111 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Fair enough, but this guy’s beef is with the concept of a referendum in general. He’s opposed to this just as he would be opposed to a referendum for allowing gar marriage or opposed for a referendum allowing black people to get a job without being discriminated against. |
He seems like a nice guy, but I think he’s ultimately wrong. |
Libertarians speak out. This is the fundamental belief. I am glad that we don’t vote on everyting. |
Tolerance does not mean acceptance. |
It would be one thing for him to simply talk about the complications of referendum, or to state that he doesn’t share belief in the reasoning used for supporting Prop 8; it’s another thing–and quite arrogant at that–to authoritatively state that the Church erred in supporting the initiative. On another note, I take issue with his statement that the Church “does not fully accept gays for who they are and probably never will.” Speaking as one of “them,” I feel very accepted in the Church. The Church is clear in its position on sexual expression, and cautions concerning the streams we allow to inform our sense of identity, but neither of those lack of acceptance for who I/we am/are. |
I meant to say: “…but neither of those ideas denote lack of acceptance for who I/we am/are…” |
Why is it better for the voice of the few to trump the voice of the many when deciding important issues that will affect the whole of society? This is not about not letting gays love whomever they want. This is not simply a question of civil rights. The results of this struggle determine how marriage will be defined and described in our society. If we don’t care about that and don’t do anything about it, then we are in a sad situation indeed. |
I think he objects to referendums being used to legislate morality. I don’t have an opinion on that, but I’ve seen too much “Town Without Pity” behavior here to dismiss hia opinion on the issue of gay marriage. Anyone who doesn’t do the checklist can be very quickly ostracized. But, still, I’d fight any attempt to legalize gay marriage here. I wouldn’t need the prophet to tell me to do it. On the still other hand vitriole and unkindness have no place in this debate from either side. |
Except the vast majority of state appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the notion that there is any such fundamental right as gay marriage. In short it is not a civil right. But, assuming that it is for sake of the discussion, that means that 48 states and the entire federal government are depriving gays/lesbians a fundamental right. That proposition makes reason stare. Rather, an extremely small but vocal minority has had very limited success in two state court systems which imposed gay marriage on the vast majority of its own citizens, creating new fundamental rights, when none previously existed, and which are rejected by most appellate courts which have actually litigated this issue.
No, in reality, a majority of Californians for the second time in eight years have defined marriage as it has been defined in California for the past 158 years, and how the vast majority of the world’s civilizations have defined it for millennia. This is absolutely the province of the California electorate. There are legitimate societal interests in affording heterosexual unions the stature of marriage, which do not exist for homosexual unions. And, in California, all unions, hetro or homosexual are afforded all the same rights California law can bestow. |
Tolerance does not mean acceptance. But affirming same-sex couples’ right to marry is not the same as condoning their exercise of it. Were it put to a vote, I would definitely vote to affirm the Ku Klux Klan’s right to free speech, even though I fundamentally disagree with how they choose to exercise it. I’m sorry, but “I don’t accept their lifestyle” is not a convincing rationale for denying someone’s constitutional rights. |
Steve M, I think your analogue is a bit askew. Yes, we (society) can accept the idea that the K.K.K. can believe what they want, but we vehemently refuse to tolerate any imposition of those beliefs on society at large–let alone any acting out of such. |
Steve, Was the fight over prop 8 really about consitutional rights since they already had a civil union law, which gave them all the same rights as marriage as far as ca is concerned? I have got my suspicians that they it’s about increasing acceptance and legitimacy of gay relationships and I don’t think it’s the place of the government to do that. |
we vehemently refuse to tolerate any imposition of those beliefs on society at large What are the gays imposing on society? Humor me. Give me a serious answer. Pretend I’m from Mars and I don’t have a clue as to what’s going on. |
it’s about increasing acceptance and legitimacy of gay relationships and I don’t think it’s the place of the government to do that Was it the place of government to help increase acceptance and legitimacy of cross-racial marriages? |
Mark N # 14
That’s not what government did, nor was it government’s purpose. It struck down the criminalization of certain marriages based on improper and unconstitutional classifications based on race, using the 14th Amendment, which was specifically enshrined into the Constitution to protect Blacks–former slaves.
