The future is almost here.

[_Darth J]

In fact, the Church already has distanced itself from fundamental doctrines, e.g., "As man is, God once was."

CFR

Prior to the priesthood ban being lifted, LDS leaders taught that during the war in heaven, some of the spirits were sort of neutral or "less valiant" than the ones who really wanted Jesus to win. These spirits are born to black (Negro) parents who are "cursed" with a dark skin as an outward sign of their lukewarm attitude during the war in heaven. I've posted examples of LDS leaders teaching this doctrine here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13385&p=330724&hilit=negro#p330724

Too bad this was never official Church doctrine and never binding on the Saints as such. How long people such as yourself will be recycling the same threadbare shibboleths is actually far more interesting than how long it will be before the Church accepts Gay marriage.

It doesn't have to, as they were never more than the theological speculations of various apostles. They were never settled, "orthodox" doctrine and never taught by the Brethren unitedly (The Church) as such.

Define official church doctrine, Droopy, according to the Church's terms, not definitions of your own making.

And thank you for your observation that what General Authorities teach in General Conference is not orthodox doctrine.

[_The Nehor]

I don't define marriage in terms of arbitrary historical prevalence of different pairings, so your question doesn't make much sense for what I think Nehor. I don't compare the relative prevalence of Mormon and non-Mormon marriage in history to determine if the former counts. Interracial/interclass marriages have long histories of being taboo and are comparatively rare, but I don't think that makes them more dubious as marriages and don't see what this has to do with the point of modern civil marriages. Heck, marriages where women aren't treated as quasi-property are rare in historical terms, but you won't see me bringing that point up to defend laws that make marriage a valid defense against rape.

You wrote a post that pointed to the diversity of informal marriage practices in time and place to respond to Harmony talking about the development of marriage law in Europe. I simply added that gay marriage is included in that.

I don't either. I choose what I consider the best version of it history has known that started in the middle and lower classes a few centuries back in Northern Europe and has since grown better: the pairing by choice of two individuals (male and female) when both are adults and love each other, with the social pressure to remain faithful and a legal and moral responsibility to raise any children the marriage creates.

This is a growth off of what has traditionally been marriage and I think it's important enough to defend and keep unique. To be honest, I think western civilization and liberalism (in the classical sense) owe their prevalence in Europe and the Americas to this phenomenon.

[_Darth J]

1. Please explain why you feel free to call Jason Bourne facile, based on your statement, "That homosexuals are born homosexual is much more problematic (as there isn't any scientific evidence of such a condition), as homosexuality is a set of behaviors, or a behavioral syndrome, not a clear morphological attribute," when in fact your statement does not accurately reflect the consensus on this question among biologists and social scientists.

Please Johnny, let's not play these games. The claim that homosexuality is in any way inherent, or that there is a discreet and discernible "cause" of homosexual behavior and identity that can be traced to predetermining genetic/biological factors has not a shred of empirical scientific support, and never has. The "gay gene" theory of Levay et al was discredited before its ink was dry many years ago.

There is evidence, and has long been, that biological factors may be, for at least some subset of the homosexual population, important as influencing a predisposition or bias regarding development of same sex attraction (and much else), but these factors cannot be disentangled from the deeply complex psychological and social factors or matrix of factors that also play influential roles in psycho-sexual development (and personality development generally).

There is no evidence of a distinct and definable biological "cause" of homosexuality, or of many other things (like addiction).

I know: why don't you just misrepresent the argument in a different way? Please tell me whose equal protection argument is based on the premise that biology alone causes homosexuality. Please do so with reference to what they said in briefs or oral arguments, not what you heard on Hannity.

You're still doing nothing but parroting other people's talking points with the vague term "biological." Please feel free to explain the difference between heredity and genetics, however.

I see that you concede that we are not aping a Huffington Post op-ed, since you failed to address #2.

3. Theodore Olson, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, is a conservative. There is also currently a federal lawsuit pending that was filed by a conservative group, seeking to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on Equal Protection grounds. There are also numerous gay conservative groups, such as Log Cabin Republicans. Please explain a factual basis for your assertions that anyone who believes that homosexuals are deserving of equal protection under the 14th Amendment is a leftist/liberal. Please do not rely on an assertion that you get to decide who is or isn't a conservative or that you unilaterally get to define what "conservatism" is.

