Marriage Equality Thread

[Applejack]

I agree that gays have the right to raise children. The point of the op-ed, to me, is that we simply don't know what the impact of same-sex parenting will be, and yet there's a willingness to gloss that fact over or ignore it. Justice Kennedy said yesterday in oral argument that the voices of the 40,000 children whose parents are in same-sex relationships ought to be heard. So it is an issue.

In my opinion the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is that children deserve to have both a male father and a female mother. That is the ideal, its effectiveness is supported by all the available evidence, and public policy ought to support that ideal. California has the most liberal civil union laws in the USA and I support those. A couple in a civil union in CA has all the rights if a married couple. But traditional marriage as an ideal ought to be supported. We can have another discussion about whether that is "separate but equal."

That's my view, and I am totally comfortable with the fact that others see the matter differently, and that people of good will on both sides disagree strongly on this.

Justice Kennedy's 40,000-children reference suggested that those kids are harmed by Prop 8's outlawing of same-sex marriage. He is not suggesting that being raised by same-sex parents is harmful. This is the opposite of the point you are making, I think.

[LA Ute]

Justice Kennedy's 40,000-children reference suggested that those kids are harmed by Prop 8's outlawing of same-sex marriage. He is not suggesting that being raised by same-sex parents is harmful. This is the opposite of the point you are making, I think.

I see what you're saying, but I referred to Justice Kennedy's comment (I'm not sure he was making a point) only to make it clear that the issue has been raised. Someone earlier in the thread had suggested the impact on kids was irrelevant to the discussion. It certainly was relevant to Justice Kennedy.

[Applejack]

I see what you're saying, but I referred to Justice Kennedy's comment (I'm not sure he was making a point) only to make it clear that the issue has been raised. Someone earlier in the thread had suggested the impact on kids was irrelevant to the discussion. It certainly was relevant to Justice Kennedy.

I think that was me. I didn't argue that the impact on kids is irrelevant, I argued that any argument that kids raised by gay couples are disadvantaged is irrelevant because Prop 8 doesn't forbid or allow such family situations - it merely forbids marrying. Thus, it seems to me that the argument that Prop 8 protects children is based on an idea that marriage is somehow harmful to children of gay couples. That is the point that I cannot understand (and which I have called a non-sequitur).

I think Justice Kennedy is clearly making a point:


“They want their parents to have full recognition and legal status,” Kennedy told Charles J. Cooper, who is representing supporters of Prop 8’s ban on gay marriage. “The voice of those children is considerable in this case, don’t you think?”

[LA Ute]

I think that was me. I didn't argue that the impact on kids is irrelevant, I argued that any argument that kids raised by gay couples are disadvantaged is irrelevant because Prop 8 doesn't forbid or allow such family situations - it merely forbids marrying. Thus, it seems to me that the argument that Prop 8 protects children is based on an idea that marriage is somehow harmful to children of gay couples. That is the point that I cannot understand (and which I have called a non-sequitur).

I think Justice Kennedy is clearly making a point:

I disagree, although it's kind of a semantic difference. In colloquoy during oral argument, appellate judges often ask questions that are not intended as points. Here's what a blogger at the SCOTUS blog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/reading-tea-leaves-why-the-court-will-uphold-proposition-8/#more-161948) wrote about Justice Kennedy's comments:


Assuming no dismissal, everything comes down to Justice Kennedy’s vote on the merits. And here, there is not much to warm the hearts of Proposition 8 opponents. Justice Kennedy did reference the importance of California’s 40,000 children who “want their parents to have full recognition and full status.” But generally speaking, Justice Kennedy’s comments were much more sympathetic to Proposition 8’s supporters:



“[T]here’s substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.”




“ was hundreds of years old in the common law countries. [A ban on interracial marriage in [I]Loving v. Virginia (http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Loving_v_Virginia_388_US_1_87_S_Ct_1817_18_L_Ed_2d _1010_1967_Cour/2)] was new to the United States.”




“[T]he problem with the case is that you’re really asking . . . for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there’s a wonderful destination, it is a cliff.”


