-

[Guest]

-

[_moksha]

An elderly sister in my ward (long-term member, frequent holder of ward and stake positions) complained to me - along the lines of why such an evil anti-Mormon person was allowed to tell such terrible lies about the Prophet. She was outraged that he was allowed to get away with it.

The speaker was none other than our late-lamented "seething cauldron of hate" - Professor Daniel C Peterson. [lamented because of his departure from the board, not from this world]

Dr. Peterson was being honest with the national TV viewing audience when he mentioned the stone in the hat. He was also being of service to the elderly ward lady, whether she realized it or not.

.

[_moksha]

J. Reuben Clark (the gift that keeps on giving) believed that certain aspects of Church history should be concealed so as to protect the Church from public embarrassment.

That would be based on the faulty assumption that "Lying for Lord" is somehow the right thing to do. This concealment will not save Anne Frank.

[_Darth J]

and soon to be overturned again and not backed by the US Constitution nor Fed,

Does this statement mean that you feel that the Constitution of the United States and the federal constitution are two different things?

Or do are you suggesting that the Federal Reserve has some role in determining what rights people have?

and an overwhelming majority of state constitutions will see that it never does.

Per the supremacy clause, state law cannot preempt federal law where the Constitution specifically grants authority to the federal government. Like the 14th Amendment granting Congress the power to ensure equal protection of the law to residents of the various states, for example.

(and please do not insult history by trying to equate LGBT with racism or sexism, the former has never been proven to be immutable and never will be and such an equation only insults the integrity of the latter.)

Even assuming your assertion to be true, why is "immutability" a condition precedent to equal protection?

Religion is most certainly "mutable." Do you feel that religious discrimination is permissible under the 14th Amendment?

[_subgenius]

and soon to be overturned again and not backed by the US Constitution nor Fed,

Does this statement mean that you feel that the Constitution of the United States and the federal constitution are two different things?

Or do are you suggesting that the Federal Reserve has some role in determining what rights people have?

no, my mistake. Fed, as i intended, was representative of the Federal Government, generally speaking.

and an overwhelming majority of state constitutions will see that it never does.

Per the supremacy clause, state law cannot preempt federal law where the Constitution specifically grants authority to the federal government. Like the 14th Amendment granting Congress the power to ensure equal protection of the law to residents of the various states, for example.

Understood, however LGBT issues are hardly in violation of the 14th (obviously)....keyword: immutable, see also Baker v. Nelson, supreme court 1972, and take notice of "for want of a substantial federal question" (see also that case's use in creation of DOMA). 1st, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendments - score!
See also Skinner v. Oklahoma, just for kicks.

(and please do not insult history by trying to equate LGBT with racism or sexism, the former has never been proven to be immutable and never will be and such an equation only insults the integrity of the latter.)

Even assuming your assertion to be true, why is "immutability" a condition precedent to equal protection?

according to the law, yes. Immutability has been the unifying principle in laws such Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Employment Discrimination, etc...It is at the very core of why the LGBT is so desperate to find the "gay gene", because that would be akin to a silver bullet, legally speaking. As Utopian as we all want to be, in your own mind there is a difference between discrimination applied to race and applied to clothing.
But hey, support any socially/culturally degenerative activity you want...just do not expect public sanction/funding for it.
You must remember that marriage is not a "right", that is why a license is required and only granted to those who qualify. Blind people don't get driver's licenses either nor do we allow a father to marry his daughter.

Religion is most certainly "mutable." Do you feel that religious discrimination is permissible under the 14th Amendment?

nope. that is covered by the 1st amendment. (and obviously "discrimination" was permissible in Reynolds vs US (bigamy) - understand that religion is not defined in the Constitution - Mormons could not qualify for "equal protection" with polygamy ( their own definition of marriage) and likewise LGBT could not qualify for "equal protection" with same-sex marriage. The argument of the 14th is played, and not played well).

[_subgenius]

I'm asking for examples from the original post, if you are unable to find any to back up your claims then I understand.

