So gay!!!

[VINYLONE]

@ Bronco:

Thanks for the response.

I find myself defending Mormon's a lot on this other message board I'm on and when the ruling was made this last week, there were some people making some derisive comments against Mormons. So I was just trying to make people understand that not all Mormon's are bigots. Some raised questions and so I though I'd ask.

 

[Scat]

@ Bronco:

Thanks for the response.

I find myself defending Mormon's a lot on this other message board I'm on and when the ruling was made this last week, there were some people making some derisive comments against Mormons. So I was just trying to make people understand that not all Mormon's are bigots. Some raised questions and so I though I'd ask.

Vinyl, I was curious as to the Mormon church's official stance, arguments and responses to criticism and found this. Maybe it will answer some of your questions.

https://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

There's also this:

https://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cfm/mormon_beliefs_about_gay_marriage

I think Bronco nailed it when he said you have to look at the religion's official stance and doctrine as opposed to how some members behave. People are people regardless of their religion and there are some very stupid people out there.

FWIW...

 

[VINYLONE]

Thanks for those links...

Question. Are there any homosexual, black, or woman higher uppers? Meaning, heads of the church or specific congregations. I think you guys refer to them as elders. Not sure.

 

[Scat]

Thanks for those links...

Question. Are there any homosexual, black, or woman higher uppers? Meaning, heads of the church or specific congregations. I think you guys refer to them as elders. Not sure.

Openly homosexual, no. Most, if not all, high callings are held by married men. It would be interesting to see what would happen if one of them came out and stated that he was gay but had never participated in any gay behaviour and planned on staying with his wife what would happen.

I am not sure what the highest position held by a black member is. This would interesting to find out. I'm sure that there are black Stake Presidents in the African countries where the LDS church is established as well as Bishops. That's not terribly high up but is held in fairly high regard. I do know that they have had an American Indian (Lamanite) on the Council of 12 before. Currently there is a German immigrant. I want to say that way back in the day of Joseph Smith there was a black man that held a fairly high position.

There are no women in any of the positions that can only be held by Priesthood members. There are women in high positions however. There is an organization within the church called The Relief Society. They are responsible for the health and well being of church members and are the group that organizes and helps carry out relief efforts and charity. It is completely "staffed" and run by women. Of course the highest position in this organization does answer to men that hold the Priesthood.

*EDIT* Black men in the priesthood:

Elijah Abel, 1836, Ordained an elder and called to serve in the Third Quorom of the Seventy. This is a pretty high calling and possibly the highest ever held by a black man. I still do not know what is the currently highest held position is.

 

[Hopper]

The Constitution is not allowed to contradict itself, if I recall correctly. So, even a Constitutional amendment like miscegenation laws might be found in conflict of the 14th amendment, unless that were simultaneously repealed.

I really don't think this is a significant issue that in any way undermines my basic point, Eric, but your suggestion is not what happened in California. The Supreme Court there did not say prop 8 required the abolishment of it's "equal protection" provisions. It simply said that prop 8 created a "limited exception" to the general rule. You can't say that any document "contradicts" itself just because some of it's provisions serve to specifically limit the general application of others.

 

[Bronco70]

Thanks for those links...

Question. Are there any homosexual, black, or woman higher uppers? Meaning, heads of the church or specific congregations. I think you guys refer to them as elders. Not sure.

Vinyl - I appreciate your willingness to listen. I am happy to help where I can.

In addendum to what Marcus has written: In addition to Elijah Abel, a handful of black men (including Walker Lewis and William McCrary) were ordained to the priesthood as late as 1935. I am completely unsure why that changed.

https://www.blacklds.org/history

 

[sirkickyass]

GOAT: It occurs to me that aint is conflating the concepts of justiciability and jurisdiction. That might be the disconnect in your discussion with him.

