Nauvoo
Nauvoo
Nauvoo     Home Page  |  Nauvoo Times  |  About Nauvoo  |  The Back Bench  |  Vigor - Web Edition  |  Contact Nauvoo
Nauvoo Forum
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Nauvoo Forum » Nauvoo Classic Forum » General Discussions » Prop 8 Overturned (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Prop 8 Overturned
Jacaré
Member
Member # 178

 - posted      Profile for Jacaré   Email Jacaré         Edit/Delete Post 
Breaking News
Posts: 6122 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
libertymom5
Member
Member # 1140

 - posted      Profile for libertymom5   Email libertymom5         Edit/Delete Post 
Such a sad day, the voice of the majority has just been silenced by the minority. I'm now waiting for more backlash against the church to come.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mirkwood
Member
Member # 1788

 - posted      Profile for mirkwood   Email mirkwood         Edit/Delete Post 
Typical of the political and judicial scene these days.
Posts: 2159 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rayb
Member
Member # 122

 - posted      Profile for rayb   Email rayb         Edit/Delete Post 
Idiot judge. Moral disapproval is the basis of all law.

My hat's off to all you Californians that worked so hard to preserve our nation's moral foundation. I pray that you are prospered whilst all around you, your enemies engage in babblings (see Alma 1:32).

Hugs,

--Ray

Posts: 13540 | Registered: Oct 98  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sara
Member
Member # 2426

 - posted      Profile for sara   Email sara         Edit/Delete Post 
This paragraph of the decision is particularly sad:
quote:
The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.
so very opposite of the Family Proclamation
Posts: 124 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Curelom
Member
Member # 1439

 - posted      Profile for Curelom   Email Curelom         Edit/Delete Post 
May the Lord have mercy on us. He spared Sodom & Gomorrah (edited to add: for awhile), so perhaps He will spare California. I almost wouldn't mind if He didn't. [Frown] Many of us prayed for this judge to have wisdom & integrity & let legal issues override his personal feelings, but as we like to say, agency is always at work.

Did you know Judge Walker is gay? It isn't a secret. It's well known in the Bay Area & has been reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. Does anyone think for one second that if the judge assigned to this case were Mormon, Catholic, or Evangelical Christian, there wouldn't have been loud screaming for him to withdraw from the case?

The majority of California voters, the overwhelming majority in some counties, and most African-American voters in this state have just been disenfranchised. As in every single jurisdiction where same-sex "marriage" is legal, it is not the people but an agenda-driven mayor, council, legislature, judge, or other miniscule minority that has forced this on the people.

Wanna see how many of your fellow Americans just had their ballots dumped in the trash? Look at this map from the Los Angeles Times. (Go to the drop-down list under "Available Races.")

The dismantlers of marriage may be happy now, but it isn't over. It will go to a higher U.S. court & ultimately the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, since this is a free country, I don't begrudge anyone deluding themselves with the fallacy of same-sex "marriage," & I hope it's OK with them if I don't picket gay bars or the state court waving vulgar signs or chanting hateful slogans.

More details from sfgate.com (San Francisco Chronicle site), which is a rats' nest of radicalism & homosexual glorification.

Libertymom: "I'm now waiting for more backlash against the church to come."

Yup, it's starting up again. Go to the sfgate story about the Church's response & to the reader forum. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/04/state/n143523D73.DTL

You don't need to read them all--just see how many posts have been removed. Even the S.F. Chronicle has a minimum standard of decency when it comes to hate mail & vulgarity, & they have to respond if readers complain.

Rayb: "Moral disapproval is the basis of all law."

Funny thing, that occurred to me too. If moral disapproval is all we have going to keep any law in place, there's not much chance that murder, rape, child abuse, bank robbery, or bombing airliners will be illegal much longer, is there?

"My hat's off to all you Californians"

Thanks. If it comes to the ballot again in a better, idiot judge-proof form, we'll be out there again. Meanwhile, I'll be sending another donation to the NOM or ProtectMarriage to help them continue the fight.

* Curelom puts on helmet, raincoat, & waders, cuz it's going to get thick. [Big Frown] *

[ August 05, 2010, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: Curelom ]

Posts: 13964 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Curelom
Member
Member # 1439

 - posted      Profile for Curelom   Email Curelom         Edit/Delete Post 
In case anyone missed it in the verbiage of my last post....

The right to vote is a pillar of American government, set there by the blood of countless Americans.

For you U.S. citizens, this many of your fellow Americans were disenfranchised today.

