Legal arguments against homosexual marriage

[McBell]

Norman: Hi Debater Slayer, In my opinion, God gave us marriage, not man. Morality is never outdated, especially when parents teach their children morals and values.What may be outdated by men is not outdated with God.Do you believe in morals and values that really are the fabric of society? It really does have every thing to do with the Constitution.Having courts resolve these complex social issues is a far more troublesome path than having them resolved by the people themselves through the legislative processes in their own backyards. Courts can only rule on the cases before them. Consequently, their rulings provide no room for compromise. By definition, one party wins and the other loses. The result is often polarization, animosity and alienation of one side or another. What is truly needed is a process that allows for give and take, reasonable accommodation and mutual respect. By joining in the amicus brief, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is arguing that “fairness for all” is much better accomplished in legislatures than in the courts. What do you think?

I think you are merely grasping at straws.

The fact of the matter is the Supreme Court has to step in because the states are creating conflicting laws.
Once the Supreme Court levels the playing field, those who feel they got screwed can go home and lick their wounds.

 

[McBell]

QUOTE="Mestemia, post: 4276260, member: 3566"]
The problem is that some states not only ban same sex marriage, but also refuse to recognize the same sex marriages of states that allow them.
thus, the Supreme Court has to make a decision upon the state of same sex marriage.

Norman: This should ever never gone to the Supreme Court, because this is going to be a winner takes all. Where as if it was left to each state and the vote of the people and there legislators there would be room for compromise. This is exactly what my Church did in Utah and both sides are happy. SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is supporting nondiscrimination bills involving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people — while at the same time calling for protections for people of faith. In a rare news conference on Tuesday morning, LDS Church leaders announced their support for LGBT nondiscrimination legislation. “God is loving and merciful,” said Sister Neill Marriott of the LDS Church’s Young Women’s program. “Jesus ministered to marginalized outcasts.” “It’s for this reason that the church has publicly favored laws and ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing and employment.” But the church also complained of people being branded “bigots” for speaking for their faith. “When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser,” said Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles. “It is one of today’s great ironies that some people who have fought so hard for LGBT rights now try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals,” said Elder Oaks.

Source:

LDS Church backs LGBT nondiscrimination and religious freedom bills | fox13now.com

You will have to link the Amicus you are referring to so that I can take it apart piece by piece.

Norman: The brief is to long to post. I posted a part of it, you can read the rest of the brief by following my instructions below. We joined other Churches listed below in the brief.

Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574

================================================================

In The Supreme Court of the United States

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Religious organizations and associations representing over 50 million Americans appear on this brief as a diverse coalition of faith communities.1 Amici are the National Association of Evangelicals; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod; the Assemblies of God; the Christian Legal Society; The Brethren Church; The Christian and Missionary Alliance; the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee; Converge Worldwide; the Evangelical Congregational Church; the Evangelical Presbyterian Church; The Fellowship of Evangelical Churches; the Free Methodist Church – USA; Grace Communion International; the International Pentecostal Holiness Church; The Missionary Church; Open Bible Churches; and The Wesleyan Church.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Recognizing a new right to same-sex marriage would harm religious liberty. That harm is avoidable because neither the Constitution nor this Court’s precedents dictates a single definition of marriage for the Nation. Preserving religious liberty is a compelling reason not to give the Fourteenth Amendment a novel reading that would require every State to license and recognize marriage between persons of the same sex. At a minimum, the Court should carefully consider how a ruling mandating same-sex marriage would adversely affect religious liberty.

5 ARGUMENT

I. TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS CENTRAL TO THE FAITH, PERSONAL IDENTITY, AND WAY OF LIFE OF MILLIONS OF RELIGIOUS AMERICANS.

Our religious doctrines hold that marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God as the proper setting for spousal relations and for conceiving and rearing children. We believe that children, families, society, and our Nation thrive best when traditional marriage is sustained and strengthened as a primary social institution. Millions of Americans order their lives around husband-wife marriage and derive meaning and stability from that institution. We make no apologies for these beliefs.

