Supreme Court and Gay Marriage

snoscythe wrote:

I'll have to post the link at home, but Mark Levin gave a great explanation that the full faith and credit clause doesn't necessarily apply in the instance of contradictory statutes. States are entitled to their own laws.

I heard Levin, but I believe Levin just read some cases or summaries and got excited about something he read and assumed it would apply here--I don't know that he understands the distinction between laws and judgments. The Full Faith and Credit clause has differing tests and exceptions between the two. Levin assumed/argued it would be treated as another state's law and therefore subjected to public policy exceptions.



I think Levin is flat out wrong, and evidently Congress did too or else DOMA wouldn't have passed. The Full Faith and Credit clause has already be used as the vehicle for enforcing the common-law marriages, child custody orders, and restraining orders in divorces of one state in a different state even in the face of "home state" statutes or laws that would otherwise prohibit it.



While the law might be what permits same-sex marriage, what solemnizes it is a subsequent state action--the issuance of a permit and certificate, and those acts are looked upon in a Full Faith and Credit analysis as judgments even though they arise out of an enabling law. A court deciding whether to enforce it or not is not looking to enforce the law of one state in another, the court is deciding whether the marriage certificate is entitled to full faith and credit in the other 49 states. FFC has already been used in deep red Oklahoma to compel Oklahoma to revise a birth certificate for a child born in Oklahoma and adopted by a married same sex couple in another state to list the same-sex couple as married on the child's birth certificate.

Yeah, Levin seemed to be hoping his interpretation would be the one that would be followed. And while, I agree with that interpretation, he's been wrong a lot lately. Not because his positions are incorrect, but his positions are not the ones the courts and public opinion have been taking.

I think this sums up pretty well what most people miss when they can't understand why christian groups, especially the LDS church, fight against the redefining of marriage. This is from a blog someone posted on facebook:

One of the big reasons many Christians are against the redefining of the term marriage is because they are worried that then their churches will somehow be persecuted for not performing gay marraige…



Presposterous you say? That could never happen here!



You want to know why most Mormons are worried about the government redefining marriage? It isn’t because they hate gay people. It is because the last time the government redefined the definition of marriage, Mormons got screwed over, imprisoned, invaded, and had their property confiscated for not following along with the federal government’s definition of marriage. The feds said you have to perform marriages like we tell you to, or you’re not a real religion, and we will throw you in prison. And for the people who say this could never happen, that’s super comforting, since it has before. So if you want to know why the Mormons in California voted against gay marriage, they weren’t scared of gay people. They were scared of the feds.

Additionally, I don't think the term "marriage" should be defined or regulated by any level of government. If government wants to create a law that says any consenting adults can enter into a civil contract that allows joint filing of taxes, visitation rights, equal asset ownership etc. I'd have no problem with that, and I don't think the brethren would either.



As it says in the article of faith, "let them worship how, where , or what they may."

tmoney35 wrote:
I think this sums up pretty well what most people miss when they can't understand why christian groups, especially the LDS church, fight against the redefining of marriage. This is from a blog someone posted on facebook:

One of the big reasons many Christians are against the redefining of the term marriage is because they are worried that then their churches will somehow be persecuted for not performing gay marraige…



Presposterous you say? That could never happen here!



You want to know why most Mormons are worried about the government redefining marriage? It isn’t because they hate gay people. It is because the last time the government redefined the definition of marriage, Mormons got screwed over, imprisoned, invaded, and had their property confiscated for not following along with the federal government’s definition of marriage. The feds said you have to perform marriages like we tell you to, or you’re not a real religion, and we will throw you in prison. And for the people who say this could never happen, that’s super comforting, since it has before. So if you want to know why the Mormons in California voted against gay marriage, they weren’t scared of gay people. They were scared of the feds.

Additionally, I don't think the term "marriage" should be defined or regulated by any level of government. If government wants to create a law that says any consenting adults can enter into a civil contract that allows joint filing of taxes, visitation rights, equal asset ownership etc. I'd have no problem with that, and I don't think the brethren would either.



