Supreme Court ruling

[NightSG]

I'm already tired of people telling me I should be happy today.  No I don't.

 

I was briefly happy about other things until your grammar made my brain hurt.  

[Guest MormonGator]

And thus returns polygamy.  

 All my friends know I am LDS. When the ruling was announced my Facebook status was "Polygamy is next! I am taking applications right now!"  

[Guest]

All my friends know I am LDS. When the ruling was announced my Facebook status was "Polygamy is next! I am taking applications right now!"

This was my FB status:

Edited June 30, 2015 by anatess

[Guest MormonGator]

This was my FB status:

I posted it too! 

[bytor2112]

Statement from First Presidency

[Guest MormonGator]

Statement from First Presidency

 I freely admit it might be just a Gator thing, but I find it incredibly comforting that the church is sticking to it's morals. Sure, I have no problem with the ruling, but it's nice to see the church isn't changing it's feelings with popular opinions

[skippy740]

I recently posted this on Facebook as a note:

Okay people, let's add some rationality here.  I'm going to look at this ruling on two levels:  legal and moral.

 

On a legal level, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed the same rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples?  I cannot think of any good reason why they shouldn't, except if those reasons are rooted in someone's moral viewpoint.

 

Now, let's look at morals.  My Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, has a document called The Articles of Faith - a summary of our beliefs.  The 11th states:  "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng

 

Do we, as LDS, really believe that?  On a moral/religious level, we can view same-sex relations as a form of idol worship, pleasing themselves rather than pleasing God... but that's really how WE may choose to look at it - on the outside looking in.  (This was essentially what Neal A. Maxwell was saying back in 1978 when he talked about irreligion becoming the state religion.  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng)  We don't condone it, but who are we to tell others how to live... or even to make the Government enforce our belief on the ways we should live?

 

What this ruling really caused... was the end of the Government and laws of the land being a source of moral living.  Perhaps that's a good thing?  I suppose that's a 'Libertarian' way to view the role of Government.  Of course, even Joseph Smith Jr. said "We teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves."

 

My concern at this point... is will the rights of churches to worship and practice as they see fit will be respected and upheld in court.  As we know, anyone can sue anyone for any reason.  Churches will be sued for discriminatory practices.  (BTW, churches are all about discriminatory practices, as long as they are about worthiness and living according to one's own religious code of conduct.)  However, in a court of law, will these courts side with churches to allow them to practice according to our own conscience?  Or will our 1st amendment rights be infringed upon and penalized?

 

I do believe in The Family:  A Proclamation To The World.  (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng)  As a faithful LDS member, we sought to defend the definition of what constitutes a family because of our beliefs of pre-mortal, purpose of mortal life, and the future destiny of the family in the here-after.  According to our understanding, same-sex marriages don't fit into God's plan.

 

So, for my believing friends - regardless of denomination - I remind you of what our job is.  Our job is to be an example of the believers and simply invite others to come unto Christ.  We love and respect others, yet we are to vote our conscious when we are called to do so.  This is why I often talk about the "LGBT Political Movement" and not mention individuals or people specifically.  I am concerned about the "LGBT Political Movement" as I see the next step being to attack churches that don't accept their chosen lifestyle (lifestyle, not necessarily orientation as everyone should be welcome in God's house).  (http://www.mormonsandgays.org/)  

 

Voltare said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  Is free speech really that different from choosing how we want to live?  Do we want Government oppressing anyone from the liberty of choosing how they choose to live?  For me, I don't want Government interference in how I choose to live my life.  The higher the level of Government interference, the more that we are slaves to that Government, and then such liberty is truly lost for each of us to pursue our own definition of happiness.

As LDS and Christians, we are concerned about the overall declining morals of the United States.  However, we cannot turn to the Government to "make it better".  We can vote for different leaders, but it's time that we stop depending on the Government to enforce morality.  That's not Government's job, and I don't think it ever should be.  That's our job as the Faithful... to invite others to repent and choose to follow Christ, to live as He would have us live.  However, as far as I know, Christ has never FORCED anyone to follow Him and His ways.  Let us follow that example.