You can find the full brief at the URL below under 14-556_major_religious_organizations.pdf

Source:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=amicus+brief+The+Church+of+Jesus+Christ+of+Latter+Day+Saints+2015&type=Site

I wonder how they determine that an opposite sex marriage will be impeded in participation as fully equal citizens..?
Sounds like a big huge steaming pile of bull **** to me.
Norman: To answer this question I think reading the brief will help.

Sources please
Same-sex marriage in New Jersey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Idaho Scrambles Over Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Irrelevant to same sex marriage.
But a nice try to poison the well.
Norman: This would be very relevant as I stated.

If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing the job you are paid to do then you should have the decency to quit before you have to fired for not doing your job.
Norman: You have missed the point here, this could happen to anyone even LGBT people.

That is because a lot of them are equal to racism.
Norman: Well, I don't think so but that is the LGBT agenda to redefine marriage as genderless and to make it a civil right.

Spoken like some one who is either ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has to settle interstate issues or is ignorant of the fact, or perhaps is hoping enough people are ignorant of the fact that his nonsense sounds plausible.
Norman: Well, it is plausible.

Bull ****.
The Mormon Church is attempting to get its religious belief made into law.
Norman: That doesn't make any sense, this has nothing to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in a legality issue with Our belief's.

Thank you for the link.

The Supreme Court does have to get involved.

I mean, I understand why you do not want the Supreme Court involved, you are on the losing side.

I wonder, are you ever going to present a legitimate legal argument against same sex marriage that does not also apply to opposite sex marriage?

And no, this whole ruse you have been going on about in this thread is not going to work.

I think you and all the others who support it know this and that it what the fuss is really all about.

 

[McBell]

I'd generally agree, though it seems to me the original mistake was violating the separation of church and state- whereby the gov't treats couples differently depending on whether they have engaged in a religious ceremony- better to correct this infringement rather than trying to counterbalance it with more?

What religious ceremony?

You do know that the religious ceremony is not only completely unneeded to get married (at least in the USA) but is really nothing but fluff and window dressing?

Marriage is a legal contract.
Any thing else attached to it is fluff, icing, window dressing, etc.

And that is exactly how the Supreme Court is to see it.

 

[McBell]

Norman: So, are you saying that the majority of votes has nothing to do with Justice? What about "We The People.?"

the majority vote is seldom about any thing other than what the majority want.
It has nothing to do with morals.
it has nothing to do with ethics.
it has nothing to do with justice.

The law ignores majority vote on any number of issues.

Slavery for instance.
Womens rights for another
Abortion...

In fact, I am willing to bet the only reason you are all for majority vote on this particular issue is simply because it is all you have.

And even that is slowly leaving you.

 

[TPaine]

I keep telling you, gay marriage will lead to Zombie Penguin Attacks at Christmas! Once gay people get married, they'll have honeymoons. With all the hairy 50 year olds wearing speedos in Florida, straight people will be forced to take cruises instead of regular vacations in order not to gouge out their own eyes. In order to avoid getting pirated, they'll go to Antarctica, where eventually they'll meet penguins. Everyone knows straight men can't resist penguins, so interspecies sex will happen (what, those little waddling freaks will outrun us?). The mutant offspring of these unions will be carnivorous penguins with daddy issues and a thirst for revenge. Once it's cold enough in North America, say around Christmas, they'll learn to fly (probably an Airbus 300), come here, and eat our delicious brains. Gay marriage causes Christmas Zombie Penguin attacks, case closed.
What? It's as least as bright as the stuff the guy in the article in the OP was saying!

