Much more interesting Oaks thread

[SeattleUte]

Also bear in mind that "God" was the lingua franca of the European royalty and upper classes.

King George: "I'm your King because God willed it." (Why else?)

TFF: "A just and rational God would give us license to rebel from a despotic king. A just and rational God enables men to govern their own affairs."

This is better advocacy than "next time God happens by your court send Him my way and we'll have a talk about this," or, "there is no God." The founding documents were as much political as anything else.

[KillerDog]

Do YOU think that Oaks is stretching the risk? If so, why do you think that there is a greater risk that Mormons will be compelled to marry gay people compared to white separatist churches being compelled to marry mixed race couples?

That's a good question. I think he probably is stretching the risk. I think religious freedom does enjoy a paramount position in our jurisprudence. I also think that people who are strongly invested in a particular right are more jealous and protective of that right. For example, Newspaper men are a bit nutty about freedom of the press; lawyers are definitely crazy about freedom of speech; racial minorities tend to be much more focused on equal protection; and WASP men focus almost entirely on their obsession with property rights. I think Oaks, given his religious position and dedication, is very sensitive to any erosion or encroachment on free exercise. So, while I think he is stretching it, I understand why he is stretching it and what his concern is. In truth, passing a law legalizing gay marriage is a very short step from requiring religious leaders, who want to have state authority to marry, to marry homosexuals. It is a very short step with logical precedents and analogies.

Your example regarding white separatist churches is inapposite but I'm guessing you know that. Both of your examples, one regarding gay marriage and one regarding interracial marriage, involve freedom of religion. I think the comparison that is appropriate, and the reason Oaks and his people are scared, is the comparison between a restaurant owner being forced to serve a black person he doesn't want to serve and a religious leader being forced to marry someone he doesn't want to marry. In the first, the clash of rights was Civil rights are more important that property rights. I think it is the correct decision. We don't know what the second will produce. Oaks hopes and argues that it should be religious civil rights are more important than generic civil rights. I'm withholding judgment on what will be the correct decision.

[KillerDog]

Translation: No mas. We haven't been talking about whether I have a right to stand on your front yard and speak against Prop. 8.

You're right, we haven't been talking about that. Everyone with a brain knows that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Pointing it out as though it is a revelation is an insult to the poster as well as the readers. I suspect you just don't want to talk about the subject we were discussing. Heirarchy of rights (not heirarchy of application within a right) is an interesting Constitutional law question. I wonder why you don't want to address it?

Earlier you said there was no such thing as a heirarchy of rights. I am asking again, if there is no heirarchy of rights, how has the Supreme Court determined cases involving clashes of rights. For example, how did the Supreme Court determine that property rights can be subject to federal law (federal wage and hour laws for example); how did the Supreme Court determine that certain speech is not protected (the right to freedom of speech is curtailed by its interaction with numerous rights). Answer the question and enter the discussion or go back to the dank caverns of your mind where you are supremely impressive and all knowing. IOW, quit trying to change the subject to one you want to talk about and talk about the subject Robin and I have politely and, I believe, intelligently explored.

[KillerDog]

Is there a conflict in this case? I don't think there is any conflict between civil marriage and religious freedom. Are you saying that this whole fight is just to gain top position in the heirarchy of rights?

I believe he is making a forward looking argument. If religious freedom has a preeminent place, then religions will not be constrained in the future.

I also think that marriage is basically a religious institution that got assimilated into the civil realm shortly after the conquest of England. I think it is possible that Oaks is setting up an argument that "marriage" should be left to religions and governed by their definitions while "civil unions" or "contracts" should be dealt with by governments and left to them.

The above is purely m speculation. It is based only on the direction of his argument and his position as a leader of a religion that is against gay marriage.

[SeattleUte]

You're right, we haven't been talking about that. Everyone with a brain knows that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Pointing it out as though it is a revelation is an insult to the poster as well as the readers. I suspect you just don't want to talk about the subject we were discussing. Heirarchy of rights (not heirarchy of application within a right) is an interesting Constitutional law question. I wonder why you don't want to address it?

Earlier you said there was no such thing as a heirarchy of rights. I am asking again, if there is no heirarchy of rights, how has the Supreme Court determined cases involving clashes of rights. For example, how did the Supreme Court determine that property rights can be subject to federal law (federal wage and hour laws for example); how did the Supreme Court determine that certain speech is not protected (the right to freedom of speech is curtailed by its interaction with numerous rights). Answer the question and enter the discussion or go back to the dank caverns of your mind where you are supremely impressive and all knowing. IOW, quit trying to change the subject to one you want to talk about and talk about the subject Robin and I have politely and, I believe, intelligently explored.

I didn't say there wasn't a hierarchy of "rights."

[Non Sequitur]

I believe he is making a forward looking argument. If religious freedom has a preeminent place, then religions will not be constrained in the future.

I also think that marriage is basically a religious institution that got assimilated into the civil realm shortly after the conquest of England. I think it is possible that Oaks is setting up an argument that "marriage" should be left to religions and governed by their definitions while "civil unions" or "contracts" should be dealt with by governments and left to them.

The above is purely m speculation. It is based only on the direction of his argument and his position as a leader of a religion that is against gay marriage.

If he is, in fact, making some sort of forward looking argument, why on earth would he be making it in a speech at BYU-I? Aren't those kind of arguments usually made in conjunction with other court cases? Just curious how the process generally works.

[KillerDog]

I didn't say there wasn't a hierarchy of "rights."

Apparently I misunderstood you. That's why I've been asking about it. The conversation would have been more productive if you had answered.

[KillerDog]

If he is, in fact, making some sort of forward looking argument, why on earth would he be making it in a speech at BYU-I? Aren't those kind of arguments usually made in conjunction with other court cases? Just curious how the process generally works.

I don't know. I was surprised by it too. I wonder if he is trying to put an argument out into the marketplace of ideas for LDS people to use in their arguments. Doing so would definitely help to color the reception of the arguments in the future. An argument that is novel requires thought but one that isn't novel seems to gain ready acceptance.