You'll need to go to the drop-down list under "Available Races."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-california-results,0,3304898.htmlstory

Posts: 13964 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jason
Member
Member # 1256

 - posted      Profile for Jason           Edit/Delete Post 
"Every time you make something idiot proof, someone will build a better idiot."

This is a camel's nose in the tent type situation. When the disintegration of the family is complete, except for those few peculiar die-hard religious nuts, at least many of us can look back and say that we fought to preserve the family. We know that in this dispensation there won't be another absolute apostasy. I would have hated to have been a prophet at the end of a previous dispensation when the entire world rejected your message and turned from God.

The tares will separate from the wheat all on their own. Just make sure you stay wheat.

[ August 04, 2010, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Jason ]

Posts: 3613 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Curelom
Member
Member # 1439

 - posted      Profile for Curelom   Email Curelom         Edit/Delete Post 
[Laugh] better idiot. [Taunt]

We have to remember Who it is that builds these idiots! Of course, He does give them agency.

Jason: "This is a camel's nose in the tent type situation. When the disintegration of the family is complete, except for those few peculiar die-hard religious nuts, at least many of us can look back and say that we fought to preserve the family. We know that in this dispensation there won't be another absolute apostasy. I would have hated to have been a prophet at the end of a previous dispensation when the entire world rejected your message and turned from God".

Good grief. Imagine being Noah or Moroni. Or John the Apostle, who was translated, watching his church stray in the centuries after Christ & the original Twelve were not around to keep the doctrine pure. [Cry]

"The tares will separate from the wheat all on their own. Just make sure you stay wheat."

Yup. We don't need to worry about whether "God is on our side." If we stay on God's side, He will always be on our side.

Posts: 13964 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seidaho
Member
Member # 1461

 - posted      Profile for seidaho   Email seidaho         Edit/Delete Post 
Folks are oversimplifying this decision.

What happened in court was that those opposing Proposition 8 did a great job. Those supporting it, did a rather poor one.

On the anti-side were Ted Olson (Conservative, former US solicitor general, wife killed on one of the 9/11 planes) and David Boies (liberal, great appellate lawyer).

On the pro-side was a relative unknown.

Apparently it was awfully lop-sided in court.

The appeal is really critical. By Friday, the pro-side has got to get its act together (that is when briefs are due to the 9th Circuit).

I fear this may have been really bungled.

Posts: 154 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seidaho
Member
Member # 1461

 - posted      Profile for seidaho   Email seidaho         Edit/Delete Post 
Be careful attacking the judge.

I just stumbled across something . . the judge was a Reagan appointee. He is considered a strong judge.

Of note, he previously denied a gay group the right to use the term "Gay Olympics", upholding the trademark of the Olympic Committee. That seems to indicate some ability to separate his personal background from his rulings.

I really think the problem was the strength of the advocates and arguments.

Posts: 154 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Curelom
Member
Member # 1439

 - posted      Profile for Curelom   Email Curelom         Edit/Delete Post 
SE, I also think the ProtectMarriage forces could have done much better. They didn't present many strong arguments & I think they pursued them in a shallow manner, not forcefully or persuasively enough. I have to admit I was a little concerned when I read or heard about some of their performance. Andrew Pugno did not impress me terribly much.
Posts: 13964 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheOne
Member
Member # 431

 - posted      Profile for TheOne   Email TheOne         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Be careful attacking the judge.

I just stumbled across something . . the judge was a Reagan appointee. He is considered a strong judge.

Of note, he previously denied a gay group the right to use the term "Gay Olympics", upholding the trademark of the Olympic Committee. That seems to indicate some ability to separate his personal background from his rulings.

I really think the problem was the strength of the advocates and arguments.

Honestly, I don't care who appointed him and what his decisions have been in the past. What matters is the here and now. His ruling and what he has stated is blatantly messed up.
Posts: 5877 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seidaho
Member
Member # 1461

 - posted      Profile for seidaho   Email seidaho         Edit/Delete Post 
TheOne --

A judge is supposed to rule based on what is put in front of him.

Here, he did.

Based on what happened here, I think the decision was rational. That is why I am nervous about the appeal.

Posts: 154 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Curelom
Member
Member # 1439

 - posted      Profile for Curelom   Email Curelom         Edit/Delete Post 
ProtectMarriage needs some strong attorneys. The ones who handled this portion of the case may be perfectly competent, but they didn't truly impress me with their thoroughness or the forcefulness of their presentations.'

So obviously they wouldn't impress a judge who may or may not have come to the case already leaning in one direction. Not saying he wasn't fair or didn't try to be fair. Just sayin'....