+1 ROTFLMAO

 

[TPaine]

There is much strength in the arguments, however I believe it should be left to the people and there legislators. This is just a summary of a talk in 2009 by Elder Dallin H. Oaks who made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

You should check the recent polling results. A majority of the American people support same-sex marriage.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

I'll counter your Elder Oaks with Lawrence Tribe, a Harvard University Constitutional Law Professor since 1968, who served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and argued 36 cases before the Supreme Court. He supports the civil rights of all people including those are LGBT.
http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10899/Tribe

 

[Town Heretic]

Haven't read a legal argument against gay marriage that didn't appear to be a thin covering/justification for a purely religious valuation. To me it's always been a contract issue. If you want to interfere with two consenting adults entering into the contract of marriage with the state you'd better have a pretty convincing reason for the particular exception.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Man-woman marriage laws also allow gays and lesbians to marry someone of the opposite gender and rear a family together

Why should such drivel be taken seriously?

 

[Norman]

You should check the recent polling results. A majority of the American people support same-sex marriage.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

I'll counter your Elder Oaks with Lawrence Tribe, a Harvard University Constitutional Law Professor since 1968, who served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and argued 36 cases before the Supreme Court. He supports the civil rights of all people including those are LGBT.
http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10899/Tribe

Norman:
I do not feel that I and others who hold my point of view are at a loss. Where do we go from here? Where do we go from a point where 5 unelected judges redefined our most basic institution in the law? Where they say our view of marriage will trump yours and you will now live under this new regime and if you don’t accept it, you will be punished, you will be marginalized. Did the Supreme Court change the definition of marriage? No. Marriage is today what it was before Obergefell. All that the court did is put a lie into the law. When we try to create a vision for the future, it is important to understand what has occurred in the past. This is not the first time that a court, a legislature, or a king has put a lie into law.”

This fight is not over. It has just begun. Marriage is what it was before the decision. “In every way that we can we need to speak boldly that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. We cannot be cowed or silenced. “That is currently what the law is being used to do. What is the purpose when you see a baker sued by the state? The purpose is to silence you. It is only up to you if you will be silenced. We can reject this decision. This is a very unique decision in which each of the justices issued dissents. The Chief Justice said that same-sex marriage proponents will be out celebrating this decision, but one thing is sure, they will not be celebrating the Constitution.”

We can work to overturn the decision. There is no way that religious liberty will be completely protected as long as this decision stands. As long as this lie remains in our law, we have to work to overturn this decision. It may take decades. It may take more.” There is a piece of legislation called the “First Amendment Defense Act” which is currently in Congress. There are real people who are harmed if this legislation is not passed. We need it on both the state and federal level and it is critical that we support that. In each of your own lives, it is critical that you do not give up, that you do not cave in. We need to boldly stand through our voice for the truth of marriage between one man and one woman.

 

[Jainarayan]

This fight is not over. It has just begun.

The fight is over, same sex marriage is legal in the US, so I would suggest getting over it.

 

[leibowde84]

Haven't read a legal argument against gay marriage that didn't appear to be a thin covering/justification for a purely religious valuation. To me it's always been a contract issue. If you want to interfere with two consenting adults entering into the contract of marriage with the state you'd better have a pretty convincing reason for the particular exception.

Well-put.

 

[leibowde84]

Norman:
I do not feel that I and others who hold my point of view are at a loss. Where do we go from here? Where do we go from a point where 5 unelected judges redefined our most basic institution in the law? Where they say our view of marriage will trump yours and you will now live under this new regime and if you don’t accept it, you will be punished, you will be marginalized. Did the Supreme Court change the definition of marriage? No. Marriage is today what it was before Obergefell. All that the court did is put a lie into the law. When we try to create a vision for the future, it is important to understand what has occurred in the past. This is not the first time that a court, a legislature, or a king has put a lie into law.”

This fight is not over. It has just begun. Marriage is what it was before the decision. “In every way that we can we need to speak boldly that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. We cannot be cowed or silenced. “That is currently what the law is being used to do. What is the purpose when you see a baker sued by the state? The purpose is to silence you. It is only up to you if you will be silenced. We can reject this decision. This is a very unique decision in which each of the justices issued dissents. The Chief Justice said that same-sex marriage proponents will be out celebrating this decision, but one thing is sure, they will not be celebrating the Constitution.”

