LDS and Prop 8

[no-body]

Abortion differed on the locale until the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade, which is the Dred Scott decision of the Twentieth Century. It is a case study in judicial overreach.

Slavery was removed with the 13th Amendment

Women were allowed to vote with the 19th Amendment

Anti-miscegenation laws may very well have continued, but were declared unconstitutional in the Loving case in 1967 as a violation of the 14th Amendment: based on "unsupportable basis as the racial classifications ". Race as a viable category for legal distinction came under challenge in the Reconstruction Era Amendments (Amendments 13,14,15).

Creation is taught is some schools: Kansas I believe.

Jeesh way to boil everything down into soulless unfeeling legal information. What about the thousand of years of human suffering, protest, blood and sweat that went into making those things the norm and changing public opinion? Today it's labeling homosexuality as a fetish yesterday it was labeling black people subnormal, same thing.

 

[McBell]

Abortion differed on the locale until the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade, which is the Dred Scott decision of the Twentieth Century. It is a case study in judicial overreach.

Slavery was removed with the 13th Amendment

Women were allowed to vote with the 19th Amendment

Anti-miscegenation laws may very well have continued, but were declared unconstitutional in the Loving case in 1967 as a violation of the 14th Amendment: based on "unsupportable basis as the racial classifications ". Race as a viable category for legal distinction came under challenge in the Reconstruction Era Amendments (Amendments 13,14,15).

Creation is taught is some schools: Kansas I believe.

sad, isn't it?
That so many groups had to have Constitutional amendments in order to get their equal rights.

Besides which, you are trying to side step the point.
That being that majority rules is not the end all be all.
Nice try though.

 

[Autodidact]

Creation is taught is some schools: Kansas I believe.

You are mistaken. Teaching creationism in the public schools violates the establishment clause. McLean v Arkansas Board of Education, Edwards V Aguilar.

 

[AxisMundi]

1)"Your fellow citizens" assumes you are a U.S. Citizen. It was not meant to offend, but simply point out that if you want a thing made into law i.e. gay marriage, then getting a majority of voters to agree with you is the way to do it.

2) No, it does not. Your view is anachronistic. The context the Framers worked under was the Treaty of Westphalia (which was little more than a 100 years prior) and state imposed faiths in general. State religion was the issue, not barring religion from the public square. Since you are interested in Constitutional history go do a study into the state religions (by which I mean the states of the U.S.) of the time period. I think it will help.

3) Your statement was that religious doctrine is forbidden from being made into U.S. law. It reads as a categorical. Prohibition on murder is a religious doctrine. Did you mean to say U.S. Law forbids religious doctrine being made into U.S. law unless the docrine is also found in a non religious context aswell?

4) That is fine.

1. Thank you for clarifying. That said...
Civil Rights should never be opened to the democratic process. Did inter-racial marriages become legal through referendum? De-segregation of schools, the work place, restaurants, etc.? The majority will always find ways to keep the minority downtrodden, as witnessed in Prop 8. This is why the Judicial Branch becomes invovled.

2. a. Our Founding had nothing to do with the Treaty of Westphalia, something that occurred more than a century prior to the colonies separating themselves from the British Empire. No where in that treaty, which can be found here (you're not the first to make the attempt), do we find any American or Founding principles whatsoever.

b. I've been an informal student of the Constitution since well before the Internets was developed, researching in musty old city libraries. I would suggest you do some independent study of the concern, as you mirror perfectly the false revised history spouted by the Dominionists.

You are even forced to introduce a strawman in an attempt to substantiate your opinion as well. No where have I stated, ever, that "religion was to be barred from the public square". However, religion is indeed barred from US Laws. Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the first American legal definitional source to be created. Entry number four for "ESTABLISH" reads thusly...

4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

RELIGION... Real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men... 4. But religion can be useful to man only when it is pure. The constitution of the United States has, therefore, wisely provided that it should never be united with the state.

Bouvier Law Dictionary

And concerning your state establishment of religion, the Bill of Rights was ratified nearly a decade after the US was created with the US Constitution. Connecticut merely replaced all references to the Crown and did not have a Constitutional Convention until 1833, when that establishment disappeared, and Massachusetts merely allowed local governments to create taxes to support Protestant teachers, which also was removed as well, in 1813 if memory serves. The Bill of Rights made no attempt, and could not make any attempt, to erase laws already in place.