Not at all similar. |
I think your analogue is a bit askew. Yes, we (society) can accept the idea that the K.K.K. can believe what they want, but we vehemently refuse to tolerate any imposition of those beliefs on society at large–let alone any acting out of such. Yes. Exactly. In applying your argument to the Prop 8 situation, I think it actually favors the legalization of gay marriage. I don’t see how allowing same-sex couples to marry constitutes an “imposition of [their] beliefs on society at large.” I don’t have to accept their beliefs–or their actions. But their decision to marry doesn’t infringe upon my rights. On the other hand, when religious groups undertake to strip gays of their rights on the basis of their own subjective notions of morality, it does constitute imposing their beliefs on society at large. It results in a very real infringement upon the freedom of same-sex couples. Mormons and other religious conservatives imposed their subjective notions of marital morality on the whole of society; as a result, gays and lesbians now do not have a right that they had a few weeks ago. Was the fight over prop 8 really about consitutional rights since they already had a civil union law, which gave them all the same rights as marriage as far as ca is concerned? Yes, it certainly was about constitution rights. It was about one constitutional right in particular–the fundamental right to marry the partner of one’s choice. |
I’m sorry, but “I don’t accept their lifestyle” is not a convincing rationale for denying someone’s constitutional rights. Interesting perspective now that the anti-8 crowd now wants to bully pro-8 businesses and people into not exercising their freedom of speech … |
It is a fundamentally flawed argument to propound that a state’s referendum system runs contrary to the form of government established by the founding fathers. In fact, part of the genius of the Constitution is that states are (and ought to be) left to manage most social issues without any interference from the federal government. However each state chooses to implement the “will of the people” is in fact for the citzens of that state to decide. The ballot initiative is the chosen vehicle in California for allowing modifications to the state legal code and/or state constitution. Bear in mind that, where Proposition 8 is concerned, this has nothing to do with the United States Constitution. Except in the minds of hyperactive ACLU lawyers. |
#13 Mark N., Gays want to impose their values that a homosexual marriage is as acceptable in nature as a heterosexual marriage. Guy Murray put it well that there is simply no precedent or reason for homosexual marriage to be put on equal footing, especially if that footing were mandated by law. That is inherently dictated morality. The problem with arguing against the imposition of morality is that such an argument is, in itself, an imposition of morality. Especially when one attaches “rights” to it. So this guys words are misguided. In the vote for “rights” versus “traditional morality” in CA, “traditional morality” won. And rights can still win as long as those who fight so hard for rights do not fight against traditional morality. I am very interested to see if that is possible. There is a group working for such a thing in Utah, but in CA, that may be too much to ask for now. |
Steve m, a civil union grants all the same rights as marriage so a gay couple gains nothing except a change in wording on whatever certificate they get from the state, so I don’t see how this is about rights at all. This is about making their relationships more legitimate in the eyes of the public. |
Where did the term “traditional morality” come from? Who coined it? Why not just morality, or God’s morality? When did we start to define what is moral by our traditions? It seems those who like this term, dislike the term “situational ethics”(?) |
Brent misses every point that he tries to hit, and there end up being two basic components to his editorial: outrage and muddle-headed thinking. The progressives of the late 19th century wanted to be ultra-democratic, and so the state constitutions from that era have crazy referendum setups. I don’t much like such referendums myself. Partly because I’m an Easterner and so they’re not part of my political experience, and partly because they tend to turn real political issues into an absolute circus. But California has referendums. Californians can change their setup if they want to, but they seem to like it fine, and that’s their business. In any case, it’s the way their system was designed to work. And Brent is arguing that their political process (which falls well within the bounds of republican and democratic normalcy) is somehow illegitimate just because it turned out a result that offends his moral sensibilities. Funny thing: Brent wasn’t railing against the referendum process when it looked like prop 8 was going down in flames. Brent misses the point even worse when he says: “Questions of morality or civil rights should never be turned over to a majority vote.” People disagree about moral issues, and the only way to resolve these disagreements is to put them to a vote. Therefore, questions of morality and civil rights are always turned over to a majority vote, in the court no less than in the legislature, and in the legislature no less than in a plebiscite. Brent thinks that because his (rather controversial) moral outlook is so obvious that it should be enshrined as law by fiat. My guess is that he’d feel differently if his side had succeeded in defeating prop 8. In that case, it would suit him just fine to have the morally enlightened citizenry of California speak up for the rights of gays to marry. But now that it’s failed, he’s whining about the fact that those lousy trolls were able to vote on the issue in the first place. If Brent weren’t so utterly ineffective at formulating his ideas and communicating them, he might end up being dangerous. |
