Any further thoughts you may have on how Mormons may best defend marriage in California and elsewhere, or any insights and perspectives not already raised here, can be posted if you email them to adam at times and seasons dot org

“The U.S. Supreme Court will not review a Cal Sup Ct decision as to the meaning of the Cal constitution.”

I think you meant, “probably will not”, unless you are one of their law clerks and know how they choose their docket, but legally, they can and have reviewed state constitutional issues.

Kaimi also said,

“What is your view regarding the church’s political neutrality?” and some other comments that specify examples of the Church’s implementation of this policy.

The Church has also said it is “disappointed” in the decision in California. It (through the Area Presidency) has also mobilized the members to campaign in support of Prop 22 in 2000. And there are numerous other examples of the Church making statements about this particular policy issue the landed on the side of being against gay marriage.

Now let me ask you a question, Kaimi. What do you make of this particular phrase from the Proclamation on the Family?

“Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

Does this not specifically speak to the social and legal acceptance of gay marriage? “Family” was defined as between a man and a woman. Does not the legalization of gay marriage “disintegrate” the family so defined? Prophets are warning that calamities will be brought upon “individuals, communities, and nations” if this is allowed to happen. I firmly believe that anyone who believes in the divine origin of this document would come to the conclusion that they need to fight to protect the status of the family, which includes stopping any kind of social or legal acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Our system is ultimately designed to be check on the majority–that is why the Founders established an elaborate republican system rather than a democracy; because they didn’t trust the majority to do the right thing.

So, for those Mormons who support prohibitions on the rights of a minority (gays), consider this: you are also a minority, and one that has suffered at the hands of the majority in the past. Indeed, many of the nasty things said about gays in some of the posts above are remarkable similar to things that others have said about the Mormons. I do not equate Mormons and gays, here, but rather, suggest that it is in the interest of all minorities to, if not support other minorities, than at least to avoid measures that chip away at the protections of minorities.

Of course, there are two obvious rebuttals to this: one, that gays are not actually a minority because they shouldn’t exist at all, and two, that God will protect the Mormons, and naturally there can be no response to either argument, because they appeal to the existence of a higher power.

I fully recognize the spiritual/ecclesiastical authority of the Pope over the Roman Catholic Church and the Dalai Lama over Hollywood. The point is whether I recognize any spiritual/ecclesiastical authority over me, and, if so, to what extent. However it might be best if you and Blake drop the subject at this point.

Bloggernacle straights and closeted gays are falling behind in the race to comic self-deprecation. Curse Mike “Sputnik” InWeHo and his humor gap.

On the point of polygamy, I am out of my league. I haven’t delved into this topic much beyond mere skimming, and as such I really don’t know much, so I’ll stop making anymore points. I’m sure you are correct about many of the Mormon polygamist families of the past living fairly righteous and good lives. You would know more than I would on the subject.

Blake,

I really don’t have a problem with either gay marriage or polygamy. I believe that people can do whatever they want with their relationships, and I would honestly like to see the government out of people’s relationships. It is not their business. That all said, I do find the practice of polygamy abhorrent (based solely on the little information I do have), as I do find gay marriage abhorrent. But I don’t want the government to regulate either. That is for individuals and religions to sort out.

Whereas the CA Supreme Court decision will certainly have a ripple effect, far more significant, especially in separation of Church and State issues will be the many anti-discrimination laws that include LGBT individuals. In states and cities throughout the United States these laws are now being passed almost on a weekly basis. Even a piece of federal legislation, which included gays, lesbian and bisexual, but not transgendered individuals, almost made it to the President’s desk just this past year.

These non-discrimination laws do face significant opposition, particularly from Christian social conservatives. But many statutes, primarily related to housing and services, are successfully moving through legislatures. I wonder if, when it comes to conflict between church and state on issues of gay rights, same-sex marriage may not be the biggest troublemaker.

I fully recognize the spiritual/ecclesiastical authority of church leaders to make declarations of church doctrine and teaching. I certainly do not intend to challenge that.

I disagree with your own political analysis and prediction as to the likely effect of recognition of gay marriage. But then, neither of us has a crystal ball.

I recognize the constitutional difficulties in the decision. I like some of the legal and policy outcomes, but I’m really not thrilled about how the court got there. It doesn’t strike me as a masterpiece of legal reasoning.

In this thread, I’ve made a number of comments. For instance, I’ve discussed the procedural aspects of a state law constitutional ruling; the constitutional-theory aspects of countermajoritarianism (all straight out of Bickel/Ely); the efficacy of particular individual arguments (I really don’t think the “they’re free to marry a woman if they want to” argument holds water); and polygamy applicability (I do think the same legal principles apply). I haven’t exactly said, “yay, gay marriage” in comments.

I certainly don’t believe that I’ve taken any “stand against the advice of the prophet.”

**

While we’re asking questions, counselor, let me ask you a few as well.

What is your view regarding the church’s political neutrality?

What is your interpretation of Elder Wickman’s statement, regarding a proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage that decisions on voting “must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens”?

What do you make of the church’s request that members write letters to their senators about gay marriage, _without_ any stated instruction as to whether church members should oppose or support a proposed amendment?

What do you make of the church’s recent press release on the same topic, stating that “Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment”? Is the explicit statement that church members are not required to support a Federal amendment banning gay marriage — a lie? It clearly sets out on its face that church members should make their own choice. Is that a true statement?

What do you make of George Albert Smith’s explicit disavowal of the statement — oft quoted by church critics — that “when the Prophet speaks, the thinking is done”? (See http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/When_the_Prophet_Speaks_is_the_Thinking_Done.html)