today on "the Federal Government lost a power" grounds.

Edited June 26, 2013 by LittleWyvern
still can't spell

[Just_A_Guy]

Precisely the difference between "I think the federal court should have the authority of judicial review over the Prop 8 case and not have it left to decision of the California state court" and "judicial review is bad."

I must confess, I don't think those analogies are remotely similar; and I wish you'd answered my questions a bit more specifically.

I didn't mean quoting the scripture as the proverbial "doctrinal trump card." I quoted the scripture to state that all our efforts should honor the law as it now stands (including the parts that make DOMA unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court),

But what does that mean exactly? Because if all our efforts should honor the law as it now stands, then isn't the logical inference that we shouldn't try to change it?

. . . then used that basis to suggest that attacking judicial review isn't the most productive way to respond to this ruling.

Erm, yes, after I called you on it. How on earth is someone supposed to see your initial post to this thread as a mere endorsement of judicial review?

Forgive me, but it strikes me as being more likely that you were initially trying to use Church doctrine to mute criticism of the decision; and only started walking back your position when you were called on it.

Once that is completed (if such a thing is practical the way Congress is running), the Supreme Court would be powerless to stop another DOMA from becoming and staying law, because they would base their judicial review off the newly changed law and/or Constitution.

But nearly half the court thinks the Constitution is a "living document" and that it means exactly what they want it to mean.

Don't you see, LW? It doesn't matter what's in the Constitution anymore. The justices will do as they will.

I'm not putting my faith in an entity, but a specific concept that happens to be one of that entity's responsibilities. Don't confuse my support of judicial review for a support of the Supreme Court.

Under the circumstances, the distinction is meaningless. It's like saying "I have no problem with nuclear weapons", even when you know darned well that the only nation in the world with a nuclear weapon is Russia or China.

Something like Prop 8 may still be viable if their supporters address the constitutionality challenges,

The Prop 8 case, AFAIK, was decided solely on standing issues; which is why Scalia and Roberts joined the majority in that one.

If anything, this ruling is a victory for State's Rights and breathes life back into any state-level push for a ban on gay marriage . . . this ruling means the worst fear of traditional marriage supporters--that gay marriage bans will be revoked on a federal level and hence will be forcibly revoked in all states--is now no longer an issue. Anti-federalists (and maybe some libertarians too) have a lot to be happy about today on "the Federal Government lost a power" grounds.

No, it isn't; no, it doesn't; and no, we don't. And Justice Scalia explains precisely why: the DOMA case includes just enough citations to equal-protection and due-process jurisprudence to be deadly (even if it does pay plenty of lip-service to federalism). And the last time SCOTUS decided a gay marriage case and told conservatives they had nothing to worry about . . .

. . . they were lying.

[LittleWyvern]

But what does that mean exactly? Because if all our efforts should honor the law as it now stands, then isn't the logical inference that we shouldn't try to change it?

No, and I wonder how you could have possibly took my words to mean that unless you're really trying to make me sound bad. Changing the law is fine, never said it wasn't. I just think we should try to change the law by using the processes that exists, and not say the process is bad because somebody did something with it that we don't agree with.

Erm, yes, after I called you on it. How on earth is someone supposed to see your initial post to this thread as a mere endorsement of judicial review?

Forgive me, but it strikes me as being more likely that you were initially trying to use Church doctrine to mute criticism of the decision; and only started walking back your position when you were called on it.

This is so blatantly wrong I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this. I'm sorry if my posts haven't always been the clearest but I haven't changed what I'm trying to say since I started posting in this thread. Maybe I've just said it more clearly as time goes on?

But nearly half the court thinks the Constitution is a "living document" and that it means exactly what they want it to mean.

Don't you see, LW? It doesn't matter what's in the Constitution anymore. The justices will do as they will.

<snip other stuff, etc.>

...Look, by this point, I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. If all you're going to do is put words in my mouth and try to make it look like I'm using doctrinal arguments that I'm clearly not, then I think we should just agree to disagree and move on.

Edited June 26, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[Just_A_Guy]

Changing the law is fine, never said it wasn't. . . . I'm sorry if my posts haven't always been the clearest but I haven't changed what I'm trying to say since I started posting in this thread. Maybe I've just said it more clearly as time goes on?

I appreciate the clarification. I'm still scratching my head over that first post of yours, but I suppose there's no point in pushing it further.

I just think we should try to change the law by using the processes that exists, and not say the process is bad because somebody did something with it that we don't agree with. [emphasis added]

But the Church, through its PR department, just did precisely that.

...Look, by this point, I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. If all you're going to do is put words in my mouth and try to make it look like I'm using doctrinal arguments that I'm clearly not, then I think we should just agree to disagree and move on.

If you're not making doctrinal arguments, that's fine. But at some point I'd be interested to see you make some kind of argument to back up your assertions as to why today's DOMA case is actually a boon for state rights and another layer of protection for states that don't wish to see gay marriage rammed down their throats by the feds.

[LittleWyvern]

I appreciate the clarification. I'm still scratching my head over that first post of yours, but I suppose there's no point in pushing it further.

That's what I get for trying to write shorter posts.

But the Church, through its PR department, just did precisely that.