Justice Kennedy even questioned the fundamental premise of whether the same-sex marriage issue “can be treated as a gender-based classification.” “It’s a difficult question that I’ve been trying to wrestle with.” If Justice Kennedy believes that same-sex marriage laws are not about gender classifications, but instead a state’s policy decision to uphold as a model what the state considers to be the family structure (both a father and a mother who are biologically connected to their children), then it is likely that he will vote to uphold Proposition 8.

I don't share the blogger's rosy view of the outcome, but those quotations from Kennedy show that he was probing. Any of us can pick an outcome we want in this case, and then and find something Kennedy said at oral argument that will support that outcome.

Now, about kids: All I am saying, and have ever said, is that society may properly make a rational decision that its definition of "marriage" ought to support the ideal of one man-one woman, on the ground that overall children deserve to be raised by both a mother and a father because that's best for the kids. (Pick your sociological study supporting or attacking that claim.) That is an ideal; it is not realized in every case -- in fact, it's realized in the minority of cases these days. I know this is a controversial claim and that reasonable people disagree on it, but it is certainly not a non-sequitur. In a democracy we ought to be able to reach principled decisions on controversial issues. Just my opinion.

[SoCalCoug]

If you were going to do something along these lines, "humans who they are physically attracted to" couldn't possibly be the standard, because everyone in the third locker room would be potentially attracted to each other. You would need individualized locker rooms.

Maybe there's another option - don't segregate the locker rooms at all. Modesty is really a learned principle. Do nude or topless beaches have a sexual assault problem? Do men at nude or topless beaches walk around aroused? I remember reading an blog post by someone who talked about her experience with co-ed showers in college. Sure, it was uncomfortable at first, but they got used to it so that it became really not a big deal.

Or we can just assume that because we aren't being nailed from behind by an aroused gay guy in the locker room, despite the fact that we all have surely been in a locker room shower with a gay guy at some point in our lives. The fact that we probably didn't even know it suggests it's not a big deal. So the current arrangement probably is just fine.

Seriously - when's the last time you ever heard of a sexual assault by a gay guy in a locker room shower (who wasn't a Penn State coach)?

[SoCalCoug]

The American Sociological Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, et al., are activist groups with a distinctly liberal bent. I think their views deserve as much skepticism as the NRA or Family Research Council on the right. They are certainly just as predictable. (So is Ezra Klein, for that matter.)

Chicken and the egg. Did the liberal bent come first, or do they seem to have a liberal bent because their experience and specialized knowledge lead them that way? Is there a sociolgical association that has a conservative bent?

[LA Ute]

Chicken and the egg. Did the liberal bent come first, or do they seem to have a liberal bent because their experience and specialized knowledge lead them that way? Is there a sociolgical association that has a conservative bent?

Activists in any discipline or cause tend to be more extreme, whether on the right or left. But you are welcome to argue that the sociologists trade association became more liberal because they became more enlightened. I've been hearing that from liberals all my life. Just one of those endless debates.

[SoCalCoug]

Activists in any discipline or cause tend to be more extreme, whether on the right or left. But you are welcome to argue that the sociologists trade association became more liberal because they became more enlightened. I've been hearing that from liberals all my life. Just one of those endless debates.

"Activists" gets thrown a lot in politics. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it's not. Please tell me you're not falling for Glenn Beck's hate campaign about Frances Fox Piven for her editorial about mobilizing the jobless. Imagine that - a sociologist calling to mobilize the jobless to try to make an impression on Washington. It's just interesting how it seems any time an organization takes a position contrary to that espoused by conservatives, it's suddenly an "activist" group. Point out for me where the independent sociological association, or even the conservative sociological association. It surely can't be pure chance that all sociologists hold to a left-wing activist group.

[LA Ute]

"Activists" gets thrown a lot in politics. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it's not. Please tell me you're not falling for Glenn Beck's hate campaign about Frances Fox Piven for her editorial about mobilizing the jobless. Imagine that - a sociologist calling to mobilize the jobless to try to make an impression on Washington. It's just interesting how it seems any time an organization takes a position contrary to that espoused by conservatives, it's suddenly an "activist" group. Point out for me where the independent sociological association, or even the conservative sociological association. It surely can't be pure chance that all sociologists hold to a left-wing activist group.

I never listen to Glenn Beck and I never have. Why do you think the American Academy of Pediatricians always takes the left-liberal position on every issue? Why are primary voters always more conservative or liberal than general election voters? I've advanced my theory: activists tend to have more extreme views than non-activists. This is almost a maxim of political science. What's your explanation?