[Just_A_Guy]

DHK, it's good to see you posting here. Hope all is well with you and yours. :)

[jerome1232]

While I may not articulate it as well as you, DHK, I think the idea that we do not enforce morals via law to be rubbish. To use a ridiculous example, my religion teaches me that killing is wrong, it is a sin. Who am I to force others to live by *my* rules, maybe you find revenge killings to be moral, how dare I codify law to enforce my morality over yours!

My point is of course that we actually do enforce our morality on others. Perhaps what you mean is that there exists a  point at which as a people our morality begins to diverge enough that enforcing any one moral code over another becomes problematic?

Edited July 1, 2015 by jerome1232

[rameumptom]

Two years ago, the SCOTUS shot down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), because marriage was in the sole domain of the States. Now we have the same 5 judges telling us that marriage is suddenly an issue of the federal government. Time to reduce government, and get them out of the relationship business entirely.

[skippy740]

While I may not articulate it as well as you, DHK, I think the idea that we do not enforce morals via law to be rubbish. To use a ridiculous example, my religion teaches me that killing is wrong, it is a sin. Who am I to force others to live by *my* rules, maybe you find revenge killings to be moral, how dare I codify law to enforce my morality over yours!

My point is of course that we actually do enforce our morality on others. Perhaps what you mean is that there exists a  point at which as a people our morality begins to diverge enough that enforcing any one moral code over another becomes problematic?

 

Jerome1232,

 

To use your "ridiculous example" as you put it - killing is a crime.  It infringes on another person's right to life.

 

Joel Skousen said that "A Fundamental Right is a right in which all people can simultaneously claim without forcing someone to serve their needs."

Killing is a crime.  Rape is a crime.  Theft is a crime.  Vandalism is a crime.

 

The right to defend oneself is legal up to and including the death of the other person trying to take your life.

 

A society must have laws that enforce a minimum code of acceptable behavior.  But just as the Word of Wisdom has a lot of "do's" in it... we often focus on the "don'ts" and think we follow it.

 

Is allowing two people the liberty to live as they choose and to share the rights of another 'traditional couple' a crime?  No.

 

Is preventing two people the same liberties to live as they choose the same rights of another 'traditional couple' a crime?  I think it could be considered that way.  (I'm not advocating... just understanding.)

 

If there wasn't any difference in their rights and privileges between a marriage and a civil union, as well as numerous federal programs, tax advantages, and estate planning issues... then it would purely be an issue of semantics of what defines a marriage.

 

So, I have come to the conclusion that we no longer can accept the laws of the Government as a moral guide on how to live - if we ever did.  A moral code is a higher way of living than just being law abiding.  The laws of our country used to be one that promoted a Judeo-Christian way of life... but no longer.

 

I don't know if it should've been that way in the first place, but due to the internet and everyone having a voice, society is changing its views.  As long as we don't change who we are and what we believe, I think we'll be okay.

[skippy740]

Two years ago, the SCOTUS shot down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), because marriage was in the sole domain of the States. Now we have the same 5 judges telling us that marriage is suddenly an issue of the federal government. Time to reduce government, and get them out of the relationship business entirely.

 

It's not "suddenly" an issue of the federal government.  A marriage, on its lowest terms, is a contract.  Contracts are regulated by state and federal laws.  There are issues with income taxation, estate planning, social security, retirement planning... and that's just the financial planning side of things.

 

Either the Federal Government has to make up "separate but equal" laws and rights for same-sex couples, or expand the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.  Obviously one is easier than the other.  But remember that there are some opponents to gender roles who would still not accept "separate but equal" rights.

 

As far as getting the government out of the relationship business entirely... if they can do that without regulating these contracts, then I suppose it can work.  I just doubt that's a reasonable course of action.