The Church statement said "By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates" and "In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved." I don't disagree with this: there are some questions that arise from this case toward how the democratic and judicial system work together. That's hardly saying that the judicial process is simply bad. Yes, the Church is raising questions on how the judicial process works with the democratic process, but I don't think they're going as far as to discredit the judiciary. Maybe I'm just reading it differently.

If you're not making doctrinal arguments, that's fine. But at some point I'd be interested to see you make some kind of argument to back up your assertions as to why today's DOMA case is actually a boon for state rights and another layer of protection for states that don't wish to see gay marriage rammed down their throats by the feds.

Well, I'll try to explain how I understand it. Keep in mind that I have not yet read the ruling thoroughly, so if I'm wrong then be patient. :)

The Supreme court seemed to say two things today: that a federal law defining marriage is unconstitutional and that (via the Prop 8 ruling) it does not have jurisdiction over state laws defining marriage. Now, let's consider Utah. It passed a law defining marriage between a man and a woman. Let's say that somebody challenges this law in Utah courts and loses. Then, let's say they try to appeal this ruling to federal courts. If what I understand about the Prop 8 ruling is correct, the federal courts will use the Prop 8 ruling as a precedent to refuse to hear the case about the Utah law, because it does not have jurisdiction over a state law defining marriage. This is why I see today's rulings as a "hands off" approach to legal definitions of marriage on a federal level.

Again, this is just my understanding of today's rulings. I am not a lawyer, I may be wrong, and I am not trying to make any doctrinal arguments.

[Soulsearcher]

The Supreme court seemed to say two things today: that a federal law defining marriage is unconstitutional and that (via the Prop 8 ruling) it does not have jurisdiction over state laws defining marriage. Now, let's consider Utah. It passed a law defining marriage between a man and a woman. Let's say that somebody challenges this law in Utah courts and loses. Then, let's say they try to appeal this ruling to federal courts. If what I understand about the Prop 8 ruling is correct, the federal courts will use the Prop 8 ruling as a precedent to refuse to hear the case about the Utah law, because it does not have jurisdiction over a state law defining marriage. This is why I see today's rulings as a "hands off" approach to legal definitions of marriage on a federal level.

Actually when it came to prop 8 it was more that the people who were challenging the original ruling of judge walker didn't have standing to appeal the ruling, being the original suit was challenging the state it's self it had to be the state who defended the law not a third party.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, I'll try to explain how I understand it. Keep in mind that I have not yet read the ruling thoroughly, so if I'm wrong then be patient. :)

The Supreme court seemed to say two things today: that a federal law defining marriage is unconstitutional and that (via the Prop 8 ruling) it does not have jurisdiction over state laws defining marriage. Now, let's consider Utah. It passed a law defining marriage between a man and a woman. Let's say that somebody challenges this law in Utah courts and loses. Then, let's say they try to appeal this ruling to federal courts. If what I understand about the Prop 8 ruling is correct, the federal courts will use the Prop 8 ruling as a precedent to refuse to hear the case about the Utah law, because it does not have jurisdiction over a state law defining marriage. This is why I see today's rulings as a "hands off" approach to legal definitions of marriage on a federal level.

Again, this is just my understanding of today's rulings. I am not a lawyer, I may be wrong, and I am not trying to make any doctrinal arguments.

I agree with SS. The Prop 8 ruling, from what I'm gleaning, didn't address state marriage bans at all--it's not the resounding endorsement of state rights that I would have liked it to have been; but it very pointedly dodges the issue of gay marriage per se in favor of ruling on procedural grounds and in the long term is, I think, relatively innocuous from a gay-marriage/religious liberty standpoint. (I'm not sure what I think about the idea that no one can defend a state's interest before the Court if a state AG refuses to do her job; but that's another thread.)

The one that's potentially problematic is the DOMA ruling. As I've said before: the federalism language is all well and good; but they also left in just enough language for a future court to hang its hat on if it does want to strike down state marriage definitions at a later date.

[kapikui]

From my reading of it it seems that the "States should get to decide!" people got their way, and the "Federal government should recognize same-sex marriage!" people got their way too. States get to decide if they recognize them. If your state *does* recognize it, you can receive federal benefits; if it doesn't you don't.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This means that if a marriage performed in Califormia is recognized in Califormia the other 50 states have to recognize it as well.

[Suzie]

Wow, 5 pages of discussion. Wondering if scripture threads or Church history (sorry I had to say it) get as many and as lengthy responses.

Thread about husband cheating wife: 1000000000 views and replies

Thread about wife cheating husband: 10000000000000000 views and replies

Thread about Mormons and sex: 1000000000000000000000000000000 views and replies

Thread about Gays: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 views and replies

Thread about Deuteronomy, Numbers, Exodus: 2 views, 2 replies

[carlimac]

Wow, 5 pages of discussion. Wondering if scripture threads or Church history (sorry I had to say it) get as many and as lengthy responses.

Thread about husband cheating wife: 1000000000 views and replies

Thread about wife cheating husband: 10000000000000000 views and replies

Thread about Mormons and sex: 1000000000000000000000000000000 views and replies

Thread about Gays: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 views and replies

Thread about Deuteronomy, Numbers, Exodus: 2 views, 2 replies

What's your point?

[Suzie]

What's your point?

I think it was obvious but since you asked: We love drama and controversial topics.