[concerned]

I never listen to Glenn Beck and I never have. Why do you think the American Academy of Pediatricians always takes the left-liberal position on every issue? Why are primary voters always more conservative or liberal than general election voters? I've advanced my theory: activists tend to have more extreme views than non-activists. This is almost a maxim of political science. What's your explanation?


Professional advocacy groups or trade associations may have a left leaning or even a right leaning bias, but the quote from the amicus brief was:


"Decades of methodologically sound social science research, especially multiple nationally representative studies and the expert evidence introduced in the district courts below, confirm that positive child wellbeing is the product of stability in the relationship between the two parents, stability in the relationship between the parents and child, and greater parental socioeconomic resources. Whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing. The clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents."

Is that right or wrong? Is there a consensus or no? What is the research coming to an opposite conclusion? I have no idea, but did the prop 8 plaintiffs below introduce sociological or psychological studies or other evidence to support the rational basis argument?

[Rocker Ute]

Maybe there's another option - don't segregate the locker rooms at all. Modesty is really a learned principle. Do nude or topless beaches have a sexual assault problem? Do men at nude or topless beaches walk around aroused? I remember reading an blog post by someone who talked about her experience with co-ed showers in college. Sure, it was uncomfortable at first, but they got used to it so that it became really not a big deal.

Or we can just assume that because we aren't being nailed from behind by an aroused gay guy in the locker room, despite the fact that we all have surely been in a locker room shower with a gay guy at some point in our lives. The fact that we probably didn't even know it suggests it's not a big deal. So the current arrangement probably is just fine.

Seriously - when's the last time you ever heard of a sexual assault by a gay guy in a locker room shower (who wasn't a Penn State coach)?

Prison, 8000x a day.

[LA Ute]

Is that right or wrong? Is there a consensus or no? What is the research coming to an opposite conclusion? I have no idea, but did the prop 8 plaintiffs below introduce sociological or psychological studies or other evidence to support the rational basis argument?

For the record, I personally think it is probably right. I also think the most intellectually honest answer anyone can give is that we really don't know yet, and can't know yet. The summary of studies I cited earlier in this thread (see post #187) looks like the most authoritative statement out there so far, and the authors (who are far from being right-wingers) have inserted a caveat that at the time the summary was done there were no data on same-sex parenting. It seems unlikely to me that 10 more years have given us the kind of longitudinal data necessary to come to the kinds of rock-solid conclusions some are advancing. I'm mainly urging caution and healthy skepticism. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are same-sex parents and they look like good, devoted and loving parents to me.

I do think this is a bit of a detour (and I am partly at fault for that). The real issue is what the Constitution means so far as gay marriage is concerned.

[SoCalCoug]

I never listen to Glenn Beck and I never have. Why do you think the American Academy of Pediatricians always takes the left-liberal position on every issue? Why are primary voters always more conservative or liberal than general election voters? I've advanced my theory: activists tend to have more extreme views than non-activists. This is almost a maxim of political science. What's your explanation?

Maybe it's because the Academy's concern for children falls more in line with "liberal" policies. In general, I find that the left is more concerned with minorities and individuals than the right is. And I think most organizations are going to resist spending cuts relating to their interests - I don't know if you can really consider that as a basis for calling an organization "liberal".

So, the pediatricians' organization is in favor of access to health care for children and children's safety. You apparently call this "left-leaning liberal." Okay. Are they really extremists? Here's their official web page (http://www.aap.org/en-us/Pages/Default.aspx). It links to their official advocacy positions. Short answer as to why they take the "left-liberal" position on "every" issue: Because they're trying to protect children. The positions they take are consistent with that.

[SoCalCoug]

Prison, 8000x a day.

Should have known that was coming. Of course, how much of that is factual, and how much dramatic license in those high brow prison comedies.

[LA Ute]

Maybe it's because the Academy's concern for children falls more in line with "liberal" policies. In general, I find that the left is more concerned with minorities and individuals than the right is. And I think most organizations are going to resist spending cuts relating to their interests - I don't know if you can really consider that as a basis for calling an organization "liberal".

