The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Jonman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Did anyone else catch this section of the State of the Union address last night?

President Obama wrote:

Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

Well indeed, but if the 'common values' include an aversion to SSM, and you don't let anyone marry someone of their own gender, then no-one's being treated differently from anyone else, right?

Obama's statement seems to shift the central theme of the SSM debate from a human rights question to a definition of common values one. If the majority's values prohibit them from accepting SSM's then where does that leave us?

Nomad wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Did anyone else catch this section of the State of the Union address last night?

President Obama wrote:

Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

Well indeed, but if the 'common values' include an aversion to SSM, and you don't let anyone marry someone of their own gender, then no-one's being treated differently from anyone else, right?

Obama's statement seems to shift the central theme of the SSM debate from a human rights question to a definition of common values one. If the majority's values prohibit them from accepting SSM's then where does that leave us?

That kind of depends on whether you see main government's job as one to protect the rights of the minority or enforcing the wishes of the majority. We're a Representative Democracy, instead of a Direct Democracy, so majority opinion does not translate to rule of law.

If the law exists and can be upheld within the realm of the Constitution, then a majority view supporting that law will ensure that it will most likely continue to be rule of law.

If no law exists, then upon challenge - a majority opinion based on morality must also pass Constitutional scrutiny before it imposes restrictions that were previously undefined.

Edit: Values/morality are fuzzy things that change from person to person. Trying to say anything is a "Common Value" requires definition before it can really be discussed. Protection of Rights are legislated, morality is a judgement call and harder to pin down.

They're only activist judges if they don't agree with you.

lol By their own definition, those three actions were judicial activism.

I would say that the "common value" in question is the utility of marriage. That is, if you agree that marriage is good for society, it's hard to deny it to same sex couples. Even some conservatives are coming around to this way of thinking - better to have married, stable gay couples than a wild libertine hook-up culture (as they would see it.)

Nomad wrote:

Obama's statement seems to shift the central theme of the SSM debate from a human rights question to a definition of common values one. If the majority's values prohibit them from accepting SSM's then where does that leave us?

I am not sure that Obama's statement is accurate or relevant. The common values of the majority are not required for political process.

The fact remains that SSM is a reality here in the U.S. and Perry v. Schwarzenegger - no matter which way it goes - is not going to change that fact. The only way to rid the U.S. of gay marriage is an amendment to the federal constitution and there simply is not enough political muster to reach the hurdle. You simply cannot find 290 Congressman AND 67 Senators AND 38 states that are going to go along with a federal amendment, even if the SCOTUS strikes down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional.

Nomad wrote:

If the majority's values prohibit them from accepting SSM's then where does that leave us?

I'd say in the same place we were when the majority's values prohibited them from accepting interracial marriages or when the majority's values said selling Africans to each other was a good idea.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Obama's statement seems to shift the central theme of the SSM debate from a human rights question to a definition of common values one. If the majority's values prohibit them from accepting SSM's then where does that leave us?

I am not sure that Obama's statement is accurate or relevant. The common values of the majority are not required for political process.

The fact remains that SSM is a reality here in the U.S. and Perry v. Schwarzenegger - no matter which way it goes - is not going to change that fact. The only way to rid the U.S. of gay marriage is an amendment to the federal constitution and there simply is not enough political muster to reach the hurdle. You simply cannot find 290 Congressman AND 67 Senators AND 38 states that are going to go along with a federal amendment, even if the SCOTUS strikes down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional.

So, let me ask that question from the other direction. Can we find 290 Congressman AND 67 Senators AND 38 states that will LEGALIZE SSM and write a federal amendment guaranteeing an essential civil right to a portion of our population, thus taking the stance that the United States will not stand for discrimination in any way, shape or form? Why is it so hard for people to do the right thing?

Why is it so hard for people to do the right thing?

Because it is "the right thing" that is exactly the question here. Many people still believe that homosexuality is wrong/immoral and therefore SSM should not be legal. Whether one agrees with those values or not, the people opposed to SSM believe they are doing the right thing.

Nomad wrote:

Whether one agrees with those values or not, the people opposed to SSM believe they are doing the right thing.

Which I find somewhat odd since preventing SSM is not going to reduce the number of homosexuals or homosexual acts that occur.

Regardless, I am perplexed as to why this particular "sin" is worthy of political action and state constitutional amendments while adultery gets a pass.