The framers of the Federal constitution did not anticipate Marshall’s claim for the Supreme Court of a power not explicitly granted in the Constitution, that of judicial review of acts of Congress, and thus provided no check on this power, short of amending the Constitution itself: Given how carefully the constructed their system of checks and balances, if they could have foreseen it, they would certainly have provided an easier check on a bad court decision than the difficult and cumbersome process of amending the Constitution itself, which is overkill for most bad court decisions. |
This is about making their relationships more legitimate in the eyes of the public. And if they’re successful, and gay relationships are made more legitimate in the eyes of the public… then what? Seems to me that we’re already too late on that one anyways. I don’t think I ever watched a single episode of “Will and Grace”, but my not being there on a weekly basis apparently didn’t hurt the show any. (I thought it ran for seven seasons, but I just looked it up on IMDB, and it went for eight.) Gay people are everywhere now. I admit that some of them cause me to cringe at their flamboyance; there was some new reality show on the other night that my daughter flipped the channel to, and it’s yet another week-to-week competition where somebody gets kicked off the show each week, and the point of this one is to find the best makeup artist in the bunch. There are some “scary” gay people on there, and, predictably, the most normal participant of the bunch (a mother — I didn’t catch if she’s a single mother or not — of two young daughters) was the first one to be kicked off the show. She was just too boring to last, too conventional looking, not “out there” enough. If we’re going to scream about the normalization of somebody’s life that shouldn’t probably be normalized, I think that honor would have to go to the show “The Girls Next Door”, which gives us Playboy Bunnies and their life with Hef from week to week. (If the good die young, Hugh Hefner will live to 140.) I mean, if this show isn’t a tract for plural marriage (or the world’s idea of it), then I don’t know what is. Good grief almighty. But I haven’t heard anyone complaining about the beliefs and ideas and lifestyle being imposed on us by that show. Why haven’t we, as church members, been encouraged to do what we can to get organized and get that stuff off the air? |
Brent Holloway is just another of the hundreds of LDS who have misjudged this entire issue. It simply isn’t about civil rights or morality but about a state sanctioned license that carries many rights and responsibilities, and the many discrimination law suits that will result for rejecting same sex marriage. One only needs to look to what has happened in Canada since SSM was legalized (note that it was ‘legalized’ and not decriminalized as abortion or divorce or sodomy was). Canada is the county that resembles the USA most and now we see that a marriage celebrant who refused to marry a gay couple, and only recommended another celebrant who would, was forced to pay $2500 in compensation to the gay couple. (http://www.zenit.org/article-23136?l=english). Our Bishops, who hold state granted ability to perform marriage regularly marry those who don’t qualify for a Temple marriage, such as a couple already pregnant or were one partner is a non-member. If gay marriage is legal and lawful they will also have to marry that gay (still member) to his partner or face an anti-discrimination suite; or not marry anyone at all. But worst is what happened to pastor Stephen Boissoin or to Bishop Henry (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marb45.htm) and the money that had to be spend defending the basic religious practice of calling some activities sinful and wrong. Now current LDS members look at ‘equality’ and ‘love for all’ but just don’t seem to see what the ramifications are to declaring gay marriage as legal and lawful. And that’s without considering all the moral implications of changing the fundamental building block of society from a man-women and any children they raise, to a man-man situation, nor considering any scriptural and revealed doctrine on the issue. Fortunately the brethren have stepped up to the plate and drawn a line and done this in the most pubic manner possible, since AZ or FL may not have resulted in as much publicity as Prop 8 in CA. In this I’d say they were truly inspired. They, I believe, also did this so that we the members finally get it through our heads that gay marriage and homosexual sexual relations are not OK or an equality matter. If the Brent’s of this world have it their way, we in the church will just have to never talk about homosexuality in public and take it off our books all together and pretend that it isn’t a sin anymore -which I suspect is what the gay lobby actually wants to see. |
