FAIR - Käyttäjän muokkaukset [fi]

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights

2008-12-09T16:53:41Z

Cachemagic:

=Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?=

Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Right to Win]

Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples.

Baker v. Vermont was decided in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Vermont ]

"Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs."
[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]

French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]
and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]

In short, the case is about what "marriage" is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a "marriage." All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it "marriage." [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]

[http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]

[http://www.fairblog.org/2008/06/27/same-sex-marriage-equality-and-california-mormons-a-response-to-jeffrey-s-nielsen/ Legal Reasons to not allow same-sex marriage]

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights

2008-12-09T16:53:17Z

Cachemagic:

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights

2008-12-09T16:52:29Z

Cachemagic:

=Marriage - Is it a Civil Right?=

Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Right to Win]

Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples.

Baker v. Vermont was decided in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court. The decision represented one of the first high-level judicial affirmations of same-sex couples' right to treatment equivalent to that of traditionally married couples. The unanimous decision found that existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage were a violation of rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. As a result, the Vermont legislature was ordered to either allow same-sex marriages, or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights. In 2000, the Legislature complied by instituting civil unions for same-sex couples. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Vermont ]

"Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs."
[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA National Review Editorial Nov. 24, 2003]

French Studies on Gay Marriage [http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf summary]
and the [http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/PARLIAMENTARY%20REPORT%20ON%20THE%20FAMILY%20AND%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20CHILDREN.pdf full report]

In short, the case is about what "marriage" is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a "marriage." All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it "marriage." [http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/12/proposition-8-respecting-the-w.html Beliefnet]

[http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm Catholic Review of Rights case]

[http://tinyurl.com/5g4gwa Legal Reasons to no allow same-sex marriage]

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights

2008-12-06T23:37:07Z

Cachemagic:

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic

2008-12-05T16:03:58Z

Cachemagic:

My Home Page

[[/Sandbox/ERA|Sandbox-ERA]]

[[/Sandbox/Rights|Sandbox-Rights]]

[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses Journal of Discources]

[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brigham_Young Brigham Young Quotes]

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic

2008-12-05T00:34:00Z

Cachemagic:

My Home Page

[[/Sandbox/ERA|Sandbox-ERA]]

[[/Sandbox/Rights|Sandbox-Rights]]

[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses Journal of Discources]

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights

2008-12-04T16:03:29Z

Cachemagic: /* Marriage - Is it a Civil Right? */

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic/Sandbox/Rights

2008-12-04T16:03:04Z

Cachemagic: /* Marriage - Is it a Civil Right? */

Malline:NoOfficial

2008-12-02T15:45:40Z

Cachemagic: /* The Church does not take an official position on this issue */

==The Church does not take an official position on this issue==
{{Main|Fallibility of prophets|Changing doctrine}}

This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Rueben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency:

:''Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church....''

:''When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.''

:''Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.''
:—J. Rueben Clark, Jr. "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?" Address to Seminary and Institute Teachers, BYU (7 July 1954); reproduced in ''Church News'' (31 July 1954); also reprinted in ''Dialogue'' 12/2 (Summer 1979): 68–81.]

This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on-line):

:''Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.''
:—LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," ''lds.org'' (4 May 2007) {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine}}]

(''For further discussion of this principle see:'' FAIR wiki article: [[Fallibility_of_prophets|Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders]].)

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic

2008-11-25T01:07:15Z

Cachemagic:

My Home Page

[[\Sandbox\ERA|Sandbox-ERA]]

[[\Sandbox\Rights|Sandbox-Rights]]

Käyttäjä:Cachemagic

2008-11-25T01:06:02Z

Cachemagic: New page: My Home Page Sandbox

My Home Page

[[\Sandbox|Sandbox]]