As requested (a few examples):
Through this process and these filters members are conditioned to respond...
- speculation and an unsubstantiated assertion. these filters are more likely just conditioning the critic, because they automatically discount or contradict anything the Church issues.
prepares its members with the standard stock answers, or the filters, that they are to place the information through...
- speculation and a poor attempt to sound like you have "put the pieces together" in some weird conspiracy machine.
Firstly, the instruction not to look at Anti-Mormon literature isn't as easy to keep...
- sez you. prove that it is not "easy", speculating that having the internet automatically means one will click through and read anti-mormon specific literature is an ssumption that you can not prove. Not everyone has the jello-tough willpower like yourself.
when a person actually looks at the facts and realizes that the criticism is valid and true.
- or realizes that it is not true. more speculation
In these circumstances members realize that there are legitimate questions...
- speculation....again
The LDS Church literature since it contains a whitewashed and faith promoting version of the history fails to answer the questions posed..
- opinion and unfounded. Typical response from one who does not like the answer they receive. tantamount to saying "unh-uh"
The battle for public opinion on the history of the LDS Church, with those who are outside and within the LDS Church has been lost
- again speculation. there is no evidence supporting this. In fact when one views polls done by PEW, Gallup, and Time - not to mention the majority of favorable press in major media, one could easily argue that Mormons may suffer more from misrepresentation by critics than by anything else and that public opinion is far more favorable for rather than against....its even starting to soften the evangelicals.
Please, don't ask me to re-read the OP again, not because it might be against the Church's policy of reading anti-mormon literature but because it is against my own policy of reading anti-intelligent literature.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Every study of that I've read suggests the opposite. However there do exist some limited circumstances where it is true in particular where the brand is completely new and there is a lack of any awareness at all or where availability is low to begin with.

" negative publicity can increase product awareness and accessibility, it can sometimes have a positive influence on product choice and sales"
http://www.stanford.edu/~asorense/paper ... licity.pdf

While there are exceptions, I see no reason why Mormonism or Scientology would fall into those categories.

at least you recognize that there are exceptions. If the church was selling movie tickets or novels that got bad reviews, then i would concede to your point, but your reference is sloppy and irrelevant - see response to previous above

and soon to be overturned again and not backed by the US Constitution nor Fed, and an overwhelming majority of state constitutions will see that it never does.

This is extremely unlikely when you consider how weak the LDS Church's allies case and witnesses were in court. I see that you don't deal with the fact that the campaign against equal rights for gay people were full of lies and were backed by the Church.

the truth of Prop8 was that the citizens were allowed to vote and they did. Then a post-fact admitted homosexual judge (since retired and in an associated lawsuit) decides that people voting in accordance with their own constitution can't be correct. But hey, its such a critical issue, we should make a Broadway play about it!
....and this issue is still very much legally alive in California. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/12 ... 8-20110912
inevitably, imho, this case will head to the Supreme Court, and that does not look so good for the LGBT.

.... The comparison to the Church's racist policy in regard to the Black people and the way in which apologists seek to wriggle away from past declarations by the First Presidency, by prophets and apostles just shows what the future has in store for the LDS Church regarding this issue.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

History 101.....the world had a racist policy against black people, the future has shown that the Church has progressed.
by the way, familiar with what it means to be Black vs. Coloured in South Africa? ask Mandela.

[_Darth J]

Per the supremacy clause, state law cannot preempt federal law where the Constitution specifically grants authority to the federal government. Like the 14th Amendment granting Congress the power to ensure equal protection of the law to residents of the various states, for example.

Understood, however LGBT issues are hardly in violation of the 14th (obviously)....keyword: immutable, see also Baker v. Nelson, supreme court 1972, and take notice of "for want of a substantial federal question" (see also that case's use in creation of DOMA). 1st, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendments - score!
See also Skinner v. Oklahoma, just for kicks.

No, that is not obvious. Your assertion is contrary to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

But what is highly questionable is whether DOMA is constitutional under the 10th Amendment.

Even assuming your assertion to be true, why is "immutability" a condition precedent to equal protection?

according to the law, yes. Immutability has been the unifying principle in laws such Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Employment Discrimination, etc...It is at the very core of why the LGBT is so desperate to find the "gay gene", because that would be akin to a silver bullet, legally speaking.

Except that I never compared sexual orientation to ethnicity. I implicitly conceded that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification. Your failure to recognize that in your response unwittingly proves quite clearly that you do not understand the issue you are purporting to address, even though you think you do. You never would have started talking about the search for a "gay gene" if you knew what you were talking about enough to realize that I am not making a suspect classification argument.

And people who know what they are talking about do not consider sexual orientation to be a "choice" in the way that you are implying. A "gay gene" is not a silver bullet, legally speaking, because genes alone are not determinative in identity, which may be changeable to some extent, but is much more complex than simply a "choice." The finding of a gay gene is unnecessary to a finding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates equal protection; neither the Lawrence court nor the Romer court had any evidence of a gay gene in front of them.

