[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Yes, but when the people amend the constitution, then it takes it out of the hands of the Judges and it now becomes the will of the people. That is why the Constitution was written to protect the people from Judges who attempt to override the will of the people. Which happens quite often in California as well.
I agree with you that the Judges have the right to thier opinion when the Laws are unconstitutional, however when the people vote and speak, by amending the constitution it is no longer a case for the Judges.[/quote]
By way of background, in 1977 the California State Legislature passed a law that said that marriage is a “personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman”. In 2000, CA voters passed a ballot initiative (Proposition 22) which changed California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman. (A statutory change, not a constitutional change.) In 2004 the San Francisco mayor performed gay marriages, which were annulled by trial court decisions, which were appealed, which led to a May 2008 California Supreme Court decision that struck down Proposition 22. Now vote to amend the CA constitution has passed. The governments of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara County have filed a petition to invalidate the amendment on the basis that the initiative process does not permit voters to divest a politically unpopular group of rights conferred by the equal protection clause.
On judicial activism, prior to 1959 California law explicitly prohibited marriage between people of different races. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional (Loving v Virginia). You want argue that the majority rule should have decided that issue?
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Because Marriage is not a Civil Right. Marriage is not a right given to us by the Government. Marraige is a Religious Ceremony that the Government agreed to recognize as a means to collect tax revenue, and make it easier to account for family groups. It is not a right granted to anyone by the government. [/quote]
So, then why not be consistent and push for the prohibition of heterosexual civil marriages?
Several churches do recognize gay marriage, so if you want the government to stay out of it, as you seem to be suggesting, you should have no problem with those churches that recognize gay marriage to perform gay ceremonies.
It’s true that homophobia still exists and the Mormon Church
and the Roman Catholic Church pumped big money into exploiting that issue, especially with their lies about how voting “No” on 8 would mean that homosexuality was going to be preached in schools.
Thank you for the history lesson. All facts I new about already, but very informative for those who may not have known the history behind prop 8.
I will not argue the point that the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to allow marriage between people of different races. I think they should have. In that case you are talking about discriminating against a person based on the color of their skin. I factor that can not be changed. That was a discussion based on a civil right. My argument is that not allowing gay marriage is not based on the color of their skin, but based on a conscious decision made by an individual.
As far as homophobia in the LDS Church, I will say again what I said earlier, do not confuse my opposition to gay marriage as hatred for or as being scared to associate with homosexuals. I think they are human beings just as I am, and I work with them just like anyone else. Sexual Orientation does not come up and we work together just fine.
Way to buy into the propaganda of lies in stating that gay marriage would not be taught in the schools. The California Family Code mandates that marriage be taught in schools. Therefore, if Gay Marriage were legal, it would have to be taught in schools. Nice try though. How about this, If it were not going to be taught in schools, than why did a Kindergarten Teacher take her class to the San Francisco Court house to witness her Gay Marriage? Again, why have a Gay Day at the local Elementary School? And Finally, why have a first grade class sign pledge cards for the local lesbian and gay society? This is what is already going on in your California Schools and Gay Marriage is not even legal. So, If Gay Marriage were legal, please do not attempt to tell me it would not be taught in schools, when the law mandates it be taught. Nice try again.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Thank you for the history lesson. All facts I new about already, but very informative for those who may not have known the history behind prop 8.
I will not argue the point that the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to allow marriage between people of different races. I think they should have. In that case you are talking about discriminating against a person based on the color of their skin. I factor that can not be changed. That was a discussion based on a civil right. My argument is that not allowing gay marriage is not based on the color of their skin, but based on a conscious decision made by an individual.
As far as homophobia in the LDS Church, I will say again what I said earlier, do not confuse my opposition to gay marriage as hatred for or as being scared to associate with homosexuals. I think they are human beings just as I am, and I work with them just like anyone else. Sexual Orientation does not come up and we work together just fine.