So, the pediatricians' organization is in favor of access to health care for children and children's safety. You apparently call this "left-leaning liberal." Okay. Are they really extremists? Here's their official web page (http://www.aap.org/en-us/Pages/Default.aspx). It links to their official advocacy positions. Short answer as to why they take the "left-liberal" position on "every" issue: Because they're trying to protect children. The positions they take are consistent with that.

I'm not really interested in a fight here, but you're making my point for me. I don't have any reason to question the AAP's motives or good intentions. I do question the notion that they are necessarily authoritative on any particular issue. It's precisely because they have a strong desire for a particular outcome -- however well-intentioned -- that their pronouncements deserve a closer look and a little bit of skepticism. I think the AMA, the ABA, the NRA, and every other American "A" (Association) deserve the same. That's all I am saying.

[UtahDan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAz4HJ-IFf0&feature=youtube_gdata_player (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAz4HJ-IFf0&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

:clap:

[UtahDan]

419

[LA Ute]

Very effective ad.

[smokymountainrain]

419
But gay parents could just as easily tell a kid that the decision to adopt was a mistake. That part of the ad is silly. The second part is decent.

[SeattleUte]

But gay parents could just as easily tell a kid that the decision to adopt was a mistake. That part of the ad is silly. The second part is decent.

The point is that they have a lot of time to think about it and way more to overcome that gives them time to think about it before the kid actually materializes.

[DanielLaRusso]

The point is that they have a lot of time to think about it and way more to overcome that gives them time to think about it before the kid actually materializes.

So do gay couples have innate moral superiority when making hurtful comments to children?

Context is important, but the first paragraph (the example that is supposedly supporting the premise) is moronic and takes away from the more powerful second.

[cowboy]

419
With all due respect, becoming a parent is not a right. Children are not chattel, and they are not property which everyone has the God-given right to own. Rather, they are individuals with rights themselves. They have the right to be loved, nurtured, and taught values - and they also have the right to have a mother and a father. Unfortunately, many children do not have a loving mother and father, and in every case that is a tragedy. Mothers and fathers fill separate rolls, and a child craves the love and attention of each at different times in their lives. Two loving fathers, or mothers, simply cannot fill the role of a loving mother and loving father. I'll absolutely agree that any loving parents, single or a couple, are far superior to orphanages or foster care, but that's not the argument I'm making.

Obviously, this becomes a gray area at some point, when parents do have rights. They have the right to teach children their values, etc., so it's not like parents have no rights at all, but I think parents rights begin when they become parents, and not before. Once given the responsibility of raising children, they have the right to raise them as they deem appropriate, absent neglect and abuse. The gray area comes in defining neglect and abuse - not the obvious examples, but the more subtle things like teaching children to hate, etc. In any case, while parents have the right to raise their children within boundaries, they certainly do not have the right to own or acquire them like a family pet.

[LA Ute]

Be careful, Cowboy. Around here a guy can be sent to bed without his supper for making such statements.

[Pheidippides]

With all due respect, becoming a parent is not a right. Children are not chattel, and they are not property which everyone has the God-given right to own. Rather, they are individuals with rights themselves. They have the right to be loved, nurtured, and taught values - and they also have the right to have a mother and a father. Unfortunately, many children do not have a loving mother and father, and in every case that is a tragedy. Mothers and fathers fill separate rolls, and a child craves the love and attention of each at different times in their lives. Two loving fathers, or mothers, simply cannot fill the role of a loving mother and loving father. I'll absolutely agree that any loving parents, single or a couple, are far superior to orphanages or foster care, but that's not the argument I'm making.

Obviously, this becomes a gray area at some point, when parents do have rights. They have the right to teach children their values, etc., so it's not like parents have no rights at all, but I think parents rights begin when they become parents, and not before. Once given the responsibility of raising children, they have the right to raise them as they deem appropriate, absent neglect and abuse. The gray area comes in defining neglect and abuse - not the obvious examples, but the more subtle things like teaching children to hate, etc. In any case, while parents have the right to raise their children within boundaries, they certainly do not have the right to own or acquire them like a family pet.

The number of shitty mixed gender parents I've seen in my short time alive negates any faith I have in this argument. Most parents suck.

