AP Report on last night's Prop 8 fireside ....

[_harmony]

In terms of the "Lord," making this decision, well, I think that if St. Paul were around expressing his views, he'd be pulling out the abomination card.

Funny how one prophet's abomination is another prophet's ticket to the CK.

[_TAK]

[Both presidential candidates opposed gay marriage. So did Pres. Clinton.

That’s because they are politicians. Do you really think Bill Clinton or Hillary or most politicians for that matter are opposed to this on moral grounds? Hell no.





~~/)~~~~/)~~~~/)~~~~/)~~~~/)~~~~/)~~

[_asbestosman]

That’s because they are politicians. Do you really think Bill Clinton or Hillary or most politicians for that matter are opposed to this on moral grounds? Hell no.

Tee heee. You used "Bill Clinton" and "moral grounds" in the same sentence.

[_TAK]

That’s because they are politicians. Do you really think Bill Clinton or Hillary or most politicians for that matter are opposed to this on moral grounds? Hell no.

Tee heee. You used "Bill Clinton" and "moral grounds" in the same sentence.

Then we agree..

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Marriage is not a basic civil right, except as noted below.

Come on, counselor, even you must recall that the U.S. Supreme Court long ago held that marriage is a basic fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

Thus far, the states have asserted moral grounds to control access to marriage. A huge majority of states in the union have made the moral decision that homosexual marriages are contrary to state interest.

But, as the CA Supreme Court rightly pointed out, barring gays from marriage is unconstitutional.

Legislating morality is common, and I could cite numerous examples where actions between consenting adults are subject to criminal sanction.

But, as the CA Supreme Court noted, the people of CA put limits on "legislating morality" via the CA state constitution, and Prop 22 violated the protections in the CA state constitution.

The Marriage Act case holds that marriage is a civil right that springs from the right to privacy, a provision added to the constitution two decades ago.

In other words, a basic and fundamental right under the CA state constitution.

Both presidential candidates opposed gay marriage.

I don't think Obama personally does, but hasn't the balls to admit it publicly. Plenty of presidents supported (and engaged in) slavery, too, but it was wrong nonetheless.

So did Pres. Clinton.

Because it was politically expedient, in my opinion.

In terms of the "Lord," making this decision, well, I think that if St. Paul were around expressing his views, he'd be pulling out the abomination card.

Funny, Jacob pulled out the "abomination card" in the Book of Mormon when it came to polygamy (particularly as it related to David and Solomon), but that "abomination" became all fine and dandy in D&C 132. Hmm ....

I am a libertarian but I fully support and understand the position of the coalitiion.

You're no libertarian, as well as no constitutional scholar, but I agree that you put your money where your mouth is when it comes to Prop. 8.

[_rcrocket]

Except for the two states, marriage has not been defined as a civil right. If two people qualify for marriage, the equal protection doctrine would preclude denial of the right to marry. If the Supreme Court had defined marriage as a civil right available for all for whomever one wants as a partner regardless of gender, the federals would have granted gays the right to be married by now.

I don't contest the California Supreme Court's decision, or that it occurred. You seem to suggest that I do. But it was not "right."

Your slavery example is inapt. Slavery seems to be acceptable in the Bible (as well as to the anti-Nicene fathers who interpreted the Bible and lived it), to its discredit. But, homosexuality is not. Moreover, one historical wrong does not mean that something is wrong today in a completely different subject area. I could equally and more aptly argue that Christian governments since Constantine until today have never permitted gay marriage, so history on the very subject matter we are discussing seems to support the brethren.

Great personal slam against me! (I'm already receiving anonymous hate mail for my Prop 8 contribution.) I stand humbled once again with my imperfections. But, I wait for you to explain better why it is the brethren are "wrong" in supporting Prop 8. Can you please do that? I would be persuaded with Mormon doctrine or the scriptures rather than some shifting subjective new-age basis of free love and toleration for everything evil.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Except for the two states, marriage has not been defined as a civil right.

I'm sure you're familiar with Loving v. Virginia, counselor, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court described marriage as "one of the basic civil rights of man."

If the Supreme Court had defined marriage as a civil right available for all for whomever one wants as a partner regardless of gender, the federals would have granted gays the right to be married by now.

As I'm sure you well know, counselor, the Supreme Court hasn't heard the case to do it, but I'm confident it will come. They threw out a state law prohibiting interracial marriage in Loving, and it'll come with gay marriage.

I don't contest the California Supreme Court's decision, or that it occurred. You seem to suggest that I do. But it was not "right."

Constitutionally, it absolutely was right; morally or religiously is another issue.

Your slavery example is inapt. Slavery seems to be acceptable in the Bible (as well as to the anti-Nicene fathers who interpreted the Bible and lived it), to its discredit. But, homosexuality is not.

So what? When did this become a biblical issue?

Moreover, one historical wrong does not mean that something is wrong today in a completely different subject area.

They are no different. The U.S. is based on the majority's not discriminating against a minority segment of society without a damn good reason, and none has been provided as to gays other than the fact religious homophobes don't like what gay persons do in the bedroom.

I could equally and more aptly argue that Christian governments since Constantine until today have never permitted gay marriage, so history on the very subject matter we are discussing seems to support the brethren.

The same could be said about slavery and religious discrimination and gender equality, which have only recently (relative to the years since Constantine) begun to be treated differently than in the past. Your arguments make no sense. Whatever your moral or religious concerns with gays, put them aside on what is nothing more than a constitutional and legal issue.

But, I wait for you to explain better why it is the brethren are "wrong" in supporting Prop 8. Can you please do that? I would be persuaded with Mormon doctrine or the scriptures rather than some shifting subjective new-age basis of free love and toleration for everything evil.