 

[The Thriller]

I think Quorum of the Seventy is the "highest" title held by a black man. there's currently 1 in the first quorum... Probably more since the entire 3rd quorum (8 total) presides over African countries. Other quorums preside over different geographical parts of the world. Perhaps the quorum(s) that preside over South American/Caribbean countries also have black seventies.

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/leaders/

Wow... That link is 2 years old... Didn't notice that until now...

The calling of a seventy is is extremely high up. Being from Utah (where the church is the strongest), I still only know one seventy member personally. He was my mission President.

 

[Hopper]

While there may, at a highly technical level, be some subtle and important differences between "justiciability" and "jurisdiction," it seems to me that the two are often used synomously in practice. The law school cite I posted earlier, for example, addresses the limits on "jurisdiction" imposed by the "cases and controversies" language of article 3. What follows purports to be an excerpt from "The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States."

"Justiciability: Article III, section 2 of the Constitution defines the categories of federal jurisdiction in terms of cases and controversies. This has led the Supreme Court to hold that federal courts may take jurisdiction only of “justiciable” disputes, that is, those “appropriate for judicial determination” (Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 1937, p. 240). In Aetna, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes distinguished justiciable controversies from those merely hypothetical or moot. He stressed that there must be “a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character” (p. 241). Justiciability is a conceptual umbrella covering several related doctrines or problems, including standing, mootness, and ripeness. It prohibited federal courts from rendering advisory opinions and, until the 1934 Declaratory Judgment Act (upheld in Aetna), declaratory judgments as well. It excludes collusive suits and political questions from federal jurisdiction."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-Justiciability.html

Notice how "justiciability" is defined in terms of "jurisdiction." It also identifies "collusive suits" as being excluded from "federal jurisdiction." In common useage, there seems to be little distinction between the two concepts. This particular explanation says: "This has led the Supreme Court to hold that federal courts may take jurisdiction only of “justiciable” disputes..." If you cannot "take jurisdiction" over a "non-justiciable" dispute, that seems to be a limit on "jurisdiction," don't it?

 

[G-O-A-T]

While there may, at a highly technical level, be some subtle and important differences between "justiciability" and "jurisdiction," it seems to me that the two are often used synomously in practice.

First, I have never heard of anyone trying to conflate justiciability and jurisdiction together... so this explanation might not be completely on target... and if someone (like Kicky) wants to correct me, please feel free to do so.

The justiciability v. jurisdictional requirements are, for practical purposes, quite similar... but they are in fact different. Justiciability is a constitutional limit on whether a court can exercise its power over a case. Whereas jurisdiction is a statutory limit on the courts ability to exercise its power. While failure to meet the requirements of either lead to the same result, justiciability requirements are interpreted by the supreme court, while jurisdictional requirements can be altered by congress.

A quick google search led me to this recent DC case:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1023817.html

That the court may in its discretion address a threshold question before establishing that it has jurisdiction does not render the question jurisdictional nor, significantly, does it mean the court must address that question at the outset of the case.   Because justiciability is not jurisdictional, a court need not necessarily resolve it before addressing the merits.   A court may, for example, dismiss a case for failure to state a claim while reserving the question whether that sort of claim presents a nonjusticiable political question.   A court might thereby avoid a constitutional ruling regarding separation of powers and resolve the case upon a solely statutory basis.   See generally Escambia County v. McMillan, 466 U.S. 48, 51, 104 S.Ct. 1577, 80 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984) (“It is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court's jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case”).   For a court to retain this discretion it is important to distinguish among failure to state a claim, a claim that is not justiciable, and a claim over which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

So there, this court says they are not the same thing... of course the next paragraph down it says this:

We have not always been consistent in maintaining these distinctions.   See, e.g., Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F.3d 427, 432 (D.C.Cir.2006) (treating the political question doctrine as jurisdictional).   For that reason, I urge the en banc court to clarify the relationship of justiciability to jurisdiction when an appropriate case arises.