[concerned]

Do you really mean to say parenting is not a right? Can you be deprived of becoming a parent if you are single, divorced, very old, a felon, a drug addict, possessor of a horrible genetic marker, etc., physically or mentally disabled, etc. etc.

[LA Ute]

Do you really mean to say parenting is not a right? Can you be deprived of becoming a parent if you are single, divorced, very old, a felon, a drug addict, possessor of a horrible genetic marker, etc., physically or mentally disabled, etc. etc.

I can't speak for cowboy, but my guess is that at the core of what he meant is the reality that parenthood and marriage are not exclusively about adult needs and desires.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I can't speak for cowboy, but my guess is that at the core of what he meant is the reality that parenthood and marriage are not exclusively about adult needs and desires.

you lost me here. Please elaborate.

[cowboy]

The number of shitty mixed gender parents I've seen in my short time alive negates any faith I have in this argument. Most parents suck.
I'm not sure how the existence of poor mixed gender parents overrides the rights of children to have mixed gender parents whenever possible. Statistically, there would be no higher probability in a gay union being more loving and nurturing than a straight union. The only difference is that a child would be deprived of either a mother or father.


Do you really mean to say parenting is not a right? Can you be deprived of becoming a parent if you are single, divorced, very old, a felon, a drug addict, possessor of a horrible genetic marker, etc., physically or mentally disabled, etc. etc.
I did not say parenting is not a right. As a society, we allow anyone who can make children become parents, and we've decided that conceiving a child (and terminating a pregnancy) is a personal right that shall not be infringed upon. When it comes to adoption, however, we make choices all the time about who is able to adopt and who isn't. Go to an adoption agency and tell them you're a meth addict and see how far you get.

Again, I'm not making the blanket statement that gay couples should never be allowed to be parents. Rather, I'm saying they do not have an inalienable right to become a parent, specifically through adoption. If they choose to make their own kid, I think that's unfortunate, but people bring children into far more unfortunate situations every day (15-year-old single mothers, etc.)


you lost me here. Please elaborate.
I'm saying simply that children have rights, and any right that society grants gay couples to adopt should not trump the right of a child to have a mother and a father whenever possible. Children are human beings, not pets that people acquire because they want companionship and someone to love them.

[concerned]

I'm not sure how the existence of poor mixed gender parents overrides the rights of children to have mixed gender parents whenever possible. Statistically, there would be no higher probability in a gay union being more loving and nurturing than a straight union. The only difference is that a child would be deprived of either a mother or father.


I did not say parenting is not a right. As a society, we allow anyone who can make children become parents, and we've decided that conceiving a child (and terminating a pregnancy) is a personal right that shall not be infringed upon. When it comes to adoption, however, we make choices all the time about who is able to adopt and who isn't. Go to an adoption agency and tell them you're a meth addict and see how far you get.

Again, I'm not making the blanket statement that gay couples should never be allowed to be parents. Rather, I'm saying they do not have an inalienable right to become a parent, specifically through adoption. If they choose to make their own kid, I think that's unfortunate, but people bring children into far more unfortunate situations every day (15-year-old single mothers, etc.)


I'm saying simply that children have rights, and any right that society grants gay couples to adopt should not trump the right of a child to have a mother and a father whenever possible. Children are human beings, not pets that people acquire because they want companionship and someone to love them.

Gays become biological parents the same way heterosexual parents do.

[woot]

With all due respect, becoming a parent is not a right. Children are not chattel, and they are not property which everyone has the God-given right to own. Rather, they are individuals with rights themselves. They have the right to be loved, nurtured, and taught values - and they also have the right to have a mother and a father. Unfortunately, many children do not have a loving mother and father, and in every case that is a tragedy. Mothers and fathers fill separate rolls, and a child craves the love and attention of each at different times in their lives. Two loving fathers, or mothers, simply cannot fill the role of a loving mother and loving father. I'll absolutely agree that any loving parents, single or a couple, are far superior to orphanages or foster care, but that's not the argument I'm making.

Obviously, this becomes a gray area at some point, when parents do have rights. They have the right to teach children their values, etc., so it's not like parents have no rights at all, but I think parents rights begin when they become parents, and not before. Once given the responsibility of raising children, they have the right to raise them as they deem appropriate, absent neglect and abuse. The gray area comes in defining neglect and abuse - not the obvious examples, but the more subtle things like teaching children to hate, etc. In any case, while parents have the right to raise their children within boundaries, they certainly do not have the right to own or acquire them like a family pet.