What I don’t understand is how someone can claim to believe that God’s definition of marriage is good, right and beneficial and yet oppose its institution into society as a whole. It seems to me that each person should use their voice to vote for what they believe is most beneficial to society, not only for what it considered “fair”. If there is one thing I have learned in life it is that “fair” is not always “good” and “fair” is almost always impossible to achieve anyways. Either you believe the definition of marriage in a traditional way is good, or you do not. We should all vote according to the dictates of our consciences, and allow others to do the same without vilification. |
#25: Our Bishops, who hold state granted ability to perform marriage regularly marry those who don’t qualify for a Temple marriage, such as a couple already pregnant or were one partner is a non-member. If gay marriage is legal and lawful they will also have to marry that gay (still member) to his partner or face an anti-discrimination suite; or not marry anyone at all You are being disingenuous. Did you even read the article you cited? The person who refused to marry the gay couple was not a religious leader, he was a civil authority required under law to provide those services. This did not involve a religious leaders. That civil servant was required to do their job. I would also have a valid complaint if I were gay in Massachusetts, and some town clerk told me I would have to go to another town to get a marriage license. |
#22:Referendums: “..tend to turn real political issues into an absolute circus”. I agree. That’s why I tend not to vote for them here in CA. Usually, they are emotional, and fail in a legal test. |
#28—Religion is part of a pluralistic community. You cannot ask someone to throw away their moral beliefs when they vote any more than someone can ask gays to throw away theirs. |
Bob, you’ve focused on an aside that I made about referendums, and missed the overriding point that demonstrates that the aside isn’t relevant. |
Look, even the Bill of Rights was ratified by majority vote. Nothing is off limits. |
#29: I asked no one to give up their moral beliefs when voting. I said take them into the booth with you. But in our pluralistic community, we have an agreement of giving space to each other’s views, and that our two large institutions, Church and State, keep as much space as possible between each other. #30: But DKL… sometimes your little points are better than your big ones. |
DKL, your comment on line 22 is completely, 100%, right! I attempted to answer the editorial but after reading your response, I am left to say, I do not think I could do better. |
27. woodboy “he was a civil authority required under law to provide those services” So are Bishops when they marry a couple; they are acting as ‘a civil authority under law’ not in a function of the Priesthood or a priesthood ordinance or duty. What many members don’t know is that in our church only ‘Sealers’ in Temples or Apostles have the priesthood authority to Marry, or those who hold the sealing power through ordination, all other priesthood holders actually do not have any ecclesiastical authority to marry. Only in some states and countries are Bishops granted a government license or the authority to act as public marriage celebrants because the government recognizes them as the leaders or pastor of a basic church unit. (In most all latin american nations Bishops don’t have legal authority to marry because the state doesn’t give then that authority so they can’t legally marry a couple but only bless the union which was married legally elsewhere.) In those nations where the government grants Bishop authority to marry, Bishops will need to follow all the legal requirements as the government dictates because the authority comes from the government not the church, ie not marry siblings, not marry someone in a coma, and not discriminate against any group according to current anti-discrimination practices, etc etc |
Interesting, especially the comments. |
heard some interesting speculation today about how LDS efforts on behalf of P8 could help mend fences with evangelicals and thus aid Romney’s 2012 bid. |
34, Yes bishops in the US have the civil authority to perform weddings. but they are not employees of the state, as was the person in question in the article cited above. That is a crucial distinction. A religious celebrant can refuse to marry me for all sorts of different reasons, a state employee whose job it is to perform marriages cannot. |
heard some interesting speculation today about how LDS efforts on behalf of P8 could help mend fences with evangelicals and thus aid Romney’s 2012 bid. Keep dreaming. Sure, the hatred has been leveled a bit but its not because evangelicals hate us less - the LBGT community simply hates us more. |
