Agree or disagree?

[All-American]

I came across this statement and I'd like to throw it out for discussion:

"Several states have had a referendum on the question of redefining marriage to include other forms of sexual groupings. In every state where such an election has been held, the people have spoken clearly. They do not want to redefine marriage. The average majority has been greater than 70%. Yet judges in those states have subsequently rendered individual decisions that have overturned the will the people. If their decisions stand—even in one state—reciprocation with other states would mean the end of marriage as we now know it. Such a redefinition would not only impact the institutions of marriage and family, but it would ultimately challenge quality of life and freedom of religion. Immoral behavior, now increasingly tolerated by society, would (if marriage is redefined) become legally protected. Then government would be in the untenable position of protecting immorality and sin. Then servants of the Lord would no longer be able to teach the doctrines of God without legal challenge. Then families would diminish and children would become only incidental byproducts of adult autonomy. Then the purposes of the Lord to exalt the family would be completely frustrated. That briefly summarizes why this matter is so very important. The process of amending the constitution would provide the only legal base that individual judges could not overturn. The amendment process, though lengthy, would provide for this issue to be decided by the will of the people and not by activist judges."

Thoughts?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

I came across this statement and I'd like to throw it out for discussion:

"Several states have had a referendum on the question of redefining marriage to include other forms of sexual groupings. In every state where such an election has been held, the people have spoken clearly. They do not want to redefine marriage. The average majority has been greater than 70%. Yet judges in those states have subsequently rendered individual decisions that have overturned the will the people. If their decisions stand—even in one state—reciprocation with other states would mean the end of marriage as we now know it. Such a redefinition would not only impact the institutions of marriage and family, but it would ultimately challenge quality of life and freedom of religion. Immoral behavior, now increasingly tolerated by society, would (if marriage is redefined) become legally protected. Then government would be in the untenable position of protecting immorality and sin. Then servants of the Lord would no longer be able to teach the doctrines of God without legal challenge. Then families would diminish and children would become only incidental byproducts of adult autonomy. Then the purposes of the Lord to exalt the family would be completely frustrated. That briefly summarizes why this matter is so very important. The process of amending the constitution would provide the only legal base that individual judges could not overturn. The amendment process, though lengthy, would provide for this issue to be decided by the will of the people and not by activist judges."

Thoughts?

First off, I always wonder why people assume that judges cannot "overrule the will of the people." The judges have every right, indeed they have the responsibility, to overrule the will of the people if their will is not compatible with legal principles. If the people are serious about their will, they can always ensure compliance by amending the constitution of their respective states (as many have done).

Second, I take issue with the slippery slope argument presented. The author states that after marriage is redefined, the government will be in the "untenable position" of protecting sin and immorality. Doesn't the government do that now? Is gambling immoral? Probably, but it is legal in Las Vegas and on many rivers. Is adultery immoral? Yes, but it is legal (and I doubt sincerely that a legal restriction could actually be enforced criminalizing adultery). Is excessive alcohol consumption immoral? Probably, but as long as you do it in the right place, it is protected. The world hasn't ended yet as a result of our ability to engage in these activities.

I am also quite confused as to why families and churches (according to the author) would be unable to fight homosexual marriage without legal challenge. They are free to say what they want about homosexual marriage, regardless of what the law says allowing it.

This is the ultimate slippery slope argument: if you allow gay marriage, nobody will ever be allowed to combat it! I am not clear on how that is supposed to work. Have churches been inhibited in their ability to say adultery is immoral or any number of other things?

People make the gay marriage debate appear like society will be destroyed if it is allowed. In reality, it involves a simple question with no clear answer: at what point should the government legislate morality? This is the nature of the debate.

[UtahDan]

I think a trap has been laid for you hoya, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on the identity of the author of that quote.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

First off, I always wonder why people assume that judges cannot "overrule the will of the people." The judges have every right, indeed they have the responsibility, to overrule the will of the people if their will is not compatible with legal principles. If the people are serious about their will, they can always ensure compliance by amending the constitution of their respective states (as many have done).

This is right. Of the numerous, IMO, good arguments those on my side of the debate have this is probably the weakest. The will of the people or what Jefferson called the flame of public opinion is not, thankfully, what get s the last say. Of course the people express their will through their representatives, but the states are contrained by the perameters of federal law and both the federal and their own state constitutions. The federal government is contrained by the federal constitution. Segregation was the will of the people for example. If the people feel strongly enough they amend the constitution which is doable but, as it should be, difficult. So far there is not sufficient consensus on this.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Second, I take issue with the slippery slope argument presented. The author states that after marriage is redefined, the government will be in the "untenable position" of protecting sin and immorality. Doesn't the government do that now? Is gambling immoral? Probably, but it is legal in Las Vegas and on many rivers. Is adultery immoral? Yes, but it is legal (and I doubt sincerely that a legal restriction could actually be enforced criminalizing adultery). Is excessive alcohol consumption immoral? Probably, but as long as you do it in the right place, it is protected. The world hasn't ended yet as a result of our ability to engage in these activities.