Given all of your wise caveats, I'm not sure what's left is actually an argument against gay couples adopting kids, unless the rate of gay couples stealing kids from their biological parents is significant.

[Diehard Ute]

I'm saying simply that children have rights, and any right that society grants gay couples to adopt should not trump the right of a child to have a mother and a father whenever possible. Children are human beings, not pets that people acquire because they want companionship and someone to love them.

And what rights are those and who has established those rights? Children do not have the same "rights" as adults in many areas. (Rights is a term that is thrown around far too much, and I'm doubting you really are using it in its proper context)

And beyond that, by your argument anyone who is a single parent is denying someone their "rights"

So, are you also advocating single parents lose their children? Or is that ok because they're "straight"?

[Flystripper]

Having a mother and a father is a right? Why? Because of biology? Is it proven that loving mixed gender parents are more ideal than loving same gender parents? I know many people believe this to be true, but I am far from convinced that it is necessarily true.

[SoCalCoug]

Having a mother and a father is a right? Why? Because of biology? Is it proven that loving mixed gender parents are more ideal than loving same gender parents? I know many people believe this to be true, but I am far from convinced that it is necessarily true.

Well, I guess it depends on what side of the aisle you fall on. If you are on the left (or at least not on the right), you point to the American Sociological Association saying "The clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents." If you are on the right, you apparently believe the ASA is a group of liberal activists whose conclusions cannot be trusted, and point to a study that was done which suggests children raised by same-sex parents have more problems than others, without actually conluding there is a causal relationship.

[smokymountainrain]

So do gay couples have innate moral superiority when making hurtful comments to children?

Context is important, but the first paragraph (the example that is supposedly supporting the premise) is moronic and takes away from the more powerful second.Exactly. Well said.

[LA Ute]

Well, I guess it depends on what side of the aisle you fall on. If you are on the left (or at least not on the right), you point to the American Sociological Association saying "The clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents." If you are on the right, you apparently believe the ASA is a group of liberal activists whose conclusions cannot be trusted, and point to a study that was done which suggests children raised by same-sex parents have more problems than others, without actually conluding there is a causal relationship.

Straw man alert.

[cowboy]

Gays become biological parents the same way heterosexual parents do.
Perhaps we need to back up. I'm talking specifically about adoption. Anyone, gay or straight, has the right to do with their body whatever they want, which includes conceiving a child. As with single parents who make this choice, I think it's unfortunate for the child, and somewhat selfish, but it certainly is their right. Where I have a problem is in treating gay couples, or single people for that matter, as equally suited for adoption as a heterosexual couple, all other things being equal.


Given all of your wise caveats, I'm not sure what's left is actually an argument against gay couples adopting kids, unless the rate of gay couples stealing kids from their biological parents is significant.
It's all about adoption, which was, I assumed, the purpose of the poster. To be brief, I think heterosexuals couples should be first in line when it comes to adopting children. That puts them ahead of gay couples, but also ahead of heterosexual singles. Not trying to beat a dead horse, but I think kids are happiest with heterosexual parents who love them and who love each other.


And what rights are those and who has established those rights? Children do not have the same "rights" as adults in many areas. (Rights is a term that is thrown around far too much, and I'm doubting you really are using it in its proper context)
Semantics notwithstanding, children do not have the same 'rights' or maybe a better phrase would be privileges and responsibilities, as adults only in instances where society considers them too immature to make the decisions such privileges and decisions require. I can't think of a situation (though maybe you can) where children are denied rights granted to adults for the express reason that their lives are less important than adults lives.


And beyond that, by your argument anyone who is a single parent is denying someone their "rights"

So, are you also advocating single parents lose their children? Or is that ok because they're "straight"?
You're arguing a position I'm not making, and you know it. Nice try playing the redneck bigot card, though.


