LDS letter on same-sex marriage

gnomon · Jul 23, 2008

Orontes said:
Hello,

This has been addressed previously. Heterosexual marriage has the potential to produce life: most heterosexual marriages do. The numbers of those that cannot is decreasing consistently as fertility related medicine improves. Homosexual marriage has no potential in this regard. It is a difference of category and speaks directly to equity claims.

In other words, using modern science and alternative means to allow prior infertile couples to conceive counts as part of the potential but a lesbian using a donor doesn't. This is absurd.

Starfish · Jul 23, 2008

Storm said:
As has been pointed out, queer couples end up parenting anyway, so what is your justification for denying those children equal protection under the law?

If those protections are available with legal help, then the parents who purposely put their kids in a vulnerable situation, should be morally responsible. It's not society's responsibility to adjust itself to the wants of a small minority with children used as pawns.
It's all adults' responsibility to do what's best for children, regardless of their personal wants and wishes.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
Families that are less than the best for children should not be encouraged by the government/the people/society.

Even if doing so causes harm to children?

Starfish · Jul 23, 2008

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Even if doing so causes harm to children?

The harm comes from careless or selfish parents.

standing_alone · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
The harm comes from careless or selfish parents.

Do you consider same-sex parents careless or selfish?

Or is it the society that discriminates by denying equal protection to same-sex family units based on unfounded prejudice or religious whims the one that is careless and selfish?

9-10ths_Penguin · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
If those protections are available with legal help, then the parents who purposely put their kids in a vulnerable situation, should be morally responsible.

Some of those protections are available with legal help. All you need to do is hire a lawyer to sort things out, which involves diverting family funds away from other areas.

Is it morally responsible to demand that, say, a child wait a year for her braces so that her family can have some sembance of the legal protecions that most families get for free and by default, all because you don't approve of what her parents do?

And many protections of marriage are not available to unmarried couples, even with legal help... especially in states that prohibit "marriage-like benefits" to unmarried couples by law.

Starfish said:
It's not society's responsibility to adjust itself to the wants of a small minority with children used as pawns.

Funny - I see children being used as pawns much more by the anti-same-sex marriage side than same-sex parents.

Starfish said:
It's all adults' responsibility to do what's best for children, regardless of their personal wants and wishes.

And yet it seems you have put your personal wants and wishes with regard to your personal moral code ahead of what's best for the children in same-sex-parented families.

Storm · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
If those protections are available with legal help, then the parents who purposely put their kids in a vulnerable situation, should be morally responsible.

They're not.

It's not society's responsibility to adjust itself to the wants of a small minority with children used as pawns.

That's exactly what you're doing!

It's all adults' responsibility to do what's best for children, regardless of their personal wants and wishes.

Then you should support same sex marriage for the sake of the children.

Starfish · Jul 23, 2008

I have a relative who has not held a steady job in years, if ever. He has children from various women, whom he is raising. He has continuously mooched money off of his aged, limited income parents, because they can't bear to see the children suffer.

What is the answer? Are his children suffering because society doesn't accept his lifestyle and won't pay him for not working? Or for not accepting the behavior of bringing children into the world without planning and preparing? His children suffer because of his irresponsiblity and selfishness. Yet we are expected to suppliment him and his lifestyle, which we do, because of the children.

gnomon · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
I have a relative who has not held a steady job in years, if ever. He has children from various women, whom he is raising. He has continuously mooched money off of his aged, limited income parents, because they can't bear to see the children suffer.

What is the answer? Are his children suffering because society doesn't accept his lifestyle and pay him for not working? Or for bringing children into the world without planning and preparing? His children suffer because of his irresponsiblity and selfishness. Yet we are expected to suppliment him, which we do, because of the children.

So you are saying homosexuals are lazy, selfish and can't hold down a job.

Storm · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
I have a relative who has not held a steady job in years, if ever. He has children from various women, whom he is raising. He has continuously mooched money off of his aged, limited income parents, because they can't bear to see the children suffer.

What is the answer? Are his children suffering because society doesn't accept his lifestyle and won't pay him for not working? Or for not accepting the behavior of bringing children into the world without planning and preparing? His children suffer because of his irresponsiblity and selfishness. Yet we are expected to suppliment him and his lifestyle, which we do, because of the children.

And this is relevant how?

Starfish · Jul 23, 2008

gnomon said:
So you are saying homosexuals are lazy, selfish and can't hold down a job.