 

Ed Slott CPA weighed in on 3 changes on retirement and tax planning due to the same-sex marriage ruling.  I'm looking forward to learning more about these changes that will come about to make planning easier for these couples.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/same-sex-marriage-ruling-3-impacts-retirement-tax-planning-ed-slott?trk=hb_ntf_MEGAPHONE_ARTICLE_POST

Edited July 1, 2015 by DHK

[skippy740]

Just found this in someone's facebook post:

 

Some Advice on Same Sex Marriage for us Church Leaders from a Canadian:

http://careynieuwhof.com/2015/06/some-advice-on-same-sex-marriage-for-us-church-leaders-from-a-canadian/

[Guest MormonGator]

Just found this in someone's facebook post:

 

Some Advice on Same Sex Marriage for us Church Leaders from a Canadian:

http://careynieuwhof.com/2015/06/some-advice-on-same-sex-marriage-for-us-church-leaders-from-a-canadian/

 It may seem bleak now but if you lose hope you've already lost the debate and much worse. I can't tell you how many of my friends have given up and succumbed to borderline nihilism and hopelessness.  

[skippy740]

You missed my point.

 

My point was to stop putting hope in GOVERNMENT to fix individual morality.

[char713]

That would be a shame, if we gave up all hope of the government being able or at least attempting to enforce true morality. If we give up hope, we give up fighting, and if we give up fighting, then America will not long remain the Promised Land. I have been commanded in my patriarchal blessing to fight for this exact cause. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Government can, perhaps, do little to promote social morality, but it can do much to undermine it.  See, e.g., 1 Samuel 8 (and the remaining history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah); Mosiah 11:2; Mosiah 29:9.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

Government is not a solution.

 

The righteousness of individuals is the solution.

 

Change must come from within... not from outside sources imposing their will on another person.

 

If we want the change to come about in this nation... it's up to us to invite others to come unto Christ, repent, and live as He would have us live.

 

Expecting an external source to force a mandate upon its citizens - no matter how righteous or good was intended, to "compel righteousness"... wouldn't that look a lot like Satan's plan?

No, we cannot rely on Satan's methods to make other people good.  They must have their own change of heart.

[yjacket]

 It may seem bleak now but if you lose hope you've already lost the debate and much worse. I can't tell you how many of my friends have given up and succumbed to borderline nihilism and hopelessness.  

 

Well I'm a short term fatalist and a long-term optimist.  The US in general has had a really good run as far as countries go. If you look at history 300 years is about the longest stability lasts.  Most are much, much shorter than that. We've gone 150 years without major internal strife.

 

There is this intrinsic belief that America is the best, simply because it is the best rather than understanding why it is the best. At some point, the chickens will come home to roost and people will understand that there are specific reasons why the US became a powerhouse but those underlying reasons are becoming more and more shaky.

[yjacket]

I agree with DHK on a lot of things pertaining to laws . . .I'm a libertarian; yet I am completely disgusted by the ruling. I don't believe government should have a part in marriages only in contracts.  The part that really is frightening is that sexual orientation is becoming a protected class (which we shouldn't have-but that's another story).  Being part of a protected class enforces a particular set of moral codes. By going down the path of homosexual being a protected class it will enforce the morality that homosexuality is morally good.

 

That is the real danger; as one will be punished for selectively choosing whether to bake a cake or take photographs, etc the underlying moral current is that one is a horrible immoral individual for not baking a cake for not taking a photograph. Thus homosexuality becomes good because any public real display of dissent is stamped out.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to identify when a law violates the constitution.

They reviewed several states' laws regarding same sex marriage. They concluded that these laws violated the constitution.

How is that overstepping their authority?

 

 

While I may not articulate it as well as you, DHK, I think the idea that we do not enforce morals via law to be rubbish. To use a ridiculous example, my religion teaches me that killing is wrong, it is a sin. Who am I to force others to live by *my* rules, maybe you find revenge killings to be moral, how dare I codify law to enforce my morality over yours!