Having a mother and a father is a right? Why? Because of biology? Is it proven that loving mixed gender parents are more ideal than loving same gender parents? I know many people believe this to be true, but I am far from convinced that it is necessarily true.
I guess my immediate reaction is to ask why children do not have the right to have a mother and father, something that has evolved or was God-given depending on your perspective, but it is a no-brainer to this crowd that gay adults should be able to purchase and own children without regard to the child's happiness? I suspect that if you surveyed adults who were raised in a single parent household, not knowing their other parent, respondents would overwhelmingly respond that there were many times in their childhood that they wished they could know and spend time with the other parent.



Well, I guess it depends on what side of the aisle you fall on. If you are on the left (or at least not on the right), you point to the American Sociological Association saying "The clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents." If you are on the right, you apparently believe the ASA is a group of liberal activists whose conclusions cannot be trusted, and point to a study that was done which suggests children raised by same-sex parents have more problems than others, without actually concluding there is a causal relationship.
I know you have a personal interest in this, I'm sensitive to your position, and I'm certainly not trying to offend even though I feel very strongly about the issue. My position comes from personal experience as well, which is why I picked this fight in the first place. The phrase "children fare just as well" is subjective, and I'd be interested to know the metrics used, the peer review process, etc. You know research; anyone can find holes in it if they look hard enough. Regardless of my opinion being based purely on anecdotal evidence from an incredibly small sample size, I strongly believe that, all other factors being equal, children are happiest when they grow up with a loving mother and father.

[Diehard Ute]

Your lack of an answer speaks volumes.

[cowboy]

Your lack of an answer speaks volumes.
Volumes that apparently you lack the cognitive ability to understand. I answered, and I answered clearly. Perhaps a brushup on reading comprehension would do you well.

[Diehard Ute]

Volumes that apparently you lack the cognitive ability to understand. I answered, and I answered clearly. Perhaps a brushup on reading comprehension would do you well.

Nope. You didn't answer. You failed to address the question. Your position is that children have a "right" to a mother and a father.

What about children who only have a mother or a father? Aren't they suffering just as much if not more? Single parents can adopt. Single women can have children via artificial insemination. Do these things not bother you just as much? If not why?

[cowboy]

Yes, I did.

I'm talking specifically about adoption. Anyone, gay or straight, has the right to do with their body whatever they want, which includes conceiving a child. As with single parents who make this choice, I think it's unfortunate for the child, and somewhat selfish, but it certainly is their right. Where I have a problem is in treating gay couples, or single people for that matter, as equally suited for adoption as a heterosexual couple, all other things being equal.

[clackamascoug]

I think this conversation is inside out. It's not a mother/father, father/father, mother/mother issue, it's a kid issue.

If you were a child, what would be your first choice of family circumstances? Or do desperate children grab onto anybody that won't beat them and call it good. What is the optimum for a baby? That's the true answer- what would a kid prefer.

[Diehard Ute]

Yes, I did.

So of I'm reading you correctly you feel only heterosexual married couples have a "right" to adopt a child

[Diehard Ute]

I think this conversation is inside out. It's not a mother/father, father/father, mother/mother issue, it's a kid issue.

If you were a child, what would be your first choice of family circumstances? Or do desperate children grab onto anybody that won't beat them and call it good. What is the optimum for a baby? That's the true answer- what would a kid prefer.

Given how many children never get a family, I think that's a rather simplistic question. There are thousands of children just in Utah who live their lives in foster care and then get dumped into the world at 18 with no real support or guidance.

And thousands more who live in atrocious conditions of neglect and abuse...which to them is 'normal'.

[tooblue]

If you were a child, what would be your first choice of family circumstances? Or do desperate children grab onto anybody that won't beat them and call it good. What is the optimum for a baby? That's the true answer- what would a kid prefer.

Desperate children won't grab on to anybody or anything. It's an issue of trust. That trust is very difficult to earn and in fact may never be earned over a lifetime. Biologically and psychologically a mother and a father is optimum for a baby. A child doesn't just inherit one set of genes from one parent. The child is the result of a combination of genetic material that can only come from a woman and a man.

[cowboy]

So of I'm reading you correctly you feel only heterosexual married couples have a "right" to adopt a child
No. If fact, just the opposite. I'm saying nobody has the right to adopt. Once a right is granted to one group equal protection, or whatever that clause is, would require the same right to be extended to all people. On the contrary, the only people with rights in this circumstance is the child, and they have a right to be placed in the home where they will be the happiest. This allows the state, adoption agency, or whoever, the ability to weigh all factors in placing a child without being forced to ignore whether a child will be placed in a home with a loving mother and father.