As it says in the article of faith, "let them worship how, where , or what they may."

This is what I was trying to say on the first page. Again, what they do on their own is their business, what they do to force their way of thinking on me or what they do to force my church to do their bidding is my business. Of course this doesn't just involve our church it involves all Christian churches that do not accept homosexuality as part of the scriptures.

I had this debate with my liberal cousins and some of his friends. It is all about acceptance, but they try claim, and it may be true, that civil unions does not provide the same legal rights as marriage. I believe the bretheren do support equal substantive rights, but as stated here, do not want to interfere with the centuries old religious and social institution of marriage. Furthermore, I believe that this is not a right protected by the Constitution, and if a state's citizens want to grant that right, so be it. In the end, I believe I argued them into submission, because they raised the woman's right to vote. That followed the correct process. First women changed public opinion and then the Constitution was amended to allow that right--it was not decided by some judges. The same process should be followed here. If people will not pass a Constitutional amendment for gay marriage, and I believe that it would not pass, then individual states that allow civil union could fix the legal inequalities with a simple law that states:



"A civil union is of the same force and legal effect as a lawful marriage." Done. Problem solved. But that will not be enough, because it is all about acceptance. Deep down, I believe they still know it is wrong, and all of the pats on the back and approving glances, and even legalization will never take that feeling away. You can tell it is wrong, or else why are they seeking for the term marriage when simple "civil union" would be far less controversial. Because they have to feel like they are accepted by society. My cousin asked what if the government termed an interracial marriage as a civil union? I responded, I am in an interracial marriage, and I wouldn't care. The strength of my relationship is not defined by society. It is defined by God, my wife, and me. I don't care what anyone else calls it. So why do they? It is all about an agenda of acceptance, not seeking substantive equal rights. Otherwise the language I quoted above would be enough...but it isn't to them.

WOoW. You guys are pretty much right on the money. Marriage is and has been traditionally a religious ceremony. Very few governments had civil unions because most societies basically had their laws and traditions concerning inheritance and such. Of course we as LDS even have the extra knowledge that the first marriage was a religious one (Adam & Eve). Anyways I also wholly believe that they want to change the sin instead of changing their own behavior. I was listening to a host talking to a gay phone call and she said it will probably be legal but what about the pastors that won't marry them and if they would go after those people. The guy refused to answer the question and kept changing the subject. I have quoted the wickedness never was happiness along with Isaiah 57:20-21. This is and never was about taxes and visitation and inheritance. There have been state and foreign governments that have given all those "rights". It is a solely about finding eternal happiness which those acting on the impulses will never find. If only they can make this behavior acceptable to everyone then it would no longer be a sin. Sorry gays but the last time that happened there was a great flood.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Where is the line for gay marriage? Would it be okay for my dad, to marry my son when he turns 18? They wouldn't even have to consumate it. Then when my dad dies, all his estate belongs to my son - who is now a widower - and we've evaded all those taxes. And my son has a home and a nice start for the rest of his life.

I think this conference pretty much answered the question of whether faithful members could support changing laws to allow gay marriage and be in concert with the Lord, if there was any question before.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Where is the line for gay marriage? Would it be okay for my dad, to marry my son when he turns 18? They wouldn't even have to consumate it. Then when my dad dies, all his estate belongs to my son - who is now a widower - and we've evaded all those taxes. And my son has a home and a nice start for the rest of his life.

This is why perhaps we want rules to define marriage, because it is not just a gay marriage issue. Do we want dads marrying their daughters? How about brothers marrying sisters? Just thinking outloud.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Where is the line for gay marriage? Would it be okay for my dad, to marry my son when he turns 18? They wouldn't even have to consumate it. Then when my dad dies, all his estate belongs to my son - who is now a widower - and we've evaded all those taxes. And my son has a home and a nice start for the rest of his life.