3. Murder is not an exclusively religious moral, The prohibition against murder can be found in cultures across the globe and across time as well, from the pre-Judeo-Christian Mediterranean and Europe to primitive tribes in South America. This is simply a very poor example to use. Instead, feel free to point out where the remainder of the Ten Commandments can be found in the US Constitution, or US laws in general.

 

[Smoke]

My post you responded to makes no reference to Judges. This comment: "Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will." is an assertion about basic republicanism.

It's tiresome to have to explain to you what you said, but since you can't figure it out on your own, I guess I'll have to. The post I responded to does make reference to judges. The sentence immediately before the one cited says: Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic.

Courts declaring a law unconstitutional does not relate to my post.

Certainly it does, though you have thrice denied it, and since you don't know what you said, it's hard to credit you much as an authority on what relates to it.

Your would be example of moving against Mormonism does not work within the confines of the U.S. Constititution where religions are given protected status.

Of course such a law would be unconstitutional, just as the prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. However, just as you contend that gay people are not entitled to the freedom of religion or the equal protection under the law that the Constitution guarantees, another person who is as bigoted, hateful and contemptuous toward Mormons as you are toward gay people could similarly conclude that Mormons aren't entitled to such constitutional guarantees, either.

When an unconstitutional law is passed, like Prop 8, one method - and often the best method - of striking down such a law is the court system. In the case of our imaginary anti-Mormon initiative, the reasonable thing for the Mormons to do would be to take the state to court to regain their constitutional rights. Without the court system, the rights of Mormons would remain entirely subject to the whims of the legislators and the voters, as our rights presently are.

It really shouldn't be necessary to explain this.

Under your system, we'd still have Jim Crow.

You are either ignorant of the Reconstruction Era Amendments to the Constitution or this is yet another non sequitur.

You are either ignorant of the history of the Jim Crow laws or - once again - ignorant of what you yourself have said.

 

[AxisMundi]

Abortion differed on the locale until the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade, which is the Dred Scott decision of the Twentieth Century. It is a case study in judicial overreach.

Slavery was removed with the 13th Amendment

Women were allowed to vote with the 19th Amendment

Anti-miscegenation laws may very well have continued, but were declared unconstitutional in the Loving case in 1967 as a violation of the 14th Amendment: based on "unsupportable basis as the racial classifications ". Race as a viable category for legal distinction came under challenge in the Reconstruction Era Amendments (Amendments 13,14,15).

Creation is taught is some schools: Kansas I believe.

1. There is no over-reach involved at all. Through the perfectly legal and Constitutionally mandated appeals process, the case eventually reached the Federal Level, where it was decided upon in all legal manner.

2. The 13th is hardly a case of the democratic process. If you will recall your basic history, thirteen states did not have any say on the matter whatsoever. If the former Confederate State retained it's legislature, they were required to vote for the 13th to be repatriated. Or the "vote" was cast by that State's provisional government. There simply wasn't a super-majority to be had otherwise in passing the 13th Amendment.

3. Just like abortion, women's voting rights were dependant on the state.

4. And marriage was noted as being a Civil Right in Loving vs. Virginia as well. Gays are being denied that equal right without a valid, secular reason.

5. And where it is found, those involved face felony charges. Or, as in the case of a Kansas School Board, removed from office and replaced by the people of that district. Religious doctrine has no place in a government institution, as said institution is intended not only to cater to each and every citizen regardless of religious affiliation, if any, they are also supported BY each and every citizen.

Religion, and religious indoctrination, belongs in churches, parochial schools, and the home, not public schools.

 

[Orontes]

Somehow I doubt your account of our conversation. No, it is not. There is not a Justice on the SCOTUS today who believes that a law may not be declared unconstitutional because it violated a constitutionally protected right.

I have not argued a law that violated the Constitution couldn't be struck down. I have argued it is not the job of judges to create law or rights.

Of course they did. And, if a law violates any of them, it is the job of the courts, specifically, SCOTUS, to strike that law down. This is elementary constitutional law.

This was what I posted: "The reality is rights claims to be justified have to pass through a majoritarian process. This was the case from the First Amendment to the Twenty-seventh. When judges and/or others invent rights or try and dictate the same, it threatens the very basis of democracy and republicanism..."

Your initial reply was: "Yes, we know that you believe that. However, that is not the American system..."

It seems you now agree. Good.