Did I ever make the claim that everyone who supports homosexual marriage is a leftist? If I did, I beg your pardon, as all I'm aware of ever stating, or implying, is that it is leftist, overwhelmingly, who supporting it. Some "strong" libertarians do as well, but many of their social views are indistinct from leftist views (although their motives may differ from those of the Left).

So you concede question #3, since you failed to address it or answer it. If you were not making this claim, then your Huffington Post remark would not have been there.

The homosexual marriage issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the 14th amendment, as marriage itself has nothing to do with the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Federal constitution.

The 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. You are also back to the "marriage qua marriage" straw man, since the argument is about whether once the institution of marriage is created by a state, the citizens of that state are entitled to equal protection of law.

4. You frequently assert that there is no right to "marriage qua marriage" in the Constitution. Please show us the words "Judeo-Christian tradition" within the text of the United States Constitution.

Were I to attempt that, I would be in substantive contradiction to my main contention: that marriage is not a constitutional right and is a matter for the states and the people to decide.

Again, misstating the argument because you don't understand what it is.

None of this is a federal, constitutional matter.

The mandate that the states grant equal protection of law to their citizens is not part of the federal Constitution? Thank you for sharing that.

But you know, Droopy you're making a strong case for the Defense of Marriage Act violating the 10th Amendment. Have any courts determined that this is the case? (Hint: Yes.)

Nor is the Judeo/Christian soil in which the Founding took place a constitutional mandate. It is true that the Constitution, as the Founding itself, is deeply grounded in a Judeo/Christian social/moral/philosophical framework that assumes the importance of religion and metaphysical moral absolutes as the ground of a free, civil social order.

Oh, so you mean like, sometimes we have to look beyond the words on the paper to interpret and apply the Constitution? Maybe if you had any coherent Constitutional philosophy other than "enshrine my value judgments," you would be able to flesh this out better. The fact that "the Constitution, as the Founding itself, is deeply grounded in a Judeo/Christian social/moral/philosophical framework that assumes the importance of religion and metaphysical moral absolutes" is exactly the argument made by those who hold that there is an implicit right to marriage protected by the Constitution, but, again, it would take some kind of coherent school of thought to realize that. Your complete failure to understand that your principles contradict each other is very interesting, though.

It also assumes there will be differences of opinion regarding things outside the scope of the federal constitution, a great many things, indeed, which are circumscribed by the 10th amendment.

Oh, those damn Civil War amendments! Oh, if only the Constitution really did end at the 10th Amendment!

Homosexuals have no more "right" in a federal constitutional sense, to marry than I or you do. Marriage is a privilege and deeply portentous social institution mediated by tradition, custom, longstanding social mores, and ages of experience. Homosexual marriage is a contradiction in conceptual terms; it is, as an idea, a violation of the core concept. Hence, no "right" exists to marry one of the same sex anymore than a "right" exists to marry one's siblings, parents, or dog.

Droopy has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea that he understands the concept of equal protection, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt. Doom under the continental plates.

The 14th amendment argument is a red herring, and its assumptions are can and have been easily argued against.

You can argue anything. It's whether you can successfully argue it. Unfortunately for lovers of the Constitution, the Framers put that damned Article III in there and left interpreting the law to the judicial branch, rather than call-in radio shows, letters to the editor, or message boards.

The 14th Amendment was not successfully argued against in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. And here's a federal court ruling that parts of the Defense of Marriage Act violate equal protection:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34073588/Deci ... Gill-v-OPM

And the state courts that have held that there is a right to marry have done so under their states' constitutional equivalents of equal protection. So where is it that arguing against this "red herring" has been so successful?

[_Calculus Crusader]

Gays got married.

Where? (Please note I am not interested in a) backwater tribes or b) Boswell's gay propaganda.)

[_Calculus Crusader]

Droopy has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea that he understands the concept of equal protection, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt. Doom under the continental plates.

That may be (I'm not interested in defending Droopy) but the actual text of the Constitution should be distinguished from judicial midrash.