Woodboy, Actually he can’t refuse to perform marriages when asked to do so by a, say, non-member couple. We will have to agree to disagree here because the way I see it, and obviously as Carlos see’s it too, a Bishop is an ad honorem employee of the state every time he performs a wedding. And if he refuses as you say here ‘for all sorts of different reasons’, well that’s when the law suits will start. Normal people will probably just find someone else to marry them, but the politically motivated gay lobby will make an issue out of this since the Bishop is a state representative when it comes to civil marriages. (Note that I use ‘normal people’ to differentiate from the belligerent gay agenda proponents) |
I agree with Brent. We sure wouldn’t be extolling the virtues of a popular vote determining values or morals we are opposed to, or which would directly take away our rights. Not that we always agree with the decisions of the courts, but atleast we know the constitution is designed to not only protect others’ rights, but ours as well. |
Charlie, Note that this is in contrast to Justices of the Peace and clerks, who are obligated (in mass) to perform gay weddings. This is not the case in CT, where I believe JPs are free to refuse. |
“that compels a minister or pastor to marry those he does not wish to,” Under anti-discrimination! It would be a civil suite or, as in Canada, a claim to a ‘human rights’ type tribunal which are set up in many places so that people can file complaints without the expenses of going to civil court. “Catholic priests will only marry couples where at least one of them in Catholic. In the Episcopal: Yes, that is the case TODAY. If gay marriage becomes legal a gay couple will go out become catholic on purpose and then use the rejection to sue under the various anti-discrimination acts. That’s the whole purpose of the catholic church’s involvement in this Prop 8, and remember that the Catholic church went looking for Monson to join them. It is to stop the Canadian case happening or the Mass case in adoption (which you should be aware off by now). Sure you still haven’t had a gay rigths couple taking on catholics in Mass, but more because the priest are looking out for them selves and the gays haven’t bothered to take it on yet…they are all protesting around the country. Also there is the basic situation of what we stand for. If we stand for traditional marriage, as we do, then we should stand up and say so. Just like we do as an institution against crime, dead beat dad’s, divorce, abortion etc etc. |
“rather the state recognizes the marriage he solemnizes in his role as minister as being legally binding” Doesn’t happen in the LDS church. He doesn’t have a ‘role’ as a minister and as a priesthood holder to marry. Only apostles have that role, under the ’sealing key’ which they pass on to the very few who act as marriage celebrants in Temples. Once they are released they stop being able to marry in our church even though they remain as High Priests. This is about the roles and responsibilities of each priesthood office, ie Deacon can pass sacrament, Teachers prepare and home teach, Priest baptize, Bishop sits in judgment of the people etc but in his office there isn’t a role for marrying couples -only the state lets him act in its behalf, the state, not the church. But not to worry. this is an area of our doctrine that almost no one understands or knows about since they always saw Bishops marrying someone. And the church has a problem with this in countries where the state has not granted Bishop authority to marry, like in Brasil, were some Bishop will hold a ‘church wedding’ and say ‘by the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood….I pronounce you man and wife….before God..” Such a wedding a an aberration since the priesthood office of Bishop doesn’t have any authority to do this (by the Priesthood etc). |
Charlie, you are woefully misinformed about the possibilities of anti-discrimination laws. There is no basis, none, to believe they could ever be used in the ways you describe. |
MCQ, Already happened in Canada -which is the nation that most resembles the US in the world. You are just don’t want to see what the gay lobby will get up to. |
Wow, where to start. What do you mean by “anti-discrimination” as a cause of action? The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, which is more restrictive than the federal one, forbids discrimination against protected classes in specifically defined areas–employment, housing, public accomodation, and a handful of others. Marriage is not among them, nor is religious worship, and furthermore several parts of the statute have specific exemptions for religious institutions. So although sexual orientation is a protected class in massachusetts, the law is more narrow than you suggest as to what constitutes a credible claim of discrimination. Churches can discriminate as much as they want. If you are making claims about all the “anti-discrimination” lawsuits that will happen, they need to have some basis in fact and law. Second, the cases I cited all occur regularly in massachusetts, where gay marriage already is legal and has been for 4 years. There haven’t been lawsuits not because “gays haven’t bothered to take it on” but rather because there are no grounds on which to sue, just like there are none for straight non-Catholics to claim discrimination because of the RCC’s refusal to marry them. As to your other point, the state does not care at all about sealing power, apostles, prisethood offices, or any of the other Mormon-specific things you mention. In the eyes of the state, the bishop is a minister of a church, and as such is given authority by state law to solemnize marriages. As pointed out, such is not the case in most other countries. |