We can work to overturn the decision. There is no way that religious liberty will be completely protected as long as this decision stands. As long as this lie remains in our law, we have to work to overturn this decision. It may take decades. It may take more.” There is a piece of legislation called the “First Amendment Defense Act” which is currently in Congress. There are real people who are harmed if this legislation is not passed. We need it on both the state and federal level and it is critical that we support that. In each of your own lives, it is critical that you do not give up, that you do not cave in. We need to boldly stand through our voice for the truth of marriage between one man and one woman.

None of this is true. Civil marriage is defined by whatever Government administers it. To claim that the definition of civil marriage has never changed before is a slap to the face of reason and history.

 

[columbus]

if you don’t accept it, you will be punished, you will be marginalized.

How are you being punished when society and the state treat your neighbor the same way they treat you?

You and your religious fellows are marginalizing yourselves. Have at it. But more and more straight people are realising that gays are no problem to them. Religious organizations will either choose to see the truth or slip to the bottom of the dead religions.
The LDS has a history of getting over the errors of the past. They stopped being polygamous and racist. I expect them to get over homophobia sooner than most.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

Norman:
I do not feel that I and others who hold my point of view are at a loss. Where do we go from here? Where do we go from a point where 5 unelected judges redefined our most basic institution in the law? Where they say our view of marriage will trump yours and you will now live under this new regime and if you don’t accept it, you will be punished, you will be marginalized. Did the Supreme Court change the definition of marriage? No. Marriage is today what it was before Obergefell. All that the court did is put a lie into the law. When we try to create a vision for the future, it is important to understand what has occurred in the past. This is not the first time that a court, a legislature, or a king has put a lie into law.”

This fight is not over. It has just begun. Marriage is what it was before the decision. “In every way that we can we need to speak boldly that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. We cannot be cowed or silenced. “That is currently what the law is being used to do. What is the purpose when you see a baker sued by the state? The purpose is to silence you. It is only up to you if you will be silenced. We can reject this decision. This is a very unique decision in which each of the justices issued dissents. The Chief Justice said that same-sex marriage proponents will be out celebrating this decision, but one thing is sure, they will not be celebrating the Constitution.”

We can work to overturn the decision. There is no way that religious liberty will be completely protected as long as this decision stands. As long as this lie remains in our law, we have to work to overturn this decision. It may take decades. It may take more.” There is a piece of legislation called the “First Amendment Defense Act” which is currently in Congress. There are real people who are harmed if this legislation is not passed. We need it on both the state and federal level and it is critical that we support that. In each of your own lives, it is critical that you do not give up, that you do not cave in. We need to boldly stand through our voice for the truth of marriage between one man and one woman.

I would strongly contend that, if one wishes to impede changes to the law based on nothing more than tradition and religious beliefs, that person is marginalizing him or herself. If you want to fight against state recognized civil marriage for same-sex couples, you have to come up with a legal argument. Short of that, it is in your best interest to keep your mouth shut, lest you look prejudiced yourself.

 

[Demonslayer]

Haven't read a legal argument against gay marriage that didn't appear to be a thin covering/justification for a purely religious valuation.

This

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We can work to overturn the decision.

Why should you expect the law to be congruent with your religious law? You do you expect those who do not follow your religion to adhere to its laws?

 

[Town Heretic]

Norman:
I do not feel that I and others who hold my point of view are at a loss. Where do we go from here? Where do we go from a point where 5 unelected judges redefined our most basic institution in the law?

The institution of marriage hasn't been redefined, only who is allowed to enter into it.

Where they say our view of marriage will trump yours and you will now live under this new regime and if you don’t accept it, you will be punished, you will be marginalized.

Punished how? Marginalized in what respect? I mean, you don't have a right to be respected for holding a view strongly. Most racists hold strong views, permissible views, but no one has to salute them for it. And no, I'm not suggesting you're on par with a racist except in that limited sense of a want of entitlement beyond the right to hold your own counsel and mind on a thing.

Did the Supreme Court change the definition of marriage? No. Marriage is today what it was before Obergefell. All that the court did is put a lie into the law. When we try to create a vision for the future, it is important to understand what has occurred in the past. This is not the first time that a court, a legislature, or a king has put a lie into law.”