If they believe homosexuality is immoral or wrong, then they should not engage in it. Making it illegal is a different kettle of fish. Where does the Bible say that homosexuality should be illegal, as opposed to it's being immoral? How is the connection between Christianity and US law so strong that what Christians dislike should automatically be illegal for all?

Nah, I don't buy it. We no longer accept that sodomy or cunnilungus should be illegal; we don't have Federal laws against divorce or shopping on Sunday or drinking alcohol or other morally proscribed actions. This is just another outdated holdout, legally. (Morally, believe what you like; just keep it out of the law.)

Does the Bible actually specifically condemn gay marriage? Just because homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean you get to ban people from getting married. Murderers and adulterers and atheists can get married.

muttonchop wrote:

Does the Bible actually specifically condemn gay marriage? Just because homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean you get to ban people from getting married. Murderers and adulterers and atheists can get married.

PR's the Biblical scholar of the two of us, but there's a lot of leeway that's been taken over the years in translation of the Bible. The KJV especially has been called out for having political ramifications behind some of its translations of certain phrases.

The biggest problem is that there aren't many versions that are commonly used (as is the KJV, New Living Translation, NIV, etc.) that aren't based on prior translations, so you have sort of a "telephone" effect going on. Also, there aren't as many scholars who read Aramaic or Koine Greek, which are the languages used originally for the Old and New Testaments, respectively (if I'm wrong, Phoenix Rev, please correct me, I'm trying to remember what you've told me). This site gives some of the major passages that get used repeatedly from the Bible as indicative of condemnation.

However, like robear said, US law shouldn't be linked to Christianity. That's not what the Founders had in mind. Also, considering how almost none of the Levitical laws have been written into secular law with the exception of the perceived proscribing of homosexuality, I think there's a precedent that Levitical law isn't currently intended to be followed in that fashion.

Finally, like I've said before, the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause and Loving v. Virginia both show precedent that marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of age difference, race, or ideally gender allocation (i.e. male/female, male/male, or female/female) should be prevented, as it shows discrimination and treats them unequally in the eyes of the law.

muttonchop wrote:

Does the Bible actually specifically condemn gay marriage? Just because homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean you get to ban people from getting married. Murderers and adulterers and atheists can get married.

Considering there are lesbian saints, and gay presbyters from the first few centuries, not so much in the Christian side. There are some very specific laws from Moses. Most of what you see in the Christian Texts is 3 or 4 centuries past Paul and most of the early Church. Bit like comparing the current US government with the founding fathers.

muttonchop wrote:

Does the Bible actually specifically condemn gay marriage?

No.

Rubb Ed wrote:

The biggest problem is that there aren't many versions that are commonly used (as is the KJV, New Living Translation, NIV, etc.) that aren't based on prior translations, so you have sort of a "telephone" effect going on. Also, there aren't as many scholars who read Aramaic or Koine Greek, which are the languages used originally for the Old and New Testaments, respectively (if I'm wrong, Phoenix Rev, please correct me, I'm trying to remember what you've told me). This site gives some of the major passages that get used repeatedly from the Bible as indicative of condemnation.

It isn't so much that there aren't scholars, it is that the archeological discoveries are changing the shape of scholarship and how items are translated. Unfortunately, there are plenty of scholars that want to hold onto the paradigms they were instructed in and are very, very slow to accepting how foundational texts are translated when new discoveries are made that change the linguistics. For instance, when I entered seminary, there were clear instructions by my professors in New and Old Testament interpretation that use of Strong's Concordance was unacceptable because, at the time, they were not updating their works as the scholarship changed.

Also, considering how almost none of the Levitical laws have been written into secular law with the exception of the perceived proscribing of homosexuality, I think there's a precedent that Levitical law isn't currently intended to be followed in that fashion.

There's a bit more to it than that. The Christ event included the abrogation of many Levitical laws. For instance, we have Christ saying that what is important is what comes out of the mouth (via speech), not what goes into the mouth (food), and the story of Peter having a vision where he is hungry and a sheet comes down from heaven with plenty of non-Kosher animals and God telling him to eat. Those two bits are considered the point where the Kosher diet requirement was not necessary for the Christian faithful.

The problem with using Levitical law in a modern society is that you have to comb through it and accept all of the laws that were not abrogated by either the Christ event or a universal Church council. That would include a substantial number of prohibitions regarding menstruating women.

Of course, the chances of get a groundswell of support for enforcing those prohibitions are a big, fat zero.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

Does the Bible actually specifically condemn gay marriage?

No.