Well, your terminology is too broad and vague. The constitution itself could be said to be a result of a "majoritarian" process. Nevertheless, whenever the majority of the voters enact a law that violates it, it is the job of the courts to strike it down. Do you disgree?

My terminology is not vague. The Constitution, any amendments to it, Congressional law etc. are all majoritarian products. It is basic. It is why this system of government is within the sphere of demoncatic systems and not totalitarian ones. Any attempt to create law/rights abscent a majoritarian approach is unjustified and should be opposed.

To your question: I do not disagree.

It was based on those amendments (in part) that "majoritarian" but discriminatory laws were struck down. Do you agree that is the proper role of the court? If so, why bring any of this up here, when that is what the plaintiffs here are asking for? If not, then yes, you fundamentally oppose the American system of government.

I didn't bring up Jim Crow laws, you did. The legal basis for their overturn is based on the Reconstruction Era Amendments (which are themselves a majoritarian product). Minus those Amendments the Court's legal basis to act would be problematic.

I leave it up to you.

I don't care one way or the other. You engaged me on the sub-point.

Well if you were not talking about gay marriage, why bring it up here? Maybe you should start a thread to discuss sexual fetishes. Apparently you don't think they have anything to do with marriage, so clearly the conversation doesn't belong here.

The question to me was on homosexuality. I responded. I then tried to tie it back into the larger thread.

 

[Orontes]

Jeesh way to boil everything down into soulless unfeeling legal information. What about the thousand of years of human suffering, protest, blood and sweat that went into making those things the norm and changing public opinion?

Legal questions/issues usually require legal information.

 

[Autodidact]

I have not argued a law that violated the Constitution couldn't be struck down. I have argued it is not the job of judges to create law or rights.

O.K., how on earth is that relevant to this discussion? The issue before the court is whether the law violates the constitution.

This was what I posted: "The reality is rights claims to be justified have to pass through a majoritarian process. This was the case from the First Amendment to the Twenty-seventh. When judges and/or others invent rights or try and dictate the same, it threatens the very basis of democracy and republicanism..."

As I have said, I think the problem is your opaque writing style. If you agree that it is the job of the court to strike down laws that are unconstitutional, then why are you going on about majoritarian processes and the treaty of Westphalia?

The question to me was on homosexuality. I responded. I then tried to tie it back into the larger thread.

I see. So you have no problem with gay marriage?

 

[Orontes]

sad, isn't it?
That so many groups had to have Constitutional amendments in order to get their equal rights.

Besides which, you are trying to side step the point.
That being that majority rules is not the end all be all.
Nice try though.

What one claims as a right, others may not and could even oppose. Democratic systems appeal to a majoritarian standard as the vehicle to justify the existence of law and compliance. All participants may have the hope of winning others to their view which can then be reflected in the law. Majorities change and laws can and do change.

 

[Orontes]

You are mistaken. Teaching creationism in the public schools violates the establishment clause. McLean v Arkansas Board of Education, Edwards V Aguilar.

I was thinking about some school districts in Kansas that attempted to pass off a creationism or intelligent design curriculum. I haven't followed it and didn't know the current standing.

 

[Autodidact]

It's like talking to someone who keeps saying things like, "Everyone perceives things differently," as though that's somehow relevant to the discussion. Yes, the American system is rooted in a "majoritarian" process, if that's a word you like to use. So what? What matters is that we have a Constitution. The Constitution, among other things, guarantees certain rights. It is the job of the courts to strike down laws that violate those rights. The fact that the Constitution was originally created by representatives of a historic majority, and requires a super-majority to amend it is interesting, but irrelevant to our discussion here. In other words, what is your point?

 

[AxisMundi]

I have not argued a law that violated the Constitution couldn't be struck down. I have argued it is not the job of judges to create law or rights......

One would have to show a clear case of the Judical "creating laws or rights" for that argument to even continue.

 

[Autodidact]

I was thinking about some school districts in Kansas that attempted to pass off a creationism or intelligent design curriculum. I haven't followed it and didn't know the current standing.

The cases date from 1982 and 1985 respectively. There has been no change in the law in recent decades.

 

[Orontes]

1. Thank you for clarifying. That said...
Civil Rights should never be opened to the democratic process.

1) Who determines what is a civil right?

