Gay Rights

[Janx]

Civilly disobeying an unjust or immoral law is not inherently a bad thing. You could even say it is a human right.

However, a problem arises when the law tries too hard to shield persons from the consequences of such disobedience before the fact. A law providing blanket protection against prosecution for disobeying a SCOTUS decision- such as is being proposed in several stated- is bad law on the face of it.

I wonder if an example of this concept you present is that Snowden guy who leaked all the info about government surveilance.

he broke the law, on the premise (to him) that what the government was doing was wrongbadfun and that the people's right to know was greater than the government's right to have secrets.

He is of course subject to the laws he broke in doing so.

But he may have had a Human Right to stand up to a wrong.

I would guess the questions are, in that case, if the government was guilty of badwrongfun, does that grant him a pass/leniency for his crime in revealing that info? Are there laws for that kind of thing?
The inverse also applies (which gets back to the topic), if he stands up and was wrong about the badwrongfun, does he have any protection/exception for doing what he "thought" was right? Which is presumably what the anti-SCOTUS-decision folks think they are doing.

That's probably the grey area if I say something is evil, and you say it isn't, who's right?

 

[Umbran]

I would guess the questions are, in that case, if the government was guilty of badwrongfun, does that grant him a pass/leniency for his crime in revealing that info? Are there laws for that kind of thing?

If the government was doing something illegal, then there are whistleblower laws that should apply. I don't know if they cover things of quite this magnitude.

However, by my understanding, nothing that Snowden leaked was illegal. It was just that the public really didn't know what kind of things were now allowed under the law. There is currently no protection for that, as I understand it. You aren't allowed to break the law to fix someone else's ignorance.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As i recall, Snowden uncovered a lot of less than savory stuff, but- last I checked- nothing actually illegal. Maybe some that SHOULD be, but nothing actually against the law.

As for what is evil? That is a philosophical/moral question, not a legal one. And that distinction is one of the reasons why the Founders wanted strong separation of Church & State; we're a nation of laws, not a theocracy.

So, in a way, a partial answer to what you should do if you find a law you find immoral affecting your work is that you should find another line of work.

 

[tomBitonti]

First off, we believe that Families can be together forever. What this means is that by keeping The Lord's commandments that families can be together even after death. How this happens is done via being sealed together which means that they can be together both here on Earth and in Heaven.

In fact here's some links that can explain better than I can http://www.mormonwiki.com/Celestial_marriage
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormonism_and_Marriage

Interesting. From one of the links:

If a man and woman are married by a civilly recognized authority (such as a government or religious representative), then the couple can be sealed together so that their marriage will be "bound" on both earth and in heaven. If a couple was not previously married, they can be both married and sealed together at the same time, consistent with local laws.

It sounds like LDS are doing what is prescribed by some on this thread: Having civil marriage be a thing done by courts, with such a marriage enacted by a wedding, but possibly by a civil ceremony, and having an extra religious type of marriage (a Celestial Marriage, in the LDS terminology), which has much deeper religious significance, and having a different ceremony (a Sealing) to enact. From the small reading that I did, a marriage may or may not be at the same ceremony as a sealing, and very possibly is done in different ceremonies.

I would presume that LDS does not accept GLB sealings, but do they accept GLB marriages?

I'm not really wanting to focus overmuch on The Church of Latter Day Saints here, other than to determine the features of marriage that they use, since the features are interesting in the context of this thread. That is, I'm not interested in the details of what a Celestial Marriage really means, other than it having a special religious significance to Mormons.

Thx!

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

As i recall, Snowden uncovered a lot of less than savory stuff, but- last I checked- nothing actually illegal. Maybe some that SHOULD be, but nothing actually against the law.

Wasn't bulk collection of metadata found to be beyond the scope of what was allowed by one of the data collection laws, hence, illegal?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

I would presume that LDS does not accept GLB sealings, but do they accept GLB marriages?

Well, they wouldn't have to, then. "Marriage" becomes, for them, an entirely civil concern. None of their business. A non-issue. Kind of like asking if the NFL accepts pinch hitters - the question doesn't apply.

 

[Umbran]

Wasn't bulk collection of metadata found to be beyond the scope of what was allowed by one of the data collection laws, hence, illegal?

Not as far as I am aware. The law has since changed, such that some of that bulk collection is no longer legal.

 

[tomBitonti]

Not as far as I am aware. The law has since changed, such that some of that bulk collection is no longer legal.

This seems to say the collection was illegal. Not just, is currently illegal by the amended law, but, was illegal by the laws in effect at the time:

NSA's Bulk Collection Of Americans' Phone Data Is Illegal, Appeals Court Rules

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-bulk-collection-of-phone-metadata-is-illegal

My understanding is that a part of the revelation of the bulk collection was by the materiel that Snowden leaked.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Wasn't bulk collection of metadata found to be beyond the scope of what was allowed by one of the data collection laws, hence, illegal?

Thx!

TomB

Damn if I know- after a certain point in the media storm, I tuned out.

 

[Umbran]

This seems to say the collection was illegal. Not just, is currently illegal by the amended law, but, was illegal by the laws in effect at the time:

NSA's Bulk Collection Of Americans' Phone Data Is Illegal, Appeals Court Rules

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-bulk-collection-of-phone-metadata-is-illegal

Except that another court has noted that the Second Circuit court that issued that ruling does not have jurisdiction - so, rather than it being the rule of law, it is an opinion. The bulk collection has been re-authorized for the 180 grace period allowed by the USA Freedom Act, before it has to stop.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...approves-nsa-bulk-collection-spying-end-2015/