As Utopian as we all want to be, in your own mind there is a difference between discrimination applied to race and applied to clothing.

Did that make sense to you when you typed it? Have you considered having another person review what you write before you post it?

But hey, support any socially/culturally degenerative activity you want...just do not expect public sanction/funding for it.

What precisely is the social value of allowing a man and a woman in their 70's to get married, when they are unable to have children? How about the social value of allowing sterile men and women to marry each other?

You must remember that marriage is not a "right",

Yes, it is.

Under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a state cannot deny equal protection of law to its citizens, nor life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Once a state defines marriage, a liberty and a property interest attaches. The government cannot arbitrarily deprive people of that liberty/property right, nor deny equal access for its residents to the liberty/property interest the state has created.

that is why a license is required and only granted to those who qualify. Blind people don't get driver's licenses either nor do we allow a father to marry his daughter.

That is a false analogy, because there is a rational basis for each of your examples. Neither having children, nor having the ability to have children, is a requirement of marriage in any jurisdiction of the United States. In Utah, first cousins may get married specifically because they cannot have children.

Utah Code s. 30-1-1

(2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
(b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce.

What is the social value of allowing first cousins who cannot reproduce to marry each other?

As with the defendants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, opponents of same-sex marriage consistently fail to rely on the legal definition of marriage to provide a rational basis as to why marriage, in its actual legal form in every U.S. jurisdiction, should be restricted only to a man and a woman. Invariably, they turn to their religious value judgments, which is not a permissible basis under the Establishment Clause. Marriage is a legal relationship that is simply a domestic partnership. It is not about reproduction; if it were, then having children or being able to have children would be a prerequisite, and failing to have children would make a marriage void. The supposed "traditional marriage" is not what the law is, and conflating marriage as a legal relationship with marriage as a religious sacrament is why opponents of same-sex marriage generally fail to address the rational basis test.

Religion is most certainly "mutable." Do you feel that religious discrimination is permissible under the 14th Amendment?

nope. that is covered by the 1st amendment. (and obviously "discrimination" was permissible in Reynolds vs US (bigamy) - understand that religion is not defined in the Constitution - Mormons could not qualify for "equal protection" with polygamy ( their own definition of marriage) and likewise LGBT could not qualify for "equal protection" with same-sex marriage. The argument of the 14th is played, and not played well).

I regret to inform you that (1) the 1st Amendment does not speak to religious discrimination, and (2) the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states. The 14th Amendment is what makes the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states (under the incorporation doctrine).

Mormons were not arguing equal protection in Reynolds; they were arguing free exercise of religion. That is a vastly different legal theory.

Despite your assertion that "the argument of the 14th is played, and not played well," the Supreme Court has in fact held that equal protection prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (Romer v. Evans; Lawrence v. Texas).

By the way, I appreciate the word salad and uninformed talking points you bring to the board while dropping hints about how much smarter you are than everyone else. It is a masterful demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[_Darth J]

the truth of Prop8 was that the citizens were allowed to vote and they did. Then a post-fact admitted homosexual judge (since retired and in an associated lawsuit) decides that people voting in accordance with their own constitution can't be correct.

If, hypothetically, a heterosexual judge had ruled that Prop 8 was constitutional, would you feel that he or she did so solely on the basis of his or her sexual orientation? Why or why not?

Is it your learned opinion that the citizens of a state can repeal the 14th Amendment by popular referendum?

What if the people of California voted by popular referendum that Mormons cannot marry each other? What would be the appropriate way to address "people voting in accordance with their own constitution" in such a situation?

ETA:

....and this issue is still very much legally alive in California. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/12 ... 8-20110912
inevitably, imho, this case will head to the Supreme Court, and that does not look so good for the LGBT.

The article to which you linked is about the very significant problem of whether the private opponents of same-sex marriage have standing to appeal the district court's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The State of California's official refusal to defend Prop 8 in a federal circuit court, and the issue of whether private appellants have standing to do so, is not a strong indication of the "issue is still very much legally alive in California." Your comment and the link you chose to provide is more suggestive of you Googling "Prop 8" to look for a recent article about it, regardless of what the article said.

You humble opinion does not appear to be particularly informed as to what does or does not look good vis-a-vis 14th Amendment jurisprudence and sexual orientation.

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-