Storm said:
And this is relevant how?

Never mind.

gnomon · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
Never mind.

No.

You put forth a fairly confusing post. Do you wish to clarify it?

Orontes · Jul 23, 2008

9-10ths_Penguin said:
None of the 39 are California.

That is true. The point was in regards to general legal opinion.

You said it yourself: in common law. This is a matter of statute law, not common law.

You have misunderstood. The U.S. is a common law legal system. If we were being technical, this issue is a constitutional law issue, which is distinct from statutory law. Reference to precedent in other states commonly occurs on this level. Now, constitutional law is foundational law and as such is marked by the largest possible degree of popular will to give it force. This is the ratification process. When claims are made about the content of the foundational law that are not explicitly indicated by the text one has veered from democratic norm and undercut the force the legal foundation.

The initial ratification of the California State Constitution reflects popular will. When it ceases to be so, there is a democratic mechanism to amend it. Not adhering to it would be the usurpation of the democratic process.

The initial ratification of the California Constitution does reflect popular will. That reality does not then give license to judges to create new rights via their political whimsy.

No, strangulation is addressed by the California State Constitution. It's right in Article 1, Section 1:

The phrase "enjoying and defending life" implicitly includes a legal protection of the right not to be strangled. See how it works? The high-level language of the Constitution provides broad statements of rights. That high-level language applies to all the specific, lower-level cases that fall within those broad statements.

Alas no. Hanging is a type of strangulation and was a common mode of execution in California. There is/was no right not to be strangled. When one begins to infer content outside of the actual wording of the text as in the vagaries of "high-level language", one immediately runs into the problem of personal preference determining law. This is dangerous for a system that is meant to be run by the popular will.

You repeating it doesn't make it true. Some heterosexual marriages produce children, some do not. Some heterosexual couples have children outside marriage, some do not. Similarly, some same-sex marriages produce children, some do not. Some same-sex couples have children outside marriage, some do not.

Yes, my repeating it does make it true, that is the rule.

The vast majority of heterosexual marriages produce children. No homosexual marriages produce children. This is the reality. The two relations are distinct.

First: as I pointed out above, you're wrong.

Second: your logic is flawed. State sanction of marriage is not about children.

Alas, I am not: due process and equal protection jurisprudence are not informed by marginal issues, but by what is normative. This is why the two standards of "rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and something "deeply embedded in the nation's history and tradition" are used. Gay marriage is not implicit in ordered liberty as it has had no legal standing for over two hundred years. It is not something deeply embedded in the nations history and traditions as the nations has actually been actively hostile to homosexuality through the bulk of its history.

Most state benefits have defined objectives. For example, road safety improvement programs will have some stated objective like reducing injury collisions to some rate. State scholarship programs may have the objective of increasing college enrolment by low income student by some percentage.

Yes and the sanction and endorsement of marriage is to promote and make marriage all the more attractive.

I realize that. You do realize that this is irrelevant to the point of the examples I gave, right?

You gave poor examples and so your point suffered. If your point was that states have intentions behind their actions: they do indeed.

It's not about my sense of waste, it's about the general principle that ineffective law is bad law. Every law represents a small constraint against liberty. To justify this constraint, the law must provide some corresponding benefit to society in some way. A law that does nothing is an arbitrary and unneeded constraint on liberty, and is therefore wrong.

Your sense of bad law is not the issue. Assertions about inefficacy are not substantiated and also an aside. The reality is the state does sanction marriage. This sanction can be removed if the people agree with you. This is the democratic process. It is majoritarian: something distinct from when judges declare rights to exist that have never existed before and lack any majoritarian basis.

And in drawing a line of argument from this argument to same-sex marriage, you've given your opinion that these two concepts are related somehow.

You are saying the points: from the state's perspective, having citizens are a good thing and that if there are no people the state ceases to exist is/are a personal observation(s)?

You're right, they don't speak to that point, because your point is irrelevant. Regardless of the sanction of marriage, people will continue to breed.

Alas, no. The absence of people is relevant to the state. People are the basis for revenue. A state recognizing this and sanctioning a relation that can both produce and foster future citizens is neither shocking or difficult to understand.