Note also that justiciability requirements are not required in all cases. The vast majority of court cases are held in state courts, and the case or controversy clause does not apply to state courts. In fact, a number of state courts do not have a similar clause in their constitutions, and will grant advisory opinions. Therefore, I think that interchanging the terms in federal courts could lead to confusing jurisdictional questions in state courts.

I'm sure there are plenty of other good reasons to distinguish between the 2 terms, besides 12b motion requirements and what not... but to be honest, I really don't have the knowledge to go in much more depth. Finally, one more note... you conceded that at a highly technical level there may be important differences in the terms... well law is a very technical field, and treating it otherwise usually IS a big deal.

 

[sirkickyass]

Think about the distinction between the two broadly this way:

1. Justiciability determines whether ANY court can hear the case. If the case is non-justiciable (i.e. no case or controversy, standing, moot, not ripe, political question etc.) then it is not justiciable anywhere by any court in the United States that has the same justiciability standards (and some states do issue advisory opinions in limited instances.)

2. Jurisdiction questions go to whether or not a case is in front of the correct court. So subject matter jurisdiction, for example, is a question as to whether or not the case is before the correct court rather than a question of whether the case should be before any court at all.

Example:

State contract claim between two residents of the same state in federal court. No subject matter jurisdiction. Needs to go to state court. But the state court could hear it.

State contract claim based upon a contract that may be breached in the future. Unripe. Nonjusticiable. Won't be viable in any court that follows the federal justiciability standards.

There isn't a functional difference here between the two instances because the cases will get dismissed in both instancces, but the reasons they get dismissed are distinct. Justiciability goes to the outer boundaries of the power of the judicial branch as a whole. Jurisdiction goes to the outer boundaries of a particular court's power to hear cases, either by the court's ability to hale a person befor the court or its power to adjudicate particular matters.

Then again, I've been hilariously told I have "no basic competency" by a jailhouse lawyer, so I'm sure this will be completely ignored.

 

[G-O-A-T]

By the way, Goat, I did take a little time to skim (and I just mean basically skim) the ruling in this gay marriage case. If I read it right, virtually every "defense" witness scheduled to testify backed out, citing concerns for "personal safety." If I read it right, only two witnesses testified, each in an expert capacity. The judge subseqently found one of those experts to be unqualified as an expert, and found the "credibility" of the other to be such that his opinions were entitled to "little weight." The judge himself seemed to basically "scoff" at the lack of a meaningful defense. This doesn't strike me as the "best possible defense" that you told me it was, eh?

Somebody posted a 2 minute youtube clip earlier in the thread that could have told you that much

I have a feeling your reply might be along the lines of: "Yeah, it was the "best possible defense" because there is no conceivable defense." But if that's the case, why hear "facts?" Sounds like you have alreay concluded that prop 8 is unconstitutional "on it's face," as a simple "matter of law."

I wouldn't go so far to say there isn't a conceivable defense... but if there was, I can't imagine why the defense didn't argue it... or why there hasn't been a public outcry about why the defense team didn't introduce the right evidence.

Look... the purpose of having a trial is to present enough evidence to convince a judge you are more right than your opponent. In this case, all the defense had to do was prevent the gay couple from proving that prop 8 had no rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. It doesn't take much evidence to do this (it really doesn't)... and yet they still failed because all they could find were personal opinions with no scientific basis whatsoever.

If there were ANY legitimate studies or experiments to back up prop 8, they would have either been introduced or there would be a flock of religious fanatics calling for the defense attorney's heads for not presenting the right evidence. But since neither has happened, I'm gonna stick to my guns and say that the defense did present this case in the best manner available.

 

[billyshelby]

I'm sure the ruling would have turned out different if Beantown had been allowed to participate as one of the intervening parties.

 

[G-O-A-T]

haha... I was holding myself back from making reference to the evolution argument since I didn't want to see him rear his opinion back into the thread again

 

[Hopper]

Look... the purpose of having a trial is to present enough evidence to convince a judge you are more right than your opponent. In this case, all the defense had to do was prevent the gay couple from proving that prop 8 had no rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. It doesn't take much evidence to do this (it really doesn't)... and yet they still failed because all they could find were personal opinions with no scientific basis whatsoever.