Furthermore, Canadian law is not binding in the US, even if they do resemble us. |
“bishop is a minister of a church, and as such is given authority by state law to solemnize marriages” Exactly what I said! The church isn’t the one authorizing our Bishops to marry, its all under the states authority and must be done according to state law, not church practices. For example a Bishop still can’t marry 1st cousins because the government says they can’t even though we do marry cousins by proxy when they are dead. But if marriage between two men is lawful then..well already explained it. As to discrimination, well, when a gay couple wins a case, and compensation, we can talk again. And I never claimed that Canadian law is binding in the US, you are making that up. I offered what has already happened in Canada as an example of what could happen here, as pointed out first in comment 25, especially considering what happened to that Bishop Henry. Its an example not a statement of what is binding. But it seems you are only reading what you want to see instead of what is written. You ought to start from the very beginning again and actually read what is written and not what you chose to add in between the lines! |
If President-elect Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act won’t that invalidate any law prohibiting marriage (as well as those limiting abortion and who knows what else): same-sex, bigamy, polygamy, underage, and so on? If marriage is a civil right, then there should be no discrimination in applying for a license. Perhaps we could just save money and stop issuing licenses and let people marry who they may. Then we will see what happens to the fabric of morality in our society. Something interesting written by Andrew Sullivan in “Virtually Normal: An argument about homosexuality 1995.” “…gay men have need for extra-marital outlets. . .same-sex marriage will make adultery more acceptable.” |
Carlos, “The church isn’t the one authorizing our Bishops to marry, its all under the states authority and must be done according to state law, not church practices. For example a Bishop still can’t marry 1st cousins because the government says they can’t even though we do marry cousins by proxy when they are dead. But if marriage between two men is lawful then..well already explained it.” Yes the marriages must be valid under state law. But there is nothing in state law that compels a religious officiant to marry those he/she does not wish to. “As to discrimination, well, when a gay couple wins a case, and compensation, we can talk again.” If this is such a slam dunk, why has nothing like it happened in Mass, where gay marriage has been legal for 4 years? Because there is no basis for a discrimination suit. I have outlined above what discrimination is, and there is nothing in state or federal law to support a claim of discrimination in the scenario you bring up. “And I never claimed that Canadian law is binding in the US, you are making that up.” That was in response to charlie. Both of you suggested by your wording that because Canada is “similar” to the US, that makes it more likely that such a thing would happen here. “But it seems you are only reading what you want to see instead of what is written.” I did read what is written. The case you cite was a state employee whose job it was to perform marriages. He was not a religious officiant. This is similar to the current situation in Mass where a Justice of the Peace or clerk cannot refuse to perform a gay marriage, but a religious minister can. Both of you are arguing from a position of ignorance about the law with regard to marriage and discrimination. |
49, |
Hi folks. A lot of interesting comments about my article. I don’t mind opposing points of view, even if I don’t agree with some of them. I am impressed with your intelligent views. (Unlike the gentleman in my local paper, who called me a false prophet. Oh boy.) I spent a little time formulating a response, but then, just as I was finishing up, I hit some damn button on my keyboard, which erased it all. (And I had made some very good points too.) Oh well. I don’t have time for much of a response now, but to say, I am neither a proponent or opponent of gay marriage itself. I actually feel that my opinion shouldn’t get a vote - especially when it concerns someone’s civil rights. That was the point of my article. Population contests, (or more apt description: “popularity contests”) are a horrible venue for the determination of legal matters. We shouldn’t all get to vote on whether someone can marry or not. Luckily, racial issues (including mixed-race prohibitions) of the past somehow escaped the antics of hyper-activists in states like California, who believe that they are somehow protecting something (like what, the “sanctity of marriage?” - give me a break), by their foolhardy rush to ballotize every issue. And I hope that you keep one thing in mind as you continue your expressions. Issues like these tend to polarize us into distinct groups. That’s one reason why I think the Church made a mistake in its activist stance. I have met some folks in the gay community. I’ve never met one, who wasn’t kind and gentle. What is missing from this discussion, which often seems so black and white, is compassion, which tends to soften the hard edges of opinion. That is where I have erred in the past. If you can muster the courage, attend a support group meeting of LGBT folks. You’ll find that they are just like the rest of us. Their desire for marriage isn’t to try and force their lifestyle on anyone. Hardly. But they would like to have the same rights, privileges and opportunities as anyone else in this country. Compassion goes a long way in healing our differences. |