And yes, costs and revenues are variable. Some are subject to economies of scale (i.e. things get more efficient as they get larger) and some are subject to diseconomies of scale (i.e. things get less efficient as they get larger). That's why it astounds me that you can make blanket statements like this:

In the same way that governments depend on citizens to exist, human beings depend on water to live. To a flood victim, is more water a good thing?

Extremes miss the basic point. If you note again, my comment you quote begins with "In general". This means a basic position is being explained. If there are too many people the state will mostly likely take a different course.

But that's not analogous to what you're suggesting when it comes to marriage, is it?

The building example was yours not mine.

For a free people, constraints on liberty must be justified. Merely voicing approval of some activity that would happen anyhow is not justification.

Constraints are justified in and through majoritarianism. This is the basis of law and public discourse.

Your refrain about liberty is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't relate to the subject. The base argument is about a rights claim: that there is a right to gay marriage. A rights claim places a duty on the state to enforce that right. Thus, if someone refuses to recognize that right i.e. Catholic adoption agencies not recognizing gay marriage then the state can and will take action against the agency. A liberty is the opposite. It is where there is "no-right" to interfere. Thus, if gay marriage is a liberty then the state cannot interfere i.e. arrest people for getting married, but the state is also not obligated with any duty either. If gay marriage is a right, then the state has enforcement duties. The argument about state sanction is an argument about placing a duty on the state. It is not a liberty dispute.

Except that the natural parents are already held responsible for their own children, so the only change would be to people who live in a household with children who are not their own direct offspring, such as many members of same-sex couples.

Natural parents are held responsible for their children due to the current law. The law did not always have this standard. The shift to parental responsibility in the law is an example of the state taking a vested interest in its future citizens. The state sanctioning and endorsement marriage is another example of this interest.

When exactly did I say that children should not have parents?

You seem opposed to the state having an interest in its future citizens as I've read your comments which would include state recognition of parental responsibilities.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
The harm comes from careless or selfish parents.

:no:

Regardless of what happens with same-sex couples, they have the right to have children and raise families; that is not up for debate. The choice here is how society should treat those families.

If you're going to take the position you have, you take with it some of the responsibility for the effects of the thing you're advocating.

Orontes · Jul 23, 2008

9-10ths_Penguin said:
It's referring to the sentence that immediately preceded it:

You mean the last sentence in what you quoted from me? OK. in that case your "no it isn't" is itself wrong. The existence of a thing X and any reason behind a thing X are logically distinct. One can deal with either the extant thing X or the rationale for the X without necessarily considering the other.

But why should it? As I've stated before, I see a law that does nothing but demonstrate a state interest in something without any net effect is a bad law.

I've not seen any data indicating state sanction of marriage doesn't impact marriage rates. Clearly, the state hopes to encourage marriage in and through the sanction.

No, I don't agree. And the previous same-sex union legislation certainly seems to me to indicate just as strongly as child tax deductions would that the state has a vested interest in same-sex couplehood at the very least.

Your comment is confused. You stated "the state has a very clear interest in sanctioning same-sex marriage." My reply was there is no legislation to support your claim. If you take California Civil Union laws as an equivalent for same sex marriage, then there should be no further demands from gay advocates. If California Civil Union laws are distinct form marriage then the reference doesn't support your earlier assertion.

I'm not sure what you were focusing on, then, since I didn't make that first claim you mention.

This was your statement: "I'll re-phrase: without state sanction of marriage, you'd have some population growth; let's call it "X" (might be positive, might be negative, might be zero - at this point we don't know)." So, without state sanction of marriage is some population Growth. This is your X. You then say the X may be positive, negative or zero. The two ideas appear to contradict as first X "some population growth" is a positive the other meaning for X (negative and zero) are not. Both are counted as your X. This is why I simply focused on the initial part of your statement without explicitly pointed out the contradiction.

But the results are the whole point of the law. The state is not some entity that exists only to ineffectually approve or disapprove of things. It exists as an instrument to create benefit for its citizens through its laws. Since every law represents a limitation (however small) on liberty, any law without corresponding benefit represents an arbitrary denial of freedom, and is therefore unjust.

Positive results may be the point of a law, but my point has only looked at state interest itself, demonstrated by the existence of the sanction. Equity claims do not require any investigation of efficacy or results etc. but simply that the state has adopted a stance toward a thing and whether the stance adopted needs to include something more. Charging the sanction is ineffectual, or bad or whatever, does not address the issue. In this case, the issue would be state sanction of marriage and a group claiming they should be included in that sanction.