If there were ANY legitimate studies or experiments to back up prop 8, they would have either been introduced or there would be a flock of religious fanatics calling for the defense attorney's heads for not presenting the right evidence. But since neither has happened, I'm gonna stick to my guns and say that the defense did present this case in the best manner available.

Heh, I really have no intention of tryin ot discuss the merits of this case, but, that said, I came across some statements by the "extremely competent" 9 or 10 plaintiffs "witnesses" (I put that term in scare quotes because I'm not convinced that "expert testimony" is a "witness" to anything) that I know would, and could, be legitimately disputed by competent expert testimony. That said, the "case" presented here came out to be just about exactly what I figured it would be: A bunch of "opinion" masquerading as "fact." I found it somewhat humorous that the trial judge even tried to assess the "credibility" of expert witnesses by virute of his observation of their behavior on the stand. Not much in the way of "factual" findings strike me as anything requiring unquestioned deference.

 

[Hopper]

To go back to our previous discussion a little, Goat, now that Kicky has brought up the term "justiciability" (it's not one that I was unaware of, I just didn't care to bring it up), you might wanna take a look at the wiki page on that topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justiciability

Says there that "Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority." Here again I would say that if a court can't "exercise its judicial authority," then you're basically talking bout a limit on its "jurisdiction." Point is, that page lists 5 "requirements" and then says "If the case fails to meet any one of these requirements, the court cannot hear it." 4 of the requirements are (1) not advisory (2) not unripe (3) not moot (4) not a political question. What is the 5th, ya figure? Standing, mebbe? Naw, its this here:

"There must be an actual controversy between the parties,[3] meaning that the parties can not agree to a lawsuit where both parties seek a particular judgment from the court (known as a collusive suit or friendly suit); rather, the parties have to each be seeking a different outcome."

 

[sirkickyass]

(it's not one that I was unaware of, I just didn't care to bring it up)

Sure.

Standing, mebbe? Naw, its this here:

"There must be an actual controversy between the parties,[3] meaning that the parties can not agree to a lawsuit where both parties seek a particular judgment from the court (known as a collusive suit or friendly suit); rather, the parties have to each be seeking a different outcome."

Always with the selective quoting. Earlier on the same wiki page:

[Justiciability] includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual adversarial issue exists.[2]

That's just dishonest aint.

 

[Hopper]

Sure.




Always with the selective quoting. Earlier on the same wiki page:



That's just dishonest aint.

Naw, it aint "dishonest." Apparently they want to call this "standing" that's all: "There must be an actual controversy between the parties,[3] meaning that the parties can not agree to a lawsuit where both parties seek a particular judgment from the court (known as a collusive suit or friendly suit); rather, the parties have to each be seeking a different outcome."

I don't agree with that terminology, as I have already said, and I don't think Goat does, but apparently some bottom-feeders adhere to it.

Again, the article explicitly says; "In order for an issue to be justiciable by a United States federal court, all of the following conditions must be met:" but "standing" is not mentioned as one of those "conditions," at least not is so many words (or word),

 

[chemdude1232]

I'm not taking sides with this question, nor will I after anyone answers, but:

Between Goat, Hopper, and Kicky - are any of you guys lawyers? Is anyone else on these boards? Sorry if this info was mentioned in a previous page...

 

[Hopper]

I'm not taking sides with this question, nor will I after anyone answers, but:

Between Goat, Hopper, and Kicky - are any of you guys lawyers? Is anyone else on these boards? Sorry if this info was mentioned in a previous page...

Chem, Kicky unashamedly admits to bein a damn bottom-feeder. Goat aint fessed up to it, but, yeah, he's one too, aint no question.

Me, I aint no bottom-feeder.