You can argue anything. It's whether you can successfully argue it. Unfortunately for lovers of the Constitution, the Framers put that damned Article III in there and left interpreting the law to the judicial branch, rather than call-in radio shows, letters to the editor, or message boards.

The same article allows the legislative branch to limit the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts

[_Darth J]

]

Droopy has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea that he understands the concept of equal protection, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt. Doom under the continental plates.

That may be (I'm not interested in defending Droopy) but the actual text of the Constitution should be distinguished from judicial midrash.

Well, the text of the Constitution is distinguished from judicial midrash, and there are numerous schools of thought in American jurisprudence about how to interpret the Constitution. I understand what you're getting at, but the problem is that the Constitution is not a self-executing document. If you can think of a way to apply the Constitution without trying to interpret what it means, feel free to share.

You can argue anything. It's whether you can successfully argue it. Unfortunately for lovers of the Constitution, the Framers put that damned Article III in there and left interpreting the law to the judicial branch, rather than call-in radio shows, letters to the editor, or message boards.

The same article allows the legislative branch to limit the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts

Yes, it does (not just appellate review, since Article III also covers federal trial courts), but to what extent Congress can do that without violating separation of powers is a continuously debated question (and this is an example of how "the text of the Constitution," standing alone, doesn't get you there, since people don't always agree about what "the text of the Constitution" means).

However, while there might be a few John Birch-oriented people around who feel this way, there is no one who seriously believes that Congress can limit the exercise of constitutional rights and get around it by depriving federal courts of judicial review. To do that would for all practical purposes mean that an act of Congress can repeal rights from the Constitution.

What you're implying is that the mechanism for avoiding the equal protection argument to allow same-sex marriage is for Congress to pass a law that prohibits federal courts from reviewing these kinds of cases. If Congress can do that and keep the Supreme Court or lower federal courts from reviewing certain federal constitutional claims, then where does it stop? What if Congress passed a law that says you have to contribute to the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, and put in this act that federal courts don't have subject matter jurisdiction to review this new law? What if Congress said that the LDS Church is now the official government religion, and said courts cannot review this law to determine whether it's constitutional? Are you down with that?

There is a difference between law and politics (I'm speaking to you, of course, since Droopy demonstrably cannot wrap his head around that idea). If you find a legal mechanism to institutionalize your pet issue, then this legal mechanism is still going to be there to enable things you don't like.

[_madeleine]

What the hell are you talking about? Even in feudal Europe the lowest of the low (serfs) married.

A short history lesson: Prior to the formation of society, there was no marriage. Only with the advent of the concepts of property, inheritance, and blood lines was it necessary for marriage to be invented. The Catholic Church was a bit late on the timeline, but they did finally get around to declaring marriage a sacrament:

The Catholic Church got involved around 1215 and defined marriage as a sacrament. Even then, though, the rules of the church were fuzzy because folks used the "private consent" option, which created problems in the ecclesiastical courts.

hi. The Catholic Church has always recognized marriage as a solemn mystery. No, the word "sacrament" was not used until later, however, the Church has always referred to the mysteries of grace. (The seven sacraments of the Catholic church are also called the seven mysteries.)

For marriage in particular, the New Testament is clear on the relationship that a husband has to a wife. We see when Jesus relationship to the Church is described as that of a husband to his wife, well, for a Catholic, it isn't any clearer than that. For us, this relationship is mystical in nature, ie, sacramental. (Eph 5:22-33)

As to the councils of the Church, they do not define new doctrines, they clarify what the Church has always taught. When the later councils declared that marriage was a sacrament, it was in defense against those who would claim that the Church was wrong in teaching marriage as a sacrament. This view was carried forward to the Protestant Reformation, and was clarified again in the Council of Trent, which existed expressly to counter Protestant claims. (Calvin insisted that marriage was not sacramental in nature.)

St. Augustine c.390AD:

"Among all people and all men the good that is secured by marriage consists in the offspring and in the chastity of married fidelity; but, in the case of God's people [the Christians], it consists moreover in the holiness of the sacrament, by reason of which it is forbidden, even after a separation has taken place, to marry another as long as the first partner lives"