This is why perhaps we want rules to define marriage, because it is not just a gay marriage issue. Do we want dads marruing their daughters? How about brothers marrying sisters (in the name of health and safety)? Just thinking outloud.

I can get the no dad/daughter and brother/sister argument. Incest is fraught with birth defects and healt problems. But there would be no chance of that between a dad/son or grandfather/grandson.



Once you change the definition for one, I don't know how you don't also change it for the next group as well.

hawkwing wrote:
I think this conference pretty much answered the question of whether faithful members could support changing laws to allow gay marriage and be in concert with the Lord, if there was any question before.

Certain reluctantly faithful friends of mine would retort--"But only until next conference, when it could change!"

hawkwing wrote:
I think this conference pretty much answered the question of whether faithful members could support changing laws to allow gay marriage and be in concert with the Lord, if there was any question before.

I thought the same thing, but then realized that just like anything else, people hear what they want to hear. In the last days even the very elect will be decieved. It is sad to see it happening among our own.

Found these quotes from Ezra Taft Benson from October 1971 Conference, and I thought they applied to the gay marriage question.

A state of confusion is an effective environment for Satan. There is much confusion today. He employs several methods to create it. One is the distortion of definitions.

And

Ridicule works well in collaboration with confusion. To confuse youth in its searching years, the cynic defends his degeneracy by ridiculing his critics with confusing metaphors. The

And

The philosophy of relativism attacks the eternal principles of truth.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/10/satans-thrust-youth?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DOMA's down, and Prop 8 was avoided by SCOTUS--no decision on Prop 8, but rather a determination that the Prop 8 supporters/plaintiffs didn't have "standing" to use the courts to challenge the State's refusal to enforce Prop 8, so California can just go on ignoring Prop 8 until someone with "standing" is found to effectively challenge it.

Should be noted that while the federal aspects of DOMA are down, the provision providing that states and territories have the right to deny recognition of other States' same-sex marriages was not at issue and not affected by today's Windsor decision, so the FFC battle will still need to be fought. It wasn't before the Court in Windsor as the plaintiff was married to her partner in Canada---not a State or territory (although some might argue that ;) ).



There is a lot of States's Rights language in Windsor, so it is too hard to read the tea leaves at this point on that surviving aspect of DOMA.

snoscythe wrote:
Should be noted that while the federal aspects of DOMA are down, the provision providing that states and territories have the right to deny recognition of other States' same-sex marriages was not at issue and not affected by today's Windsor decision, so the FFC battle will still need to be fought. It wasn't before the Court in Windsor as the plaintiff was married to her partner in Canada---not a State or territory (although some might argue that ;) ).



There is a lot of States's Rights language in Windsor, so it is too hard to read the tea leaves at this point on that surviving aspect of DOMA.

Kennedy basically said it's going down with the next case that brings that issue up.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Aren't those in favor of gay marriage actually condoning sin? Aren't they actually asking for approval of their conduct?



In the LDS Church you are ONLY allowed to have sexual relations with your husband or wife to whom you are LEGALLY and LAWFULLY wedded.



You can't just go in your backyard with your girlfriend, exchange some vows you each wrote and then go upstairs and get it on.



By allowing gay marriage you are saying that sexual relations between two members of the same sex is proper and not wrong.



Homosexual conduct is wrong, immoral and sinful. Those who support gay marriage are holding apostate views. There is no other way to describe it.

Since this was written over 3 months ago sin has changed, the court says so, obviously with out consulting with God. 3-4 years ago Pres. Clark of Ricks College came on Dialogue. A person called in complaining that because he was gay he wasn't allowed to enroll. He probably had no intention of doing so, but did want to get a sneak punch in. I called in and thanked Clark for being consistant since I couldn't commit a sex act and eroll. You are correct Spiff, but they don't think what they do is a sin and now the government and courts have said it isn't.