2. a. Our Founding had nothing to do with the Treaty of Westphalia, something that occurred more than a century prior to the colonies separating themselves from the British Empire. No where in that treaty, which can be found here (you're not the first to make the attempt), do we find any American or Founding principles whatsoever.

2) The Treaty of Westphalia, the English Civil War, the beheading the Charles I, the expulsion of the Huguenots from France etc. all form the larger context of what informed 18th Century Thought: more specifically the works of Hobbs, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau etc. The Founding Fathers did not operate in a vacuum. The results of religious wars and state imposistion of religion were well known.

b. I've been an informal student of the Constitution since well before the Internets was developed, researching in musty old city libraries. I would suggest you do some independent study of the concern, as you mirror perfectly the false revised history spouted by the Dominionists.

You are even forced to introduce a strawman in an attempt to substantiate your opinion as well. No where have I stated, ever, that "religion was to be barred from the public square". However, religion is indeed barred from US Laws. Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the first American legal definitional source to be created. Entry number four for "ESTABLISH" reads thusly...

b) My statemtns are not tied to any religion agenda but simple intellectual history. The whole thrust of the separation clause in the Constitution is geared toward preventing a national religion i.e. like a Church of England. It had nothing to do with faith entering the public square or influencing the same. I'll illustrate this with a Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling: In Permoli v. New Orleans (1845) SCOTUS held: "The Constitution makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective states in their religious liberties; this is left to the state constitutions and laws" Thus, states were free to establish a state church should they so desire. This is why states like Connecticut continued to have tax support for religion until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833. New Jersey restricted full civil rights to Protestants until 1844 and Maryland required belief in God as a requirement for public office until into the mid-Twentieth Century. Faith was not seen as something to exclude from civics, rather it was something that wasn't to be controlled by the Federal government. This is why in New York in 1811 a Chancellor Kent upheld a blasphemy conviction on the ground "We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity". Religion and religious sentiment has always informed the American political sphere.



Per strawman: "pubilc square" is vernacular of participating in the politics. This was your comment: "In Prop 8 there is also the matter of the Establishment Clause as well, not only of the US Constitution but that found in the Cali Constitution as well, which forbids not only religious institutions from participating in politics, but religious doctrine from being made into US laws as well." I was addressing your statment religious instittuions are forbidden from political participation. I did not assume you were propossing the end of religion or ban of religion.

4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

4) I don't know what your point 4 is referring to. It doesn't seem to connect with my 4) "That is fine"

3. Murder is not an exclusively religious moral, The prohibition against murder can be found in cultures across the globe and across time as well, from the pre-Judeo-Christian Mediterranean and Europe to primitive tribes in South America. This is simply a very poor example to use. Instead, feel free to point out where the remainder of the Ten Commandments can be found in the US Constitution, or US laws in general.

3) Murder: My question remains: "Your statement was that religious doctrine is forbidden from being made into U.S. law. It reads as a categorical. Prohibition on murder is a religious doctrine. Did you mean to say U.S. Law forbids religious doctrine being made into U.S. law unless the doctrine is also found in a non religious context as well?"

 

[Orontes]

It's tiresome to have to explain to you what you said, but since you can't figure it out on your own, I guess I'll have to. The post I responded to does make reference to judges. The sentence immediately before the one cited says: Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic.

This is the post where you engaged me: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1876464-post51.html I respond to your posts based on what I see you quote. It is the only why I can tell or guess at what you are focusing on. If you wish to focus on this statement of mine: "Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic." that is fine. It isn't what you originally quoted. I have multiple people I'm engaged with and cannot guess at what point interests you. I can only judge based on what you quote.

Of course such a law would be unconstitutional, just as the prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Religion is given protected status in the Constitution, sexual penchant is not. The comparison fails.

However, just as you contend that gay people are not entitled to the freedom of religion or the equal protection under the law...

I have not made this contention.

(T)hat the Constitution guarantees, another person who is as bigoted, hateful and contemptuous toward Mormons as you are toward gay people...

The bigot charge is boorish. If you cannot engage me in a mature manner then I won't take your posts seriously.

 

[Orontes]

1. There is no over-reach involved at all. Through the perfectly legal and Constitutionally mandated appeals process, the case eventually reached the Federal Level, where it was decided upon in all legal manner.