They're wrong, in my opinion, because God does not take sides in political and constitutional debates. Gay marriage is a legal and civil right. It has no effect on the Mormons. Indeed, marriage outside of the LDS temple has little or no recognition by the Mormons (starting with Joseph Smith's rationale for why he could take other men's wives (their civil contracts of marriage are of no effect) and Elder Nelson's recent comment that marriage is essentially worthless if outside the temple). And why not toleration? Isn't that what moral agency is all about (especially if the choice is by consenting adults and hurts no one, including paranoid heterosexuals)?

[_rcrocket]

Marriage is not a basic civil right unless, as I have pointed out, partners meet the qualifications therefor and then the equal protection doctrine intervenes to give them the right to marry.

Loving v. Virginia is inapt. A statute was held unconstitutional because it relied upon race as a basis to deny marriage. The decision relied upon the Equal Protection Clause and the 14th amendment, none of which apply to gay partners, at least under federal jurisprudence.

Now, of course, California sees it otherwise. It did rely upon Loving, arguing a constitutional right to marry. But that is just one state.

And, for that, the proposition is being pursued. But I have about 40 or so other states which disagree with California. And, no federal court has agreed with California, either. Seems that precedent is overwhelming.

Comparisons to slavery are inapt. The California Supreme Court did not rely upon slavery history as a basis for analogy.

So, if the scriptures and Mormon doctrine are "wrong", and you reject them as a basis upon which to defend Prop 8, I'm curious as to how you define God and his action? Something you've just made up from pyramids and crystals? Saying that God does not take sides in political and constitutional debates ignores Biblical history, as well as Christian history since Nicea. Most believing Christians who are educated enough to know their history believe that Constantine was called to overthrow the pagan state. Certainly, God favored Israel over other nations, to the point that Jesus refused to minister to a gentile woman's daughter on the grounds that they were "dogs." God does and has played favorites in politics.

I guess if you don't believe in the Bible as an accurate history of God's relationship with man, I could start quoting from the Q'Ran, but then . . .

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Marriage is not a basic civil right unless, as I have pointed out, partners meet the qualifications therefor and then the equal protection doctrine intervenes to give them the right to marry.

The default position is that marriage is a basic civil right, unless the state has a compelling reason to say otherwise (which are few and far between).

Loving v. Virginia is inapt. A statute was held unconstitutional because it relied upon race as a basis to deny marriage. The decision relied upon the Equal Protection Clause and the 14th amendment, none of which apply to gay partners, at least under federal jurisprudence.

The 14th amendment applies to many more than just blacks, including women, religion, etc. It's just a matter of time (when the U.S. Supreme Court gets the chance to make the change) before gays are included, precisely as the CA Supreme Court just did.

Now, of course, California sees it otherwise. It did rely upon Loving, arguing a constitutional right to marry. But that is just one state.

It didn't rely on Loving because the issue was under the CA state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, and CA decisions have already found that marriage is a fundamental right under the state consitution.

And, for that, the proposition is being pursued. But I have about 40 or so other states which disagree with California. And, no federal court has agreed with California, either. Seems that precedent is overwhelming.

But the tide is turning on that precedent, and none too soon, in my opinion.

Comparisons to slavery are inapt. The California Supreme Court did not rely upon slavery history as a basis for analogy.

But the court did rely on prior decisions holding that a state cannot prevent interracial marriage (see discussion on Perez on pages 51-52 of In re Marriage Cases). And we all know that the 14th amendment initially addressed the rights of former slaves, but has since expanded to include other groups, including women, religion, etc.

So, if the scriptures and Mormon doctrine are "wrong", and you reject them as a basis upon which to defend Prop 8 ....

I do reject them as having any relevance to a constitutional and legal issue such as Prop 8. in my opinion, religion dogma and belief have no relevance to a purely civil issue.

I'm curious as to how you define God and his action?

I see "God and his action" as utterly irrelevant to this consitutional and legal issue.

Saying that God does not take sides in political and constitutional debates ignores Biblical history, as well as Christian history since Nicea.

I'm talking U.S. history. That's the whole point of our Constitution and jurisprudence -- keeping religion out of governmental rule and decisions. The Bible and Nicene Creed have no relevance to this discussion.

[_rcrocket]

But the tide is turning on that precedent, and none too soon, in my opinion.

Actually, not. The tide is going the other way as marriage initiatives such as Prop 8 are filling the books in states which did not have them, in reaction to the actions taken in Mass and Hawaii.

The 14th amendment applies to many more than just blacks, including women, religion, etc. It's just a matter of time (when the U.S. Supreme Court gets the chance to make the change) before gays are included, precisely as the CA Supreme Court just did.

That is not logic. The law is what it is today. As I have indicated above, the tide is actually going against the Marriage Cases decisions, if one were to count numbers.

I'm talking U.S. history. That's the whole point of our Constitution and jurisprudence -- keeping religion out of governmental rule and decisions. The Bible and Nicene Creed have no relevance to this discussion.

Oh well, narrow it down why doncha? God (at least, the Mormon version) doesn't get involved in U.S. politics? Hmm. where is my MX missile? Joseph Smith running for President? Prohibition? ERA? And then there's that pesky doctrine that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired.

I see "God and his action" as utterly irrelevant to this consitutional and legal issue.

Oops. Well the whole purpose for me coming out of retirement is to ask you to justify your post: "in my opinion, trying to pass a consitutional [sic] amendment to discriminate against gays and lesbians is NOT "the work of the Lord" (as claimed by Russell Ballard), but the farthest thing from it." It is OK if you don't want to address that particular question, the only one I am really interested in.