So you take it as given that the purpose of marriage is to fulfil some state interest?

No. I don't take it as a given that the purpose of marriage is to fulfill a state interest. I do take it as a given that insofar as the state endorses marriage that the endorsement constitutes a state interest.

Please note that it is 2008, not 2045. The current population growth rate in both countries is positive.

Yes they are, which I pointed out in the initial response. I also pointed out that both nations have had a decreasing population for at least the past fifty years. This population decrease is also expected to continue at lest into the mid-Twenty First Century. That doesn't strike me as a run away population as run away indicates to me something out of control.

No, my understanding of runaway population is a population increase that either causes the population to exceed the carrying capacity of the place in which they live, or that has severe negative consequences associated with it.

Has India and China exceeded their carrying capacity for people? Is there mass famine in either nation? The only major population difficulties with the two nations I know of involve urbanization: where large rural populations are moving to the cities for work and a taste of the "good life". This is a natural outcome of industrialization. This places economic strains on the nation to continue to have new jobs available.

The efficacy of any law is entirely relevant to the just nature of that law. It's a common principle in many societies and an explicitly stated declaration in the highest laws of California and the United States that liberty is to not be arbitrarily denied.

Any time a law is enacted, it represents a responsibility on the part of someone...

You are confused. The argument is about equity claims where a group wants inclusion. The efficacy of the sanction a group wants inclusion into isn't relevant to any equity claim itself. You do not understand the basic issue.

Hmm. I suggest you remove the beam from your own eye before you criticize the mote in mine. I have put up with quite a bit of condescencion in your posts.

On top of this, I have real trouble giving you the benefit of the doubt when, as someone who purports to be an attorney, you give a line of reasoning that, IMO, amounts to an endorsement of arbitrary constraint on liberty (in ignorance of basic principles of the jurisprudence you're apparently happy to tell others they're "not schooled in") to create a make-believe justification for state sanction of marriage so that you don't have to acknowledge the real reasons for marriage that would apply strongly to same-sex couples in some sort of bizarre effort to excuse denial of human rights.

Do I feel passionate about this subject? Damn straight, and I make no apologies for that. This is an issue that has very real implications for actual human beings. You trying to justify legal measures to inflict misery on people will not tend to make me be particularily happy.

But maybe this is a good point to duck out of the thread for the time being. I'll leave you with the words of someone wiser than me: you can't polish a turd. No matter how much you try to dress up evil, it will still remain evil. Keep that in mind as you try to dream up faux-legal justifications for denying normal protections to families you don't approve of.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Your hostilities and inability to control those hostilities do not help your case. It is rhetorically flawed as insults do not sway opinion. It is procedurally flawed as giving in to that hostility and demonizing those who don't agree, often means one won't see the actual arguments for what they are, and is blind to the sloppiness of their own positions. It's also sad that a site staff would revel in this behavior instead of seeking honest dialogue. I'm sorry you opted for that direction, but at least you have that righteous indignation for comfort.

Starfish · Jul 23, 2008

Society should treat all people, along with their children, with respect. But society has the right to vote according to what it sees as best. Best for children especially. The best for children is a father and mother, married, raising their children together. No divorce, no pre- or extra-marital sex. Keeping as much risk out of a child's life as possible. No third bio-parent floating in or out of the child's life. No replacement adult figures. No confusion or complication, if at all possible.

When things beyond our control happen, we do the best we can through adoption, help from outside family, etc.

I will continue to speak out for the optimum for children.

Sunstone · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
Society should treat all people, along with their children with respect. But society has the right to vote according to what it sees as best. Best for children especially. The best for children is a father and mother, married, raising their children together. No divorce, no pre- or extra-marital sex. Keeping as much risk out of a child's life as possible. No third bio-parent floating in or out of the child's life. No replacement adult figures. No confusion or complication, if at all possible.

When things beyond our control happen, we do the best we can through adoption, help from outside family, etc.

I will continue to speak out for the optimum for children.

Suppose the best for children were to be raised in a secular home. Would society have a right to insist on that?

Orontes · Jul 23, 2008

mball1297 said:
Again, why would you even make that distinction? We are obviously talking about gay marriage being endorsed by the state. That's the whole point of the discussion. It is supposed to be understood when someone says "Gay marriage is banned" that they mean "Gay marriage endorsed by the state is banned". I'm sorry you need that qualified, but the rest of us are able to understand that without pointing it out.