Woodboy, “But there is nothing in state law that compels a religious officiant to marry those he/she does not wish to” Nor was there anything is state law permitting gay marriage yet judges is MA and CA managed to ‘invent’ an argument which made gay marriage legal (overturning the peoples will in CA after they voted on this in 2000 on Prop 22) What you still fail to see, as MCQ and Brent fail to see, is that when a mormon Bishop is marrying a couple he is a defacto state official for the ceremony, not a church official since Bishops can’t marry in our church, only Temple Sealers can, and a smart legislating gay favoring judge will on day argue to condemn the ‘homophobic LDS church’ as they see it. Why they haven’t yet in MA? they are still on their honeymoon plus whats the percentage of mormons there, 0.02%? After they stop marching in front of Temples they may start to spend money challenging this in test cases. Anyway it took 8 years for gays to overturn Prop 22, that’s ignoring all that happened previously, so you still have 4 years to wait and see (if discrimination arguments are used against Bishops) |
#53: Carlos, Judges often overturn the will of the Majority if it violates the Constitution rights of the Minority. That’s one of their jobs. |
Bob, Say what? 1)Those judges were legislating from the bench. They should apply the law as legislature’s determine. They didn’t have a god given nor a constitutional right to protect the minority. 2)Mormon Bishops have no church authority to marry, he only has the authority the state government gives him and as such he is a defacto government/state employee when officiating in a wedding. In our church only Sealers in Temples and Apostles hold church authority to wed. 3)I’m saying marriage is only between a man and a woman and so judges found an argument to change this but that argument is fundamentally wrong -not that they will listen to me off course. Marriage means man-women joining as one just like ‘man’ = male or woman = female. Why not come up with another word for that man-man union instead of usurping the word ‘marriage’? This isn’t all that difficult to understand. |
“What you still fail to see, as MCQ and Brent fail to see, is that when a mormon Bishop is marrying a couple he is a defacto state official for the ceremony, not a church official since Bishops can’t marry in our church, only Temple Sealers can” You keep stating this repeatedly as if it is somehow relevant to your argument about discrimination lawsuits. Plus, bishops can marry for time, they just can’t perform sealings. And though this is bordering on pointless, for a moment i will indulge your test case scenario. Gay couple goes to mormon bishop, wants to get married, mormon bishop refuses. So they try to file a lawsuit. There are a few options: There is no statute forcing anyone to marry you, so the bishop is not breaking the law in any sense. So you try to sue for discrimination under the civil rights act. Did discrimination take place? Ok, sexual orientation is a protected class under Mass law. But discrimination is only forbidden in certain circumstances. This is not housing or employment related. The only shot you might have is public accommodation, but churches are not businesses open to the public, and religious organizations are given broad based statutory exemptions anyway (MGL ch. 151A). So this isn’t even really discrimination under the law. So you try a constitutional approach claiming your rights have been violated. The Goodrich case said people have the right to marry a person of their choosing without regard to sexual orientation. How has your right been violated here? You are free to marry the person. The decision (and nothing else in case law or statue) does not give you a constitutional right to marry in any church of your choosing. Furthermore, what damages would be suffered in such a scenario? Now let’s say for a moment that beyond all reason this was somehow found to be a valid discrimination claim. The problem is still that the defendant can raise an affirmative defense that being forced to perform such a marriage would violate his constitutional right to free expression (guaranteed by both the US and Mass constitutions). Like most states, this right is very well enshrined in Massachusetts law. Also like most states (though apparently not CA), the court applies a Sherbert-style test to any law conflicting with the constitutional right to free expression (Attorney Gen. v. Desilets, 418 Mass. 321). There is NO POSSIBLE WAY such a law could pass a test of strict scrutiny. If the court holds that the state has a compelling