If your objection is Biblical in nature, by which I mean you object because the allowance puts those coming into the state outside of what you believe to be God's intent and blessing, then why aren't you opposing the marriages of atheists given their unions are as meaningfully removed from that context as any other?

This fight is not over. It has just begun. Marriage is what it was before the decision.

Marriage will always be what it remains to the person valuing and entering into it. So my marriage remains a thing of great value, steeped in both my religious tradition and state recognition and gravitas at law. And whether my neighbors enter into it lightly and leave it easily cannot and should not impact the value of it to me. Neither should their gender.

We can work to overturn the decision.

How so?

There is no way that religious liberty will be completely protected as long as this decision stands.

Explain to me what liberty you are being denied by the state allowing someone else the liberty they were being denied.

 

[leibowde84]

Norman:
I do not feel that I and others who hold my point of view are at a loss. Where do we go from here? Where do we go from a point where 5 unelected judges redefined our most basic institution in the law? Where they say our view of marriage will trump yours and you will now live under this new regime and if you don’t accept it, you will be punished, you will be marginalized. Did the Supreme Court change the definition of marriage? No. Marriage is today what it was before Obergefell. All that the court did is put a lie into the law. When we try to create a vision for the future, it is important to understand what has occurred in the past. This is not the first time that a court, a legislature, or a king has put a lie into law.”

This fight is not over. It has just begun. Marriage is what it was before the decision. “In every way that we can we need to speak boldly that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. We cannot be cowed or silenced. “That is currently what the law is being used to do. What is the purpose when you see a baker sued by the state? The purpose is to silence you. It is only up to you if you will be silenced. We can reject this decision. This is a very unique decision in which each of the justices issued dissents. The Chief Justice said that same-sex marriage proponents will be out celebrating this decision, but one thing is sure, they will not be celebrating the Constitution.”

We can work to overturn the decision. There is no way that religious liberty will be completely protected as long as this decision stands. As long as this lie remains in our law, we have to work to overturn this decision. It may take decades. It may take more.” There is a piece of legislation called the “First Amendment Defense Act” which is currently in Congress. There are real people who are harmed if this legislation is not passed. We need it on both the state and federal level and it is critical that we support that. In each of your own lives, it is critical that you do not give up, that you do not cave in. We need to boldly stand through our voice for the truth of marriage between one man and one woman.

This is a pipe-dream. There are only two options in reality:

1. The SCOTUS must overrule its decision in a later decision, which gets less and less likely by the day. Acceptance of homosexuality is rising, not shrinking; and a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.

OR

2. A constitutional convention to add an amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. This is almost impossible to even consider, as it would be a monumental waste of money (and time). Not to mention, it would be nearly impossible to get the votes once accomplished. Again, acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise, so it is only going to get harder in the future to accomplish anything like this.

 

[Norman]

The fight is over, same sex marriage is legal in the US, so I would suggest getting over it.

Norman: Your suggesting that I get over the temporary victory of one battle won In a war that has just started? No, I think not.

 

[Norman]

I would strongly contend that, if one wishes to impede changes to the law based on nothing more than tradition and religious beliefs, that person is marginalizing him or herself. If you want to fight against state recognized civil marriage for same-sex couples, you have to come up with a legal argument. Short of that, it is in your best interest to keep your mouth shut, lest you look prejudiced yourself.

[QUOTEOh, I should keep my mouth shut because you say so? No, I think not. Understanding that reasonable and sincere people may view marriage as only between people of the opposite gender, the public square must accommodate and religious freedom must protect such views, “Indeed, since religious beliefs can affect how believers view the very purpose of life, such views will inform how they interact with society. Compromise, can seem difficult and distant in a time of “extremes.” We hear stories of people who have tried to be true to their standards, only to be accused of bigotry or intolerance or punished on a seemingly unreasonable scale. Even amid the challenges, there can be no surrender in the defense of truth and values.][/QUOTE]