Words have meaning and how one uses words frames a discussion. When one uses words like ban it suggest things about the issue that aren't accurate. The issue is concerned with endorsement.

No, the thing to do is to get the rest of the states to understand that they are discriminating against homosexuals. The thing to do is to follow the Constitution, and have more supreme courts recognize that they are not following it now. The thing to do is to end this bigotry and imposition of religious views on others.

If you reject the democratic process by and through which law is determined then we are far apart indeed.

Note: There is no right to gay marriage in the California Constitution. There is no right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

mball1297 said:
Exactly. That's the point. "Strangulation" itself isn't banned in the Constitution, but by way of other things like assault, it is. The same way that gay marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but, by way of other rules laid out, it is allowed by law.

Assault isn't banned in the Constitution. Laws against assault are passed by the legislature. Similarly, if gay marriage seeks legal standing it too should have the appropriate legislation passed.

mball1297 said:
No, it doesn't. It is a completely irrelevant detail. You can keep claiming it, but it's not going to make it all of a sudden become correct. That is indeed a difference between the two, but it is not useful or relevant. They are "similarly situated" in that they are two good-standing citizens who want to get married. By your reasoning, a heterosexual couple with a woman who is infertile shouldn't be able to get married, or couples who don't intend to have kids. In this case, the sexuality or ability to reproduce is not a base difference that should be used in determining equity. Do you really not see that?

Yes, it does. The ability to create life and the inability to create life speaks directly to a state interest. The state endorses a relation that has the potential to do this and has no interest in a relation that cannot.

Storm · Jul 23, 2008

Starfish said:
Society should treat all people, along with their children, with respect. But society has the right to vote according to what it sees as best. Best for children especially. The best for children is a father and mother, married, raising their children together. No divorce, no pre- or extra-marital sex. Keeping as much risk out of a child's life as possible. No third bio-parent floating in or out of the child's life. No replacement adult figures. No confusion or complication, if at all possible.

So, you supprt outlawing divorce? What punishments should people who have sex outside of marriage be subjected to? Should children of single parents be forcibly removed and sent into the already-overloaded foster care system?

When things beyond our control happen, we do the best we can through adoption, help from outside family, etc.

... equal treatment under the law...

I will continue to speak out for the optimum for children.

Except you're not. Even if I accept your entirely subjective notion of what's optimum, you're advocating punishing children for their parents' decisions.

Orontes · Jul 23, 2008

Orontes said:
Actually majoritarianism is the basis of democracy and the basis of U.S. law.

Mestemia said:

Yes it is the basis for a 'true' democracy.
Unfortunately for you, the USA is a REPUBLIC.

Majority rules is not the basis for the law in the USA.
How do I know this?
Abortion is legal even thought he majority wish it were illegal.

Click to expand...

A republic is a subset of democracy. It is an indirect democracy. It also operates off of a majoritarian standard.

Majoritarianism is the basis of how law is created in the U.S. It is how laws are passed in the U.S.

Roe v. Wade is something that can't be justified under democratic lines and so is condemnable, but such failings do not speak to the entirety of the governmental system. Were Roe abolished I think you would see some states with more conservative laws on abortion and some states the other direction. Most I think would occupy some middle position.

Me said:
Interesting. What is the basis for law in your view?

Me said:
Republic so far as I can tell.

Click to expand...

A republic is an indirect democracy and majoritarian in operation.

Me said:
It is, but marriage isn't and hasn't been entirely defined as a legal contract. Two simple counter examples are common law marriages and religious ceremonies.

Me said:
Common law marriage is a legal marriage in places that still accept it only when contested or needed for the legalities.

Religious ceremonies are not legal unless the paper work is filled out or they happen in places that recognize common law marriage.

So yes, marriage is a legal contract.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood of my reply. I agreed marriage is a legal contract, but it isn't and hasn't only been understood in those terms. I gave some examples of marriages that in California do not have legal standing, but are still meaningful and considered marriage (or a part of marriage) by their advocates.

LDS letter on same-sex marriage

Well-Known Member

Please no sarcasm

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Please no sarcasm

Well-Known Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Please no sarcasm

Well-Known Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Please no sarcasm

Well-Known Member

Master of the Horse

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Master of the Horse

Please no sarcasm

De Diablo Del Fora

Master of the Horse

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Master of the Horse