Way to buy into the propaganda of lies in stating that gay marriage would not be taught in the schools. The California Family Code mandates that marriage be taught in schools. Therefore, if Gay Marriage were legal, it would have to be taught in schools. Nice try though. How about this, If it were not going to be taught in schools, than why did a Kindergarten Teacher take her class to the San Francisco Court house to witness her Gay Marriage? Again, why have a Gay Day at the local Elementary School? And Finally, why have a first grade class sign pledge cards for the local lesbian and gay society? This is what is already going on in your California Schools and Gay Marriage is not even legal. So, If Gay Marriage were legal, please do not attempt to tell me it would not be taught in schools, when the law mandates it be taught. Nice try again.
[/quote]
I don’t know about the “propaganda of lies” and your rant about school curriculum. My intention was to point out the difference between a statute (Family Code), the constitution and judicial activism. Whether sexual orientation is a choice and therefore not entitled to equal protection, that’s a whole 'nother issue beyond the scope of this thread.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The only issue with the Mormon church at all was telling them to shut the fuck up and mind their business and stop actively campaigning for the GOVERNMENT to not recognize these relationships. None of them give a shit what the Mormon church’s private stance is or if they ever recognize gay unions as legitimate. [/quote]
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
The people do not condone gay marriage.
[/quote]
“The people” are often more likely to operate out of ignorance and stereotypes, which is why civil rights as guaranteed by the constitution should generally not be at the mercy of “the people”. Had it only been up to “the people”, which consisted mostly of white men at the time, women and blacks would not have made nearly the same progress in securing their civil rights.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Though they admit that if polygamy were okay at one point in time it might be possible for it to happen again, though you could make the same argument for Christians.
[/quote]
Mormons continue to believe that polygamy exists in the Celestial Kingdom, and that righteous men will eventually have multiple wives in the hereafter. If you don’t believe me, ask your Mormon friends and they will confirm it.
Again, it is outright hypocritical for them to campaign against gay marriage in the name of preserving “traditional marriage”.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
I will not argue the point that the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to allow marriage between people of different races. I think they should have. In that case you are talking about discriminating against a person based on the color of their skin. I factor that can not be changed. That was a discussion based on a civil right. My argument is that not allowing gay marriage is not based on the color of their skin, but based on a conscious decision made by an individual.
[/quote]
So “judicial activism” is ok, but only if you approve of the court’s decision? That is a double standard.
The point is that the Supreme Court had to step in to secure the civil rights of blacks, because “the people” were too prejudiced and ignorant to make that decision themselves.
If you think being gay is a conscious decision, you need to educate yourself. Does that mean if being gay were not a conscious decision, you would change your position and support the Supreme Court ensuring equal rights for gays?
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
I was wondering when you would chime in. It is called freedom of speech, or is that only a right guaranteed to the Gay Community?[/quote]
If a church wants to engage in political activism based on their religious beliefs, that is completely fine…but they should forego government tax breaks because doing so violates their nonprofit status.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
That is the definition of a non-profit business though, all the money goes back into the business including to salaries of the employees.
[/quote]
The point is that in order to file as a noprofit business, the church is legally required NOT to promote political causes. If they start preaching politics from the pulpit, their nonprofit status can be revoked and they lose the tax benefits of being a nonprofit organization.
[quote]forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
That is the definition of a non-profit business though, all the money goes back into the business including to salaries of the employees.
The point is that in order to file as a noprofit business, the church is legally required NOT to promote political causes. If they start preaching politics from the pulpit, their nonprofit status can be revoked and they lose the tax benefits of being a nonprofit organization.
[/quote]
They aren’t preaching political issues they are preaching the moral belief system of the church and from what I understand of the situation the church didn’t do this it was individual members who got together.
You cannot stop an organization from teaching it’s moral beliefs,
That is why separation of church and state was established.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I don’t think 53% of California’s voters are Mormon. I guess you need a scapegoat for your defeat and the mormons are an obvious whipping boy.
Mormons provided more funding for Proposition 8 than any other group. Even if they didn’t, their crusade in the name of “traditional marriage” is hypocrisy and you know it.
[/quote]
You lost so now you are whining. Not a huge surprise to anyone who has read your posts.
There will always be a group who provides the most funding in EVERY election.
I know hundreds of LDSers. None of them have more than one wife. I guess the modern catholic church should be considered hypocrites as well since their religion was involved in the Spanish Inquisition, huh?