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is....well, maybe we shouldn't say too much. It has a reputation & we won't haul it out here. Despite its changing demographic, with all recent POTUS having increasingly biased agendas in making nominations, I still think the SCOTUS is probably the best hope for reason & judicial integrity.

Posts: 13964 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Randy
Member
Member # 762

 - posted      Profile for Randy   Email Randy         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
He spared Sodom & Gomorrah, so perhaps He will spare California.
I think you meant to say that He would have spared Sodom & Gomorrah had there been a few righteous people there.

Thankfully, there are more than a few righteous people in California.

Posts: 3648 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Curelom
Member
Member # 1439

 - posted      Profile for Curelom   Email Curelom         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, Randy--yes, I'd better edit my post to clarify: He spared Sodom & Gomorrah for awhile, while Abraham bargained with Him for those righteous folks.
Posts: 13964 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ze_Mormon
Member
Member # 956

 - posted      Profile for ze_Mormon   Email ze_Mormon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Moral disapproval is the basis of all law
Rayb, that a brilliant comment; it is as wonderfully succinct as it is true. May I quote you that?
Posts: 858 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaKnife
Member
Member # 1220

 - posted      Profile for DaKnife   Email DaKnife         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Despite its changing demographic, with all recent POTUS having increasingly biased agendas in making nominations
Actually the make-up isn't changing. It's been five conservatives for a while and will remain so. The replacements President Obama has made were a liberal democratic appointee for a liberal democratic appointee, and a Republican appointee who turned out to be mostly a liberal for a liberal democratic appointee.

So though the President is getting to replace a Republican appointee, he's not getting to change the make-up or leanings of the court. I expect this case to be resolved by a margin of 5 to 4 in favor of the Proposition.

Posts: 2912 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sweet William
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for Sweet William   Email Sweet William         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I expect this case to be resolved by a margin of 5 to 4 in favor of the Proposition.
Pray for the health of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy? Well, I suppose pray for the health of them all, but mostly those five.

So many things in this country could be completely messed up if not for one vote on the SCOTUS. I still find it hard to fathom that the Boy Scout vote was only 5-4.

Posts: 8602 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Taalcon
Member
Member # 10838

 - posted      Profile for Taalcon   Email Taalcon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Such a sad day, the voice of the majority has just been silenced by the minority. I'm now waiting for more backlash against the church to come.
I'm not sure individual states ever had the right to vote something in (even by majority vote) that is in conflict with the Federal Constitution.

For example, a state can't create legislature that Murder is allowed, because it goes against the constitutional principles that, "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

It's not just a matter of going against the state's majority, The point is, the judge is ruling that what was voted on in one state is probably not legal in the context of the rights of individuals presented in the Constitution, which covers the entire Union.

That's what's under debate. It will probably come down to whether or not a constitutional amendment will be added. And the chances of that are not very good.

Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shane
Member
Member # 2160

 - posted      Profile for Shane   Email Shane         Edit/Delete Post 
The lawyers for Prop 8 were not as prepared as they should have been from what I've heard. They need to take it seriously or hire someone to replace them who will. And they need to emphasize the fact that there is no right to any form of marriage within the Constitution--it's a states issue. They also need to pound on the secular reasons for the institution of marriage in its current form.
Posts: 3298 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyByNight
Member
Member # 1073

 - posted      Profile for FlyByNight   Email FlyByNight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Moral disapproval is the basis of all law
I've been thinking about this. Thinking in context of black voting rights. Was it morality that caused certain states to try and legislate away black voting rights?

There were many states where the majority would have approved a measure that did not allow blacks the right to vote. And yet, in spite of what the majority wanted, the courts forced states, who invented all kinds of different ways to enforce majority rule, to allow blacks the right to vote.

I think it is unwise to speak in terms majority rules in matters of perceived rights issues. Much wiser in my opinion to speak in other terms. For example, benefits to society.

Posts: 11091 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Taalcon
Member
Member # 10838

 - posted      Profile for Taalcon   Email Taalcon         Edit/Delete Post 
Frankly, I feel it'd be better for everyone if the government got out of the Marriage business in general. That includes in many of the ways that we do like and find convenient. Separate the concept of civil unions from marriages.

It doesn't matter what the government recognizes. It's what the Lord recognizes that matters.

The problem I see, is that our main defense is that "This is how God ordained it." However, we don't ask the government to legislate against all other forms of Baptism other than ours. "You can't call that a baptism. This is the only way God meant for people to be baptized!" - In my opinion, if we view Marriage as a religious sacrament, we should treat it legally as a religious sacrament.

