Prop 8 Has Been Overturned

[BlueHair]

We don't have a courtroom.

It seems like Prop 8 discussions are either political or current events. If Prop 8 is religious in nature, it even has less ground to stand on. Pushing religious beliefs on others through constitutional amendments is not cool. If people weren't afraid Jesus was going to destroy us for letting gays say, "I do", this thing would have never passed in the first place. I say until Jesus comments on the matter in person, we abstain from pretending to know what he thinks about it.

[LA Ute]

The fact that this thread is in The Foyer is very telling.

That's where the first post was made. I guess the mods could have moved it but why?

[BlueHair]

That's where the first post was made. I guess the mods could have moved it but why?

I'm not saying it should be moved. The thread starter decided to put it in the religious forum. This tells me he thinks it is a religious issue.

[Jacob]

First of all, your last two sentences are confusing. Are you ripping on these non-existent people of which you speak?

Second, this may well be the least convincing point in this thread (for me anyway). I strongly suspect that during the sixties when the courts ordered desegregation in the south, you would have been similarly hard-pressed to find someone who disagreed with desegregation, yet agreed with the legal analysis used by the courts. I also wonder how many slave owners admired the logic used by Lincoln in the emancipation proclamation. I am not equating these events, but any time there is a fundamental societal change, those on the status quo side of the fence are highly unlikely to support the legal analysis used to support the change.

So you suspect. I can't speak for anyone in the sixties but I both support desegregation and think that the legal analysos in Brown was unconvincing. Not that they reached the wrong result, just that they did a poor job of constitutional analysis.
In fact, if you read the justice Harlan opinion I quoted earlier in this thread you would have seen an example of a guy using sound constitutional analysis that reached the same result 50 or so years earlier. Too bad he was in the minority. But he also was a racist. In that same opinion he admits that the white race is superior and probably always will be.

But I think your response was a little disingenuous anyway. It seems to me that if we are indeed talking about societal change as we are you don't go twisting the constitution to fit your prreferred change, you pass a law or a new amendment. Nobody pretended that we didn't need a constitutional amendment to ban slavery, for example.

[All-American]

I always thought that was legal analysis.

It doesn't take a very smart person to quote case law.

So, I'd say you fall into the diverse group I mentioned: those who disagree with Walker's legal analysis, but either agree with gay marriage, are on the fence, or ambivalent.

I'm wondering if there is anybody who agrees with his legal analysis who doesn't favor gay marriage. I think the fact that there are few, if any such people, tends to show their bias in their preferred method of constitutional interpretation. For such people, the constitution means what they want it to mean.

Perhaps not. It does take a somewhat smart person, however, to sift through the scores of extant case law, determine which points are relevant, and clearly state the determinative factors which will dictate the outcome of a given case. I felt like Judge Walker did that well. His findings of fact seemed to me to prove too much.

[Jacob]

Perhaps not. It does take a somewhat smart person, however, to sift through the scores of extant case law, determine which points are relevant, and clearly state the determinative factors which will dictate the outcome of a given case. I felt like Judge Walker did that well. His findings of fact seemed to me to prove too much.

Not a particularly smart person, I wouldn't say. The case books and law summaries are before us. Besides, that's what law clerks are for anyway, right?

[All-American]

Not a particularly smart person, I wouldn't say. The case books and law summaries are before us. Besides, that's what law clerks are for anyway, right?

You do know where case law comes from, right?

[UtahDan]

It seems like Prop 8 discussions are either political or current events. If Prop 8 is religious in nature, it even has less ground to stand on. Pushing religious beliefs on others through constitutional amendments is not cool. If people weren't afraid Jesus was going to destroy us for letting gays say, "I do", this thing would have never passed in the first place. I say until Jesus comments on the matter in person, we abstain from pretending to know what he thinks about it.

I wouldn't frame it quite that way, but my experience is that most members who defend Prop 8 would be relieved were they to find or be told out that God does not in fact care after all. I think this is something for a lot of them (most?) that has been a test of their faith and not something they support intuitively. My view, and I hope it is not arrogant but maybe it is, is that in the end the anti-gay-marriage boils down to an appeal to authority.

I do disagree, however, with the idea that laws can't have their origin in religious teaching. Almost all of them do at some level and someone's moral imperative should not be disqualified on the basis that they claim it comes from the mouth of deity alone. But I do agree that if that is the SOLE reason for them that ought not be. Some of us feel that is the case here and that the harm is not easy to articulate or is pretty speculative. I don't mean to say that I think there is no counter argument I just don't think it is well reasoned. Again, I think this ends with an appeal to authority.

[Jacob]

The fact that this thread is in The Foyer is very telling.

So telling in fact, that all it tells us is that the initial poster decided to put in there.

[ERCougar]

I wouldn't frame it quite that way, but my experience is that most members who defend Prop 8 would be relieved were they to find or be told out that God does not in fact care after all. I think this is something for a lot of them (most?) that has been a test of their faith and not something they support intuitively. My view, and I hope it is not arrogant but maybe it is, is that in the end the anti-gay-marriage boils down to an appeal to authority.

I think you're wrong here, and this is a big part of the problem I have with the Church's actions here. There are a LOT of homophobes in the Church and our support of Prop 8 gives them the at least implicit approval that they feel they have.

Note: Just to avoid the argument, when I say that many Mormons are homophobes, I'm not saying they'd go out and beat up gays if they could. I'm using it more in the sense that I'd label my parents homophobes when my mom commented on how nice it was that none of the latest SYTYCD looked gay. Mormons will say the right things about "hate the sin, love the sinner" and such, but in the end, they're not all that cool with the sinner either.

[UtahDan]

In other words, I'd force them to resort essentially to judicial notice for their "facts". Then I'd write an opinion that said something like, "The decision of two people as to whether to make make a lifetime commitment to one another of monogomy and all that implies--till death do us part, children, everything--with someone of the same or opposite sex is demonstrably so innate, so immutable, so mysterious, and so profound, that distinctions between man-woman and same sex couples are irrational..."

I hear what you are saying, but if that is the conclusion you are going to reach as a judge isn't there value in being able to say "in addition to logic and common sense, we had an evidentiary hearing and the very best evidence the Prop 8 proponents could bring to bear is extremely weak and does not at all disturb my reasoning as the record amply shows." I guess I need to go read the opinion to see whether that is what he did.

[UtahDan]

I think you're wrong here, and this is a big part of the problem I have with the Church's actions here. There are a LOT of homophobes in the Church and our support of Prop 8 gives them the at least implicit approval that they feel they have.

I think you are right that for the homophobic it does give them something to hang their hat on. I guess my experiences and yours are bound to be anecdotal and I would be the first to concede that I don't have enough information to be able to generalize about the membership. But I hope I am right.

[beelzebabette]

Note: Just to avoid the argument, when I say that many Mormons are homophobes, I'm not saying they'd go out and beat up gays if they could. I'm using it more in the sense that I'd label my parents homophobes when my mom commented on how nice it was that none of the latest SYTYCD looked gay. Mormons will say the right things about "hate the sin, love the sinner" and such, but in the end, they're not all that cool with the sinner either.

I guess we see what we want to see.

[ERCougar]

I guess we see what we want to see.

LOL...I actually had exactly the same thought when she said that.

EDIT: Oh..and I left out "finale/top 3". I still wouldn't be surprised if both of those guys come out at some point though.

[8BR]

LOL...I actually had exactly the same thought when she said that.

sidenote: I had to google "SYTYCD."