I am also quite confused as to why families and churches (according to the author) would be unable to fight homosexual marriage without legal challenge. They are free to say what they want about homosexual marriage, regardless of what the law says allowing it.

I think there is a distinction to be made between the things you mentioned which are simply tolerated and tightly regulated as opposed to a gay marriage which is actually the promotion and protection of a particular kind of contract and its attendant behaviors. There is not really a good analogy I can think of but I think it is much more akin, for example, to offering a tax subsidy to farmers as opposed to simply allowing people to have farms.

With respect to our ability to say what we want, I don't really see how it could be stopped. I am virtually certain, however, that some locality will try to pass a "hate speech" ordinance forbidding it. Of course they can't get away with that.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

This is the ultimate slippery slope argument: if you allow gay marriage, nobody will ever be allowed to combat it! I am not clear on how that is supposed to work. Have churches been inhibited in their ability to say adultery is immoral or any number of other things?

I would actually say sort of yes. Anytime something that is immoral is legal it is practically more difficult to combat. I would like to take the position with my children that shooting heroin is wrong. Since it is also illegal it is easier for me to tell them that society strongly disapproves and will punish them. I want to take the same position on alcohol but will have an additional burden there because government at least tolerates it and every one does it. Abortion same thing (and this one is allegedly imbedded in teh constitution). Of course I can still say whatever I want to, but I would like society's laws to reflect my morality. (read further before you let your head explode at that last sentence)

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

People make the gay marriage debate appear like society will be destroyed if it is allowed. In reality, it involves a simple question with no clear answer: at what point should the government legislate morality? This is the nature of the debate.

I'm glad you said "at what point" rather than "whether." Every law ever written reflects someones morality broadly defined. Everyone thinks we "ought" or "ought not" do this or that. When enough people agree the "ought" becomes a "must." Our morality in the US forbids, for example, "honor kilings." But this is not so everywhere. Ditto for female genital mutilation which is common place in many countries. We have no compunctinon about legislating our morality there so it is a question, as you rightly say, of to what extent to we legislate morality.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think a trap has been laid for you hoya, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on the identity of the author of that quote.



This is right. Of the numerous, IMO, good arguments those on my side of the debate have this is probably the weakest. The will of the people or what Jefferson called the flame of public opinion is not, thankfully, what get s the last say. Of course the people express their will through their representatives, but the states are contrained by the perameters of federal law and both the federal and their own state constitutions. The federal government is contrained by the federal constitution. Segregation was the will of the people for example. If the people feel strongly enough they amend the constitution which is doable but, as it should be, difficult. So far there is not sufficient consensus on this.




I think there is a distinction to be made between the things you mentioned which are simply tolerated and tightly regulated as opposed to a gay marriage which is actually the promotion and protection of a particular kind of contract and its attendant behaviors. There is not really a good analogy I can think of but I think it is much more akin, for example, to offering a tax subsidy to farmers as opposed to simply allowing people to have farms.

With respect to our ability to say what we want, I don't really see how it could be stopped. I am virtually certain, however, that some locality will try to pass a "hate speech" ordinance forbidding it. Of course they can't get away with that.



I would actually say sort of yes. Anytime something that is immoral is legal it is practically more difficult to combat. I would like to take the position with my children that shooting heroin is wrong. Since it is also illegal it is easier for me to tell them that society strongly disapproves and will punish them. I want to take the same position on alcohol but will have an additional burden there because government at least tolerates it and every one does it. Abortion same thing (and this one is allegedly imbedded in teh constitution). Of course I can still say whatever I want to, but I would like society's laws to reflect my morality. (read further before you let your head explode at that last sentence)





I'm glad you said "at what point" rather than "whether." Every law ever written reflects someones morality broadly defined. Everyone thinks we "ought" or "ought not" do this or that. When enough people agree the "ought" becomes a "must." Our morality in the US forbids, for example, "honor kilings." But this is not so everywhere. Ditto for female genital mutilation which is common place in many countries. We have no compunctinon about legislating our morality there so it is a question, as you rightly say, of to what extent to we legislate morality.

A good post. It is nice to hear someone actually debate on the issues.

I don't see the same problem you see with legalizing gay marriage. First, it is the homosexual conduct that many find repugnant, not necessarily the marriage itself. That conduct is already legal (and constitutionally protected). I don't think most people then conclude the government promotes homosexuality.

I also don't think legalizing something necessarily makes it harder for you to teach your children the activity is inappropriate. Did you ever think growing up that drinking was appropriate? How about smoking? Do most Mormons think gambling is appropriate or have a more difficult time teaching their children it isn't because it is legal?