[ August 05, 2010, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]

Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyByNight
Member
Member # 1073

 - posted      Profile for FlyByNight   Email FlyByNight         Edit/Delete Post 
The governments interest in marriage is ancient and derives from the need to promote the growth of the nation. In times past power at its root level was derivative of the people. More people means more power. Technology has lessened the effect of population.

But, even today, an argument for the government influencing population growth can be made.

[ August 05, 2010, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: FlyByNight ]

Posts: 11091 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Curelom
Member
Member # 1439

 - posted      Profile for Curelom   Email Curelom         Edit/Delete Post 
Here is a story about the Salt Lake reaction to the further dismantling of traditional marriage.

It reports that "gay rights" advocates rallied at the State Capitol & then marched to Temple Square & around it. Almost like a "victory lap."

If we had thought of it, we could have organized a flock of jubilant Mormons the day after Prop. 8 passed, made big banners & Moroni figures & what-not, & gone parading around the Castro making the rounds of all the gay bars.

But we didn't think of it. It would never occur to most of us--our minds don't work that way. I never heard of examples of Mormons or Catholics "rubbing anyone's nose in it" after Prop. 8 passed. I only just thought of this when I saw the Trib story. I did not feel any overwhelming joy or jubilation when Prop. 8 passed, only a sense of relief & thanks to the people of California for once again confirming their understanding of marriage. Now we'll have to go through this again as the higher U.S. courts consider this.

Pray for wisdom for the higher judges, & for the attorneys who will carry this case. They really need to bear down. Pray for California & for America. We know why this land is here, why the United States was founded, & the conditions God has given for its continued prosperity. Can anyone doubt now that the "thread" is being stretched & strained more each day?

And like Jason said, let's always be wheat.

Posts: 13964 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sweet William
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for Sweet William   Email Sweet William         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If we had thought of it, we could have organized a flock of jubilant Mormons the day after Prop. 8 passed, made big banners & Moroni figures & what-not, & gone parading around the Castro making the rounds of all the gay bars.
Actually, we were hunkering down amidst all of the vandals.
Posts: 8602 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sparky
Member
Member # 176

 - posted      Profile for Sparky   Email Sparky         Edit/Delete Post 
Curelom, could that picture in the Trib have been more carefully posed? Whew.
Posts: 2795 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
roper66
Member
Member # 1765

 - posted      Profile for roper66   Email roper66         Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder if all those celebrating are equally supportive of polygamy. If it's unconstitutional to define marriage on something arbitrary, in this case gender, then it is unconstitutional to define marriage on something equally as arbitrary, such as number. Polygamy, polyandry, mixed groups--all should be afforded equal consideration under the law.

So maybe we should look on the bright side (if you can call it that): The reinstitution of plural marriage could be right around the corner! Residents of Hildale and Colorado City should be dancing in the streets!

Posts: 6550 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaKnife
Member
Member # 1220

 - posted      Profile for DaKnife   Email DaKnife         Edit/Delete Post 
No sparky, a "victory lap" is exactly what it was. It was well covered on the local TV news, and both the channels I saw it on stated and showed that they marched down from the capitol and did a lap around Temple Square. And they had sound bites from marchers/organizers calling it a victory lap.

They really helped their cause with that act. NOT!

The Church says it's disappointed and calls for civility. They celebrate and march around one of our most sacred sites mocking, jeering and profaning it for the news cameras.

I still see a Supreme Court victory for proposition 8. I could be wrong, but I foresee a 5-4 decision, sustaining the will of the people over the will of the activist judges.

Posts: 2912 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Curelom
Member
Member # 1439

 - posted      Profile for Curelom   Email Curelom         Edit/Delete Post 
a "victory lap" is exactly what it was.

It was a deliberate "in-your-face." Activists think it gains them sympathy & new friends, but it's the last thing any refined person, of whatever religious or political persuasion, would do. I hope no Church member would ever think to be so crass.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to call all my fiances so we can arrange to go down to City Hall together for our marriage license(s).

Posts: 13964 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ze_Mormon
Member
Member # 956

 - posted      Profile for ze_Mormon   Email ze_Mormon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It reports that "gay rights" advocates rallied at the State Capitol & then marched to Temple Square & around it. Almost like a "victory lap."
I think we must be careful to remember that to Prop 8 opponents, the temple is just a building. At least for those who are not or have not been deeply religious people, there is no concept of the sacred. To them it is just like protesting on the Mall in DC... which many of us would do were congress voting on an issue we cared enough about.