My point is of course that we actually do enforce our morality on others. Perhaps what you mean is that there exists a  point at which as a people our morality begins to diverge enough that enforcing any one moral code over another becomes problematic?

When an entire society agrees on a particular moral, it's quite alright for that moral to be enforced in the society's laws. This is so because nobody is being forced to act against their conscience by such a law. Our entire society agrees that killing is wrong, therefore killing is illegal. I will reference Jarom 1:5 as a case where strict civil laws followed religious teachings.

 

Our entire society does NOT agree on the morality of homosexuality. Therefore laws respecting that morality can not be enforced. To do so would force a significant portion of society to act against their own conscience. The 11th Article of Faith applies. We allow all men the same privilege we ask for ourselves - to act according to our own conscience.

 

 

Two years ago, the SCOTUS shot down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), because marriage was in the sole domain of the States. Now we have the same 5 judges telling us that marriage is suddenly an issue of the federal government. Time to reduce government, and get them out of the relationship business entirely.

False. This SCOTUS decision tells us that marriage is not an issue for ANY government. It could be seen as the deregulation of civil marriage.

[NightSG]

False. This SCOTUS decision tells us that marriage is not an issue for ANY government. It could be seen as the deregulation of civil marriage.

 

After the results of utility "deregulation" you'd think people would learn to be careful what they wish for.

[Vort]

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to identify when a law violates the constitution.

 

Only because it unconstitutionally arrogated that authority to itself in 1803. Ever since Marbury v. Madison, people have been waiting with bated breath, fearing the day when the Supreme Court would grab the brass ring it gave itself and effectively end Constitutional rule and declare itself the ruling oligarchy by "interpreting" the Constitution in brazenly false ways so as to establish all law from the bench.

 

And that is exactly what has happened. Unless you truly believe that the intent of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" claused, passed in the mid-1800s, was intended to create and foster homosexual "marriage".

 

Welcome to 21st century America, which is certainly not a democracy. And that is not merely Vort's ranting. Antonin Scalia, the most intelligent and most honest of the Supreme Court justices, sees it that way.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

Welcome to 21st century America, which is certainly not a democracy. And that is not merely Vort's ranting. Antonin Scalia, the most intelligent and most honest of the Supreme Court justices, sees it that way.

Scalia is the greatest. I prefer Clarence Thomas though. 

[Just_A_Guy]

To use your "ridiculous example" as you put it - killing is a crime.  It infringes on another person's right to life.

 

What "right to life" is that?  Whence does it derive?

 

If it derives from statute, it is subject to change at the next legislative session.

 

If it derives from the needs of society, it is subject to change as social needs change.

 

If it derives because it is philosophically immoral to arbitrarily end someone else's life--oops!

 

It's not "suddenly" an issue of the federal government.  A marriage, on its lowest terms, is a contract.  Contracts are regulated by state and federal laws.  There are issues with income taxation, estate planning, social security, retirement planning... and that's just the financial planning side of things.

 

Either the Federal Government has to make up "separate but equal" laws and rights for same-sex couples, or expand the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

 

Well, hang on a second.  Those contracts exist to achieve a particular purpose.  Government does not have to offer a contract to a party on nondiscrimination grounds, if offering that contract would undermine the purposes for which the contract is being offered.  For example, the Army can refuse to hire a soldier whose religious beliefs require pacifism at all costs--even though such refusal is pretty blatant religious discrimination (fighting wars).  The CIA does not have to hire an intelligence agent who is a loyal subject of Kim Jong Un, even though such a refusal would be otherwise-illegal national origin discrimination--again, because doing so would undermine the purposes for which that employment is being offered (national security).

 

The million-dollar question is, what is government trying to accomplish by paying people who claim they are in a monogamous sexual relationship?