A woman called a local talk show this morning saying it was all ok. When asked about brothers and sisters marrying, she said that wouldn't happen because people do not accept it. They didn't used to accept gay marrage either a generation ago. When things are run by a government which responds to what is popular then we lose control of what is and what is not true. What is sin is different now.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Aren't those in favor of gay marriage actually condoning sin? Aren't they actually asking for approval of their conduct?



In the LDS Church you are ONLY allowed to have sexual relations with your husband or wife to whom you are LEGALLY and LAWFULLY wedded.



You can't just go in your backyard with your girlfriend, exchange some vows you each wrote and then go upstairs and get it on.



By allowing gay marriage you are saying that sexual relations between two members of the same sex is proper and not wrong.



Homosexual conduct is wrong, immoral and sinful. Those who support gay marriage are holding apostate views. There is no other way to describe it.

So, the church holds that masturbation is wrong. Should I, as a practicing Mormon, feel the need to support government intervention in that issue as well? What about porn? Alcohol? More than one earring? Taking the lords name in vane? Worshiping idols? Worshiping false gods? Businesses that are open on Sunday?



We seem to "allow" plenty of stuff that we disagree to exist in our society without personally condoning or agreeing with it. You seem to imply quite heavily that it is a mormon's duty to attempt to legislate the entire religion onto the rest of society.

DarthMagnus wrote:

Aren't those in favor of gay marriage actually condoning sin? Aren't they actually asking for approval of their conduct?



In the LDS Church you are ONLY allowed to have sexual relations with your husband or wife to whom you are LEGALLY and LAWFULLY wedded.



You can't just go in your backyard with your girlfriend, exchange some vows you each wrote and then go upstairs and get it on.



By allowing gay marriage you are saying that sexual relations between two members of the same sex is proper and not wrong.



Homosexual conduct is wrong, immoral and sinful. Those who support gay marriage are holding apostate views. There is no other way to describe it.

So, the church holds that masturbation is wrong. Should I, as a practicing Mormon, feel the need to support government intervention in that issue as well? What about porn? Alcohol? More than one earring? Taking the lords name in vane? Worshiping idols? Worshiping false gods? Businesses that are open on Sunday?



We seem to "allow" plenty of stuff that we disagree to exist in our society without personally condoning or agreeing with it. You seem to imply quite heavily that it is a mormon's duty to attempt to legislate the entire religion onto the rest of society.

Does the church interfere with two consenting adults having gay sexual relations? NO. They draw the line at redefining something that was instituted by God. Your analogy is totally flawed. Government has no place in marriage in the first place, but if they do want to define it, then they should recognize that the very definition is the union between man and woman.

From your original post, I would not have been able to deduce that that was your actual argument. That is why I responded with that analogy. My next question is simply this: from a constitutional perspective, how do you derive the governments ability to discriminate against a protected class based on the Mormon interpretation of God's will?

DarthMagnus wrote:
From your original post, I would not have been able to deduce that that was your actual argument. That is why I responded with that analogy. My next question is simply this: from a constitutional perspective, how do you derive the governments ability to discriminate against a protected class based on the Mormon interpretation of God's will?

In my view, homosexuality is not a protected class--at least the Supreme Court has held that it is not on the same level as race or gender. Sexuality is more of an intermediate protection where a law impinging on rights based on sexuality would received heightened scrutiny, but not rise to the level of proving a compelling state interest.



Truthfully, this is all a bunch of garbage. The only rights that should be protected are those listed in the Bill of Rights. All of this due process analysis was made up by the Supreme Court long ago rather than just recognizing that due process meant procedural due process. That means the proposed law passed with the majority vote, or the super majority vote over a veto and did not expressly violate a right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights--such as banning free speech, or the right to bear arms. Instead, the Supreme Court has taken away the ability of the people to pass any law that it does not consider substantively fair (substantive due process). In so doing, they have completely undermined the social contract the states signed up for back in 1789. I am pretty sure that only those things specifically listed in the Constitution is what they signed up for. How do I know this? Because slavery was still around and women did not have the right to vote--both terribly unfair ideas, but not against anything that was listed in the Bill of Rights at the time.