2. The 13th is hardly a case of the democratic process. If you will recall your basic history, thirteen states did not have any say on the matter whatsoever. If the former Confederate State retained it's legislature, they were required to vote for the 13th to be repatriated. Or the "vote" was cast by that State's provisional government. There simply wasn't a super-majority to be had otherwise in passing the 13th Amendment.

3. Just like abortion, women's voting rights were dependant on the state.

4. And marriage was noted as being a Civil Right in Loving vs. Virginia as well. Gays are being denied that equal right without a valid, secular reason.

5. And where it is found, those involved face felony charges. Or, as in the case of a Kansas School Board, removed from office and replaced by the people of that district. Religious doctrine has no place in a government institution, as said institution is intended not only to cater to each and every citizen regardless of religious affiliation, if any, they are also supported BY each and every citizen.

Religion, and religious indoctrination, belongs in churches, parochial schools, and the home, not public schools.

1) Roe V. Wade is a study in judical overreach. The Supreme Court invented a theretofore nonexistent right.

2) The former Confederate States were repatriated by force of arms. The Johnson Administration required Southern States ratify the 13th Amendment in order to have national representation. If a state refused then they would have assumed status similar to a U.S. Territory. Whichever option a former Confederate State would have opted for, a ratification process for the 13th Amendment was the method it came to be. The 13th Amendment was not by decree or dicta.

3) Yes. They were. The 19th Amendment changed that status.

4) Any legal status one wants to apply to marriage does not necessarily transfer to other ralationships. Gay marriage (as notable by the use of the adjective alone) is an attempt to alter or expand the meaning.

5) You should demand the removal of Moses holding the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court.

 

[Autodidact]

Religion is given protected status in the Constitution, sexual penchant is not. The comparison fails.

See, here you're doing it again. You were addressing same-sex marriage, and you call it "sexual penchant." No one asked you anything about sex, only about marriage. MARRIAGE. Why do you keep talking about sex? Marriage is a fundamental right.

The bigot charge is boorish. If you cannot engage me in a mature manner then I won't take your posts seriously.

You call someone else's marraige a "sexual penchant" and wonder why people are calling you a bigot? There is an easy way to avoid this charge--stop making bigoted remarks.

 

[Autodidact]

1) Roe V. Wade is a study in judical overreach. The Supreme Court invented a theretofore nonexistent right.

I agree. Well, I might not put it that way, but Roe v. Wade is bad law, regardless of your position on abortion.

4) Any legal status one wants to apply to marriage does not necessarily transfer to other ralationships. Gay marriage (as notable by the use of the adjective alone) is an attempt to alter or expand the meaning.

No, that's what no-fault divorce did. Same-sex marriage seeks to retain the meaning, and expand the group who can participate in the institution.

Orontes: What is your position on Loving v. Virginia?

 

[Orontes]

O.K., how on earth is that relevant to this discussion? The issue before the court is whether the law violates the constitution.

This was my first post in the thread responding the the first post of the thread:

"Hello,

I'm not sure what you hope the LDS Church would change their minds about. I live in Southern California and was active in the Prop. 8 Campaign.

Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic. Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will. The overturn of the earlier Proposition 22 (that led to the Proposition 8 campaign) was an affront to the democratic process.

As to homosexuality proper: the LDS Church considers homosexuality a sin. Therefore, any relation involving homosexuality i.e. homosexual marriage, would also be seen as sinful.

The LDS Church would agree with the larger notion the state can regulate sexual relations. This would also include what can or should be considered a marriage. Marriage is a state endorsement of a relationship where the state acts as the guarantor of the contract.

None of these positions are likely to change. ​

In regards to the article and what you quote in your second post: I think it is an error to assume the LDS Church's stance is based on or related to not knowing gay people. Individual Mormons may be anti-gay, pro-gay or even self identify as gay: none of those positions necessarily speak to the larger stance of the Church."


The overturn of Prop. 22 was an example of Judicial overreach. It promoted gay marriage as a right. It is not a right. To be a right, it would have to pass through a majoritarian process. Judges are not empowered to create rights.

As I have said, I think the problem is your opaque writing style. If you agree that it is the job of the court to strike down laws that are unconstitutional, then why are you going on about majoritarian processes and the treaty of Westphalia?

Different exchanges have a life of their own. They move in different directions. If there is something you don't understand, then you should ask.

I see. So you have no problem with gay marriage?

I'm opposed to gay marriage. I don't think the state need endorse or sanction sexual fetishes. I think the government should be neutral on such.