That being said, I think this decision was a sad commentary on the state of our legal-political system. I can only pray that the rest of the nation can, to quote Elder Bednar, 'see things as the really are.'

Posts: 858 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmon
Member
Member # 600

 - posted      Profile for palmon   Email palmon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
to Prop 8 opponents, the temple is just a building.
No, it is not just a building to them. They do recognize what is sacred to others; it is the 'why' they target the temple.
It is why synagogues and Jewish graves are targeted so often. It is not just because they are buildings where Jews worship and are buried; it is because these are sacred sites for Jews. To mock or destroy the sacred is the goal.

[ August 06, 2010, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: palmon ]

Posts: 5445 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sweet William
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for Sweet William   Email Sweet William         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
At least for those who are not or have not been deeply religious people, there is no concept of the sacred.
Why did this immediately make me think of all those (just totally DARLING) boogie dances down the wedding chapel aisle, which were recently just all the rage among the cooliosos on YouTube?
Posts: 8602 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Taalcon
Member
Member # 10838

 - posted      Profile for Taalcon   Email Taalcon         Edit/Delete Post 
Sparky:
quote:
I wonder if all those celebrating are equally supportive of polygamy. If it's unconstitutional to define marriage on something arbitrary, in this case gender, then it is unconstitutional to define marriage on something equally as arbitrary, such as number. Polygamy, polyandry, mixed groups--all should be afforded equal consideration under the law.
Actually, most couldn't care less. A large portion (who do not hold to a religious definition of marriage) are okay with the legal definition being a legal union/contract between consenting adults.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shane
Member
Member # 2160

 - posted      Profile for Shane   Email Shane         Edit/Delete Post 
Here is a good synopsis of the secular arguments that need to be advanced: Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage

I know. We need to be testifying of the truth. But in the face of needing to prove something and have it be Constitutional, secular arguments will win the day.

Posts: 3298 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Taalcon
Member
Member # 10838

 - posted      Profile for Taalcon   Email Taalcon         Edit/Delete Post 
Shane:

From a legal standpoint, I can see there being a problem with the argument that marriage should be primarily for those who can reproduce. Under that argument, heterosexual couples of which one or both are sterile, or for some other reason declare that they will not be having children, would then have no greater legal claim to marital rights than a homosexual couple.

The biggest problem I see coming from the legal definition being changed is that we'll be branded as intolerant for our religious beliefs. Well, so what else is new?

Without an understanding of the fullness of the gospel, the discouragement of homosexual lifestiles from a liberty perspective makes no sense. At all. Which is another reason why loving and persistent missionary work is so important.

Expressing the love of the Savior in the Gospel, and allowing the spirit to testify of the plan of salvation will do so much more good than trying to vote our religious beliefs into Law that force even unbelievers to adhere to them for no other reason than "The God you don't believe in says so".

In my opinion, that's not America. I don't think it's the Gospel, either.

But this is: "Teach men correct principles, and let them govern themselves." - just because something is legal and options are granted doesn't mean we have to participate in it. I'm not going to be forced to marry another man.

My children will be taught the Plan of Salvation, and of the Lord's definition of Marriage, and how just because you are legally allowed to do something doesn't mean that it is Lawful in the Kingdom of God, of which we are also citizens.

We are Christians first, and citizens of secular nations second. But we are both, and are subject to both.

[ August 06, 2010, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]

Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sanity
Junior Member
Member # 11396

 - posted      Profile for Sanity   Email Sanity         Edit/Delete Post 
Those complaining that this decision overturns the will of the majority don't seem to understand that the purpose of the constitution is to protect the minority from the will of the majority.

In this case, you might be in the majority, and might dislike the minority, but this is a short sighted view, some day you will be in the minority and might be grateful for this protection.

Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyByNight
Member
Member # 1073

 - posted      Profile for FlyByNight   Email FlyByNight         Edit/Delete Post 
LDS history does have us as the minority at various times. However, for us the supposed support of the constitution was absent.
Posts: 11091 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shane
Member
Member # 2160

 - posted      Profile for Shane   Email Shane         Edit/Delete Post 
Taalcon, from the first four paragraphs of the link I provided:

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.


I think it can be proven that there is precedence for denying marriage on the basis of gender and state interest, as per the writer's contention above.

The solution of not trying to win by any means other than proclaiming the gospel will ultimately result in hate speech laws that have been enacted in other countries.

[ August 06, 2010, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Shane ]

Posts: 3298 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Nauvoo Home Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.6.0