"Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."

And that's what the Constitution is for. To protect a minority view from the will of the majority.

Not to derail the topic (to reply, please copy-and-paste to a new thread!), but I'm afraid you're wrong.

The Constitution is to protect the people from the government.

scarecrowfromoz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And that's what the Constitution is for. To
> protect a minority view from the will of the
> majority.

The Church said "Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."

They have put in print the proof we all needed that Mormon leadership's heads are up their asses.

"the majority has no legitimate power to vote away or otherwise abridge the natural rights of political, ethnic, religious, or other minorities."
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/majority-rule-minority-rights/

...also please review the "Style Guide" link at the bottom of the page. It helps people who are unfamiliar with Mormonism understand that there is a proper and improper method in addressing Church issues.

...what crap.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

The morg could have better used that 25M hiring "shoppers" to wander the mall with bags of the numerous items they "bought". That would help get other people to think the mall was doing well, and shop there.

Sounds like sour grapes, doesn't it?

My kids and I are delighted with the decision! I'm excited for my gay friends!

The upshot from the LDS Church (and many other religious views)

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."

The federal government cannot control how marriages are performed in religious environments/churches.

"the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates."

IOW: Waaa! We bought those gawddamned votes and you invalidated our purchase!

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children."

IOW: Our way of indoctrination is better than the secular way of nurturing. Thousands of years of tradition means a lot more than recent science. A tradition that includes oppression of women, incest, human trafficking, child slave labor, poor education, etc.

As much as I hate to say it, I think there is actually a point here...

Prop 8, as absolutely horrible and wrong as it was, was passed by a popular vote in California. The state refusing to defend it, and the Supreme Court ruling no one else has the standing to do so, kind of says that the government can ignore the will of the people.

In this case, a good thing, but it seems it could extend to other cases where the result wouldn't be so positive.

The Supreme Court is essentially saying that this is something that can't be decided by a popular vote.

That's what was said with DOMA, and I agree wholeheartedly. But Prop 8 was just passed over with no ruling. I think any law passed by the people deserves to be heard all the way to the Supreme Court.

Granted, they might not have ruled the way I think they should have, so I probably shouldn't be complaining...

Prop 8 passed w/ a vote of 51%. i know that "popular" means majority vote in this context, but the reality is that a vote of 51% is almost an even split, and not even close to "popular".

I'm not arguing the merits of Prop 8 (it had none).

I just don't like the process that invalidated it with no real hearing at the Supreme Court. It doesn't seem right that a state government can deline to defend a measure passed by the people and effectively kill it since no one else has standing.

That's how our system of government works though. If even a popular vote is found to be unconstitutional, it will be struck down. This is one of the checks and balances devised by our founding fathers.

It deserved to be struck down by the Supreme Court, instead of passed over.

Xyandro, you need to read a bit more. The supporters WERE HEARD by the Supreme Court. After hearing their arguments the Court ruled that they had no standing.

I did read---the reason the supporters were fighting is because the State of California refused. I don't think the state should have the option of refusing to defend measures passed by the people.

Prop 8 may have been popular vote, but it wasnt popular opinion. Most of the state supports gay marriage

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

The church is basicly distancing themselves from the majority, sabataging their PR program, and throwing millions of tithe dollars into garbage.

This is not exactly what the Court said. The Mormon Church is wrong. It is true that the Prop 8 case was thrown out on standing grounds because the State of California refused to defend it, and the Supreme Court said general citizens didn't have standing; but this isn't exactly what happened.

The couple that wanted to get married but couldn't due to Prop 8 (remember, before Prop 8, same-sex marriage was legal in California), clearly had standing to sue the State of California in federal district court, demanding the State issue them a marriage license. The State of California, who had refused to issue the license due to Prop 8, was hailed into Court and defended it's refusal to issue the license. Both parties clearly had standing before the lowest court, the trial court. It's what happened next that's at issue.

The State of California lost at the trial level, and the State said, "Okay, fair enough. We're done." The State did not refuse to defend, it couldn't refuse. It refused to appeal its loss. Appealing a decision is within the discretion of a State. The Prop 8 supporters, though, weren't satisfied, so THEY brought the appeal. The appellate court asked the State of California if, under California law, the defenders had standing to appeal in the place of California. The State of California, through its supreme court, said, yes, they do. The appellate court said, okay; then heard the case and ruled against Prop 8.

The federal Supreme Court said, the State Supreme Court of California hasn't got authority over standing before the federal Supreme Court; and we say, no standing.

Therefore, it's disingenuous to say California did not defend it's duly passed constitutional amendment. It did defend it, at the trial level, where it's obligated to defend; and it lost. Fair and square. The State discharged it's obligation. It didn't want to go on litigating, and it's not obligated to.

The State of California didn't abandon its citizens. But, when has the Mormon Church ever played fast and loose with the facts?

I think the question for Prop. 8 invokes the Madisonian Dilemma of Tyranny of the Majority vs. Tyranny of the Minority.

In part, the Constitution is protect minorities from the majority, including from the Government.
In part, the Constitution is to protect majorities from the minorities, including from the Government.

The question in a Republic is whether majority hegemony allows the majority to rule just by virtue of being the majority. What are the limits of this hegemony and who decides?

Fuck the Mormon Cult.
Fuck Tom Monson.
Fuck the Mormon Cult's 12 Apostholes.
Fuck the small minded Cult membership.

I'm glad that this day sucks for you and your cult. Get used to it. You're going to have a lot of these days as you slip further into obscurity.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman (and a woman, and a woman, and a teenage girl, and a woman, and a woman, and a teenage girl, and a woman with a husband, and a woman, and a woman) which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."

"marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children"

Well, except for the 1830-1904 thing.

...two things.

A) This seems to contradict earlier attempts to "smooth over" Church relations with the LBGT community, especially with their rollout of the "new, friendlier LBGT outreach" web page.

B) My wife (then seriously TBM) was co-opted into working in the San Diego Stake Prop 8 effort. She told me then, she thought it was crap for the Church to coerce it's members to go door to door, and carry their political water. I think it was the begining of the end for her, and probably others.

The church just lied when they stated that most Americans appose gay marriage. Recent polls determine that about 55% of americans are for gay marriage, 40% against, 15% unsure.

For a clearer picture:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

The LDS church is sabataging its PR efforts by encouraging public homophobia among its members. They are basicly spending tithe dollars hurt and distance themselves.

The math isn't adding up for me, although I like the sound of 55% in favor!
A total of 110% doesn't work unless people could vote for two categories.

Your right



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2013 01:46PM by homoerectus.

5% unsure. Oops

My one consolation when reading mormon anti gay marriage vitriol is that those mormons are acting as their own anti mormons.

"Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."

But not Vermonters, New Hampshirites, D.C.ers, New Yorkers, Rhode Islanders, Delawarians, Minnesotans, Mainians, Washingtonians, and Marylanders.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children."

Well, you know what I say to that. Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.

...So in that regard, the true church of Jesus Christ and I are in complete disagreement.

:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2013 01:37PM by Mr. Neutron.

From Joe Smith to the present--Mormon "marriage" means marriage to the church and total obedience to its leaders.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman..."

So how does gay marriage diminish traditional marriage in any way???