Court: California gay marriage ban is unconstitutional
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
GVC
Well-Known Member
Again, Frank, do you have a link that makes it clear that this is the church's stance. I've never heard anything like this before.
A lot of that was my own ranting on the proper role of government intrusion. I don't want to be (too) misleading...
I've held the position since before I married that government has no business being in the marriage business. The LDS position is much more nuanced and unfortunately does not call for government to get out of the license granting business all together.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700257603/LDS-Church-issues-statement-on-same-sex-marriage.html
GVC
Well-Known Member
In other words, the church is taking, at best, a separate but equal stance.
Just to confess how wrong I can be, I seriously thought the LDS Church was about to adopt the GLBT agenda in a pro-active continuing effort to be part of the world, and of the world, with a revelation principle tied to the New World Order social engineering professionals. Policies developed by social scientists, and advertising done by Madison Avenue elite public relations firms, and leaders sporting memberships in the CFR, and having old-line dynasties like the Bush and Hammer forces promoting Mormons for high public office, while locating superspy operations to take advantage of unquestioning LDS authority-compliant bots is about as far from "saving the Constitution" as it is from actually believing any scripture.
But, apparently, some LDS people realized that they were being led by a gold ring in their nose, and started wondering what, if anything, of their Christian faith would remain. Too much, too soon.
Romney is just the man to ease us through the transition.
That's basically my position as well. Either call it all marriage or call none of it marriage as far as the governemnt and "marriage licences" are concerned. If you have a religious marriage ceremony recognized by your church then you are married "in the eyes of God," right? If you have a judge perform your ceremony then you have a civil union/domestic partnership. Call it whatever you want amongst family and friends.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
As if the government is going to give back power it has already taken.
That is one of the longest sentences of all time. I wish I could drop acid and climb into your brain for a few hours. And then drive.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Does the government owe anything to the people...like an education for instance?
I think the government does owe the public certain things. Education, no. But say...secure borders they do.
So somethings yes but the US government was never originally meant to be the be all do all that it is becoming/has become.
Exactly! The government has convinced people that they can't live without government in their lives and sadly people are willing to let government take over... everything.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I was hoping Gameface would respond seeing as he claims that citizens owe nothing to the society they live in.
Except he's never said that. Way to contribute, as usual.
While it is true, I have been wrong before (ONCE), I'd be happy to eat crow and apologize to Slopper if I'm wrong here. I've read this thread once, and that was more than enough, so I'm not about to go through it again to prove I'm right. If, however, you can find an instance where GF says those things, or anything even close to that, then I'm all over it.
I'm going to have to review my cheese budget. Looks I wasted my chance to pos rep this.
Maybe sometimes we get carried away with our ideas. Check it out by reversing the argument sometimes.
Do people with common beliefs have the right to form communities where those beliefs are honored?
The idea of federalism leans towards a single universal standard, the idea of local governance creates some space where people can locally set up something of their own desire, regardless of what "outsiders" may want. There's always a push and a pushback if people actually do have rights. If people have no rights, it's somebody else's idea that rules. And whatever you think, you're entirely powerless.
I think the GLBT agenda, if imposed on communities "from above", as say in the case of this federal court, erodes the entire concept of individual liberty. If the courts can claim this power, the people have lost theirs. So establish this precedent, and some court fifty years down the road is going to be imposing some other idea on everyone, maybe even turning things back around and throwing people who don't fit in with the "law du jour" in jail, or ordering re-education for "compliance" on any other idea.
If we say the government should never respond to people's contemporary values, we are actually saying there is a limit on the right to assemble and seek redress of grievances, or to seek circumstances of life that are compatible with our values. What I'd like to see is a lot less "top-down" problem solving. A lot more individual problem-solving. . . . maybe more give and take between people with their own ways, a lot more "live and let live".
Do people with common beliefs have the right to form communities where those beliefs are honored?
The idea of federalism leans towards a single universal standard, the idea of local governance creates some space where people can locally set up something of their own desire, regardless of what "outsiders" may want. There's always a push and a pushback if people actually do have rights. If people have no rights, it's somebody else's idea that rules. And whatever you think, you're entirely powerless.
I think the GLBT agenda, if imposed on communities "from above", as say in the case of this federal court, erodes the entire concept of individual liberty. If the courts can claim this power, the people have lost theirs. So establish this precedent, and some court fifty years down the road is going to be imposing some other idea on everyone, maybe even turning things back around and throwing people who don't fit in with the "law du jour" in jail, or ordering re-education for "compliance" on any other idea.
If we say the government should never respond to people's contemporary values, we are actually saying there is a limit on the right to assemble and seek redress of grievances, or to seek circumstances of life that are compatible with our values. What I'd like to see is a lot less "top-down" problem solving. A lot more individual problem-solving. . . . maybe more give and take between people with their own ways, a lot more "live and let live".
Not really. I will give you 1/2 a point, and thus, I will apologize to you. If anything, I read Slopper's post to mean that GF was condoning, advocating, and plain old saying that citizens don't owe their society anything. In essence, that IS what he said, but he was making a different point all together: Be gay if you want, it doesn't bother him nor should it. We as a society should be free to do whatever we want, because at the end of the day, we really don't owe our society anything. Again, I will admit to being half wrong here. Hmmm, actually, 49% wrong sounds better. -16 to Slopper for attempting to make me look bad.