The issue is debatable, and I haven't actually ever seen any scientific evidence on the point (though I would imagine some exists). If you are aware of something, I would enjoy reading it. From personal experience, I have a hard time accepting your premise, however. OTOH, for those growing up in an atmosphere that doesn't contain church teachings or a similar foundation, perhaps societal norms are the measure of what is and what is not appropriate. Again, I don't know. But I haven't seen any evidence of your claim.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

A good post. It is nice to hear someone actually debate on the issues.

I don't see the same problem you see with legalizing gay marriage. First, it is the homosexual conduct that many find repugnant, not necessarily the marriage itself. That conduct is already legal (and constitutionally protected). I don't think most people then conclude the government promotes homosexuality.

I also don't think legalizing something necessarily makes it harder for you to teach your children the activity is inappropriate. Did you ever think growing up that drinking was appropriate? How about smoking? Do most Mormons think gambling is appropriate or have a more difficult time teaching their children it isn't because it is legal?

The issue is debatable, and I haven't actually ever seen any scientific evidence on the point (though I would imagine some exists). If you are aware of something, I would enjoy reading it. From personal experience, I have a hard time accepting your premise, however. OTOH, for those growing up in an atmosphere that doesn't contain church teachings or a similar foundation, perhaps societal norms are the measure of what is and what is not appropriate. Again, I don't know. But I haven't seen any evidence of your claim.

But of course spit on the fact of the spiritual evidence of it....since of course your political views are more important than the Saviors direction.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

But of course spit on the fact of the spiritual evidence of it....since of course your political views are more important than the Saviors direction.

Look, if you don't want to discuss the issue, just don't discuss it. This sort of self-righteous comment doesn't really add to the discussion. Do you really want to go the way of Lingo and grapevine, where people just ignore your input?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

But of course spit on the fact of the spiritual evidence of it....since of course your political views are more important than the Saviors direction.

Your approach would appear to require that we legislate all LDS belief, would it not? If we ever failed to legislate an LDS belief, would we not be "spitting on the fact of spriritual evidence?"

Of our many differences, the one that consistently brings us into conflict is my belief in separation of church and state and your belief that they should be the same.

If you can't provide non-spiritual evidence that something is good, then the issue should not be legislated. Case closed. If all you rely on is spiritual evidence, then all you are doing is combining church and state.

The principle of separation of church and state is clearly expressed in the Constitution (a document LDS believe was divinely inspired). If the document is divine and mandates separation, are you spitting in the face of spiritual evidence that such separation is appropriate and necessary?

The separation protects religion from government and vice-versa. We should not be so callous as to say that we know our beliefs are true and therefore can cause no harm to others. Many other sects have said the same thing in the history of the world, leading to untold oppression and strife.

But then again, I am just speaking with a "silver forked tongue of the devil" or whatever you said.

[MikeWaters]

Shouldn't the church be fighting homosexual sex, and try to pass an amendment to make that illegal? If there is no homosexual sex, it seems like you don't have to worry about gay marriage.

I have just the plan. When every male is born, you implant a computer chip under the skin of his penis, and then one in his anus. If two chips ever get really close to each other, they either send some sort of alarm, blow up, etc.

A world where you blow up people who practice gay sex is a better world.

[Archaea]

I guess the lesson learned from this debate is, the time is past when the morals which the Church considers important are held by the more part of the people and the people will continue to wickedness.

The Church should just advise its people of correct conduct and stand by the wayside advocating nothing.

The missionary work is already on the decline. Our temple attendance is down. And we don't engage in emergency preparedness. President Hinckley is correct, he is the prophet that nobody listens to.

Politically speaking, there are not many issues that the more part of the people care about. That is why the parties seek polarizing issues to galvanize a base.

The nation is so diverse that no substantial majority cares about something. So it becomes necessary to scare constituents into buying into a need for particular leglislation. The Right does it with Anti Gay legislation. The Left does it with Social Security. W's decision to add prescriptions will come back to haunt us financially.

We experience 9-11, so W and all others scare us into a need for the Patriot Act.

Somebody claims there is a trend of global warming, so there is a rush for legislation addressing that issue.

Unfortunately our nation is governed through scare tactics, rather than sound debate.

Mike raised the standard issue of 1%, when he full well knows not to trust political leaders for sound and legitimate political argument and policy. These policies don't make for good speeches in political stumping. A sound policy would usually be boring to listen to.

The Church is probably on the downside right now, as our nation is becoming more agnostic, more sinful and less cognizant of the Spirit. We will become a smaller minority rather than larger. Religion will decline here as elsewhere. Has anybody spent time in Europe? Religion is not viewed seriously in most countries there. It's usually viewed as something old women do, and nobody else.

I wager the Church will engage in the political arena even less, now that is has received a solid loss. It will become as Mormon, refusing to participate, until we are destroyed.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think a trap has been laid for you hoya, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on the identity of the author of that quote.

No trap intended, it's just an argument I came across and was curious as to what you all thought.