That's what I thought. So this is really just about punishing sinners, not enforcing the laws of God.

There's a bit more to it than that. The Christ event included the abrogation of many Levitical laws. For instance, we have Christ saying that what is important is what comes out of the mouth (via speech), not what goes into the mouth (food), and the story of Peter having a vision where he is hungry and a sheet comes down from heaven with plenty of non-Kosher animals and God telling him to eat. Those two bits are considered the point where the Kosher diet requirement was not necessary for the Christian faithful.

Well, except that other of the original accounts have Jesus saying specifically that he did *not* come to change the Law. You need to look at the process that changed his followers from a Jewish sect to a non-Jewish one to get a feel for what Jesus actually argued, as opposed to what his followers put into his mouth. There's a progression from Jesus as a Jew to the utter rejection of Jews as his betrayers that's important to understand.

But anyway, the parts of our law that are sometimes claimed to be derived from Levitican law are the prohibitions commonly found in any religion - don't murder people, don't steal things, don't take someone's wife or husband, etc. Our legal code is descended from the Roman, an agglomeration of Viking legal traditions and English Common Law. It's not derived from Biblical law, despite assertions to the contrary.

Robear wrote:

Well, except that other of the original accounts have Jesus saying specifically that he did *not* come to change the Law. You need to look at the process that changed his followers from a Jewish sect to a non-Jewish one to get a feel for what Jesus actually argued, as opposed to what his followers put into his mouth. There's a progression from Jesus as a Jew to the utter rejection of Jews as his betrayers that's important to understand.

Perhaps, but I believe the "I have come not to change the law but to fulfill the law" has much more breadth and width than is attributed to it. That, however, is where the problem of "interpretation" lies. Two or more people reading the same text and history and archeology can come to very different interpretations.

But anyway, the parts of our law that are sometimes claimed to be derived from Levitican law are the prohibitions commonly found in any religion - don't murder people, don't steal things, don't take someone's wife or husband, etc. Our legal code is descended from the Roman, an agglomeration of Viking legal traditions and English Common Law. It's not derived from Biblical law, despite assertions to the contrary.

Of course. But, my position is that if people are going to hoist themselves on their own petard by quoting the codes of the Torah, then they have to comb through it all and follow those laws that were never addressed by Christ, the Apostles or the subsequent universal Church councils.

Marriagetrial.com now has the first part of its re-enactment of the Prop. 8 trial on its site. The YouTube link is here.

I give these people a lot of credit. They spent a lot of time and effort to get this up and running.

Of course. But, my position is that if people are going to hoist themselves on their own petard by quoting the codes of the Torah, then they have to comb through it all and follow those laws that were never addressed by Christ, the Apostles or the subsequent universal Church councils.

I agree. In fact, I'm suspicious of the Church councils.

So, the big news yesterday was the non-secret that Judge Vaughn Walker is gay. Well, big news to just about no one since his sexual orientation was pretty common knowledge through out legal circles in San Francisco and in the federal district court system.

I am sure the cries of bias will start streaming in record numbers.

Of course, that begs the question why a heterosexual judge wouldn't be biased as well.

Hoo boy. That could make things messy.

It's a pretty big non-issue. No matter what happens here, the case is going up the chain. One side or the other winning this trial doesn't change a thing.

billt721 wrote:

It's a pretty big non-issue. No matter what happens here, the case is going up the chain. One side or the other winning this trial doesn't change a thing.

I'd say it'd change quite a bit if Prop 8 gets shot down. I do agree that regardless of which side wins, the verdict will be appealed.

Stengah wrote:

I'd say it'd change quite a bit if Prop 8 gets shot down.

Why?

Couldn't the same be said for any heterosexual judge ruling that Prop. 8 is constitutional?

I hope they go that way; you couldn't possibly demonstrate prejudice any more clearly.

So should O'Connor and Ginsburg recused themselves every time an abortion case was raised? Or Clarence Thomas when the issue of racial quotas in schools came up?

KingGorilla wrote:

So should O'Connor and Ginsburg recused themselves every time an abortion case was raised? Or Clarence Thomas when the issue of racial quotas in schools came up?

Or all of them when human rights comes up. Ya know... cause I'm assuming they're all humans.

Or all of them when human rights comes up. Ya know... cause I'm assuming they're all humans.

This is why the council should make decisions. Krogans know good reproductive laws.

Or all of them when human rights comes up. Ya know... cause I'm assuming they're all humans.

This is why the council should make decisions. Krogans know good reproductive laws.