California’s New Serious Threat to Marriage

[Seanette]

MoE, the problem comes when judges MAKE law from the bench, thus violating separation of powers.

[MarginOfError]

This isn't making the law though. The law has been made and now it is being challenged and a request being made to put it under Constitutional review. That's precisely how the government was designed to work. When the judicial branch reviews a law, that is not a violation of the separation of powers, that is a demonstration of the separation of powers.

Furthermore, the California Supreme Court ruled that because Prop 8 was written into the State Constitution, it couldn't violate the Constitution.

And when you consider the current challenge, the claim is being made that the revision creates a secondary class of citizens, which as I understand it, violates the US Constitution. So again, this comes down to constitutional review, which is exactly what the judicial branch is supposed to do. All things considered, the constitution isn't falling apart...it's doing exactly what it was written to do. The problem you're having is that the Constitution doesn't state that what should be done is what you want done. That's a very different issue.

[Seanette]

I was not referring to this specific issue, but to quite a few other instances of "legislating from the bench", which went well outside the Constitution.

I'm done with this thread, because I don't want to continue a discussion with someone who doesn't want to see my point.

[MarginOfError]

I"m sorry, I thought this thread was about a judicial challenge to California's Proposition 8. Forgive me for assuming that any comments in this thread had anything to do with that.

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by Seanette

MoE, the problem comes when judges MAKE law from the bench, thus violating separation of powers.

Or may not know the law fully and dish out wrong judgments. I have met pro-temp judges who wish to be one but failed in their duties as judges.

[Soul_Searcher]

I'm tired of civil parterships being seen as a 'threat' to marriage. The only threat to marriage would be if the entire institution was to be made illegal.

THATS a threat. Broadening its definitions, is not. It still exists. Calm it down.

[Seanette]

The problem there, Soul_Searcher, is that what God has defined, man does not have authority to redefine to legitimize conduct God condemns as immoral. Marriage is sacred, and God explicitly defines it in the Proclamation on the Family, as between man and woman.

If gay "marriage" is forced on society, churches that refuse to officiate will be open to lawsuits for discrimination (church-related entities have been sued for acting on conscience on homosexuality), related businesses are vulnerable to being sued out of business if the owner's beliefs forbid being involved in gay "weddings", and for the LDS, that could mean losing our Temples.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Seanette

I'm done with this thread, because I don't want to continue a discussion with someone who doesn't want to see my point.

Ironic.

Originally Posted by Seanette

...and for the LDS, that could mean losing our Temples.

It means absolutely nothing of the sort. Do you think that the Church absolutely has to conduct weddings in the temples? No. If it came to that, marriage ceremonies could be performed by bishops, to be followed by sealing ceremonies in the temples. This set-up exists in a number of countries already because of local laws regarding recognition of marriage. The law won't argue with a religious precedent regarding admission requirements to the temple...not even all LDS members are able to enter.

[Kawazu]

Originally Posted by Seanette

The problem there, Soul_Searcher, is that what God has defined, man does not have authority to redefine to legitimize conduct God condemns as immoral. Marriage is sacred, and God explicitly defines it in the Proclamation on the Family, as between man and woman.

If gay "marriage" is forced on society, churches that refuse to officiate will be open to lawsuits for discrimination (church-related entities have been sued for acting on conscience on homosexuality), related businesses are vulnerable to being sued out of business if the owner's beliefs forbid being involved in gay "weddings", and for the LDS, that could mean losing our Temples.

Hi,

Marriage is a contract between a couple and the State. God was pushed out of it as soon as, "marriage licenses" were invented.

Regards,
Kawazu

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by Seanette

If gay "marriage" is forced on society, churches that refuse to officiate will be open to lawsuits for discrimination (church-related entities have been sued for acting on conscience on homosexuality), related businesses are vulnerable to being sued out of business if the owner's beliefs forbid being involved in gay "weddings", and for the LDS, that could mean losing our Temples.

I don't doubt that, if same-sex marriage is legalized, there will be many who try to tread this path. Unfortunately, I can see the general outcome of the business-related suits being in favor of the gay person/couple and not the business owner. However, the First Amendment would protect the religious institutions (including the Church and the temples) from harm as long as those in power continue to honor it. I think the thing we need to be worried about (in regards of losing our right to worship how we want) is an outright attack on the First Amendment- an abolishment of the First Amendment coupled with the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to the disenfranchisement of the Church and the confiscation of the temples.

I don't think that's going to happen, though- not anytime soon, anyway.