interest in allowing gay people to get married, a law or decision forcing someone to perform a marriage against their conscience would certainly not be the least disruptive way of providing that right. This is also why the court would find such a law unconstitutional should someone try to pass it. Say you tried to file in federal court instead. Marriage is a state issue, so the only way they would hear it is if your US constitutional rights had been violated. But sexual orientation is not a protected class under the US constitution or federal law, so that route is out too. Lastly, it is difficult to imagine what damages would be suffered by the plaintiffs in such a scenario. The above are all reasons why any such lawsuit would quickly be tossed out by a court. Religious rights are firmly entrenched in law. Remember the church handily won both lawsuits, in state and federal court, that were filed over the building of the temple in Belmont, MA. I imagine that this argument will not matter much to someone who is paranoid and believes that judges constantly do what they want in complete ignorance of jurisprudence, statutory and case law, and who relies on fantastical hypotheticals to make points. if you have a legal rebuttal though, I’d like to hear it. |
1) The judiciary interprets the laws made by the legislature. Also the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 2) Mormon bishops have church authority to marry for time, if local law allows it. From the church handbook: Members who are planning a civil marriage may invite any of the following presiding officers 3) you keep stating the bishop becomes a “de facto state employee” without proof. The bishop does not receive compensation from the government. He is not a state employee. |
“They didn’t have a god given nor a constitutional right to protect the minority. ” That is a dangerous viewpoint. The Constitution protects minorities by giving them rights that the majority cannot take away by legislation. |
“Plus, bishops can marry for time” Wrong! This is were the error lies. Bishops, and stake presidents or mission presidents simply can’t marry a couple under any church ie priesthood authority. That authority just simply DOES NOT exist in the LDS church. Again, for the last time, only Sealers hold that key after correctly ordained. Where it says “if civil law authorizes him to do so” it means that only the civil law authorizes him not the priesthood law(for lack of a better term). While your arguments are good and reasonable in #56, what you aren’t seeing is WHAT marriage is: its a State issued licence in the eyes of the government and not a religious ceremony as, say, conferring the priesthood or baptism or Sealing or any other ordinance done under the priesthood authority is. So your argument should part from the states ‘blind’ point of view of who can issue that license in the states’ name and what the conditions are, ie they can’t be siblings, 1st cousins, nor can you discriminate based on religious or sexual orientation etc. The fact that no one has bothered to sue a church is irrelevant because the politically active gay lobby soon will. A catholic priest/mormon bishop is actually doing a job for the state when he presides in a marriage ceremony. And this is also why the Catholic church is involved in Prop 8 since they already suffer the effects of same sex marriage in adoption services. If it happen in adoption it could also happen in issuing a marriage license -which only the State can do. As in the adoption case involved state funds in a marriage case it involves a State License: the marriage one. But yes, you are right in saying that this is becoming tedious and pointless now. Only a judge will be able to decide who is right here, you or me! How ironic. “Lastly, it is difficult to imagine what damages would be suffered by the plaintiffs in such a scenario” Costs in finding a “bishop” who does agree to marry them, which in the Canadian case, was about $2500 |
The fact that no one has bothered to sue a church is irrelevant because the politically active gay lobby soon will. true. also, SLC probably doesn’t want to rewrite Personal Ancestral File, TempleReady, and familysearch.com to accommodate same-sex couples. |
#56: Woodboy, what you left out of your options, was a Civil lawsuit. I was sent down to a “First-Day-of-Trial” settlement conference to settle a Defamation of Charter S\C lawsuit. A young girl was openly disfellowshipped from a Mosque for her sexual behavior . I have also handled Defamation suits for persons outing a Gay. I am only saying, you take a chance taking any action based on your idea of the “charter” of an other. I seems to me Marriage should be: a man, a woman, and kids. Otherwise, what’s the point of the man\man or woman\woman limit?womanwoman |
#61: Sorry about the bad selling, my wife was telling me the sink is stopped again! |
Spelling…. |
Bob, |
“true. also, SLC probably doesn’t want to rewrite Personal Ancestral File, TempleReady, and familysearch.com to accommodate same-sex couples.” What? This thread is becoming absolutely ridiculous. How would a court force the church to rewrite software? |
#64:Discrimination laws make it illegal for US employers to discriminate in any aspect of employment because of age, disability, national origin, race, …” |
Th |