[Diehard Ute]

No. If fact, just the opposite. I'm saying nobody has the right to adopt. Once a right is granted to one group equal protection, or whatever that clause is, would require the same right to be extended to all people. On the contrary, the only people with rights in this circumstance is the child, and they have a right to be placed in the home where they will be the happiest. This allows the state, adoption agency, or whoever, the ability to weigh all factors in placing a child without being forced to ignore whether a child will be placed in a home with a loving mother and father.

So if a child is able to say "I want to be adopted" and it's referring to a gay couple or a single person you would be just fine with that

[tooblue]

Given how many children never get a family, I think that's a rather simplistic question. There are thousands of children just in Utah who live their lives in foster care and then get dumped into the world at 18 with no real support or guidance.

And thousands more who live in atrocious conditions of neglect and abuse...which to them is 'normal'.

It is not normal but may be considered the norm, or the context within which they live. The standard is that they are the product of a woman and a man. Remove one or the other and the standard has been altered. We do not fully know what the consequences of such an alteration will be. We have a glimpse of it due to the prevalence of single parents in our society. That glimpse is not promising. However, it also is not universal. But, in contrast, we certainly know what the consequences of the standard, when soberly entered into are. It's a beautiful thing and optimally effective.

[cowboy]

So if a child is able to say "I want to be adopted" and it's referring to a gay couple or a single person you would be just fine with that
This may surprise you, but yes. There are plenty of kids in situations where any parents are better than what they have, and the unfortunate fact is most of them are overlooked by traditional heterosexual couples for a variety of reasons. In those cases especially, but any case where the child is old enough to know what they want, I say let them go wherever they feel they will be happiest.

[Diehard Ute]

This may surprise you, but yes. There are plenty of kids in situations where any parents are better than what they have, and the unfortunate fact is most of them are overlooked by traditional heterosexual couples for a variety of reasons. In those cases especially, but any case where the child is old enough to know what they want, I say let them go wherever they feel they will be happiest.

That I can agree with.

We disagree on trying to find heterosexual couples first, and we'll just have to agree to disagree

[Jarid in Cedar]

I am going to wade into this, and likely regret it later. From a simplistic standpoint, the law only requires that a parent provide shelter, food, clothing, and send them to school. Everything else is a bonus.

Outside of that, all someone needs to add to that, to be a capable parent, is to provide love and caring. Any person, regardless of gender, orientation, etc can meet these qualifications.

Now, as i think of my childhood, I can think of lessons that I learned from my father and some from my mother. I don't know how well i may have learned some of those lessons from the other. I think that some lessons kids need to learn come easier when taught by one gender. Esp lessons taught by a parent of the same gender as the child. I don't mean to imply that those lessons cannot be taught by someone else, just that it may be more difficult.

When i think about the needs of children, i think that someone to love them is the most important. The rest is simply about the personal feelings we each have about what is the best for a child.

[LA Ute]

you lost me here. Please elaborate.

Sorry, been gone all day. In essence I am saying (as clackamas seemed to say also) that we often frame the issues backwards: would-be parents (e.g., either unmarried and single, or gay) really want children so they should have them, and the discussion focuses on the adults' desires and needs and potential happiness. It's about more than that -- the kids' needs and happiness matter too, and may be equally important. It's just another way of saying what has been said earlier in this thread.

Example: I have a former law partner who decided she probably would not have a chance to marry during her childbearing years, so she had a daughter via IVF, using an anonymous sperm donor. Everyone was happy for her, and so was I, but I had misgivings. That child will never have a father. I wonder if she will someday resent her mom for making that decision. Added fact: the mom knew she had MS when she had the baby. I've lost touch with my old partner but by now she may not now even be able to care for the child, who's by now a teenager. To me the decision seems borderline selfish.

[Pheidippides]

Having a mother and a father is a right? Why? Because of biology? Is it proven that loving mixed gender parents are more ideal than loving same gender parents? I know many people believe this to be true, but I am far from convinced that it is necessarily true.

Same. Especially since God violates this right all the time.

[mUUser]

...To me the decision seems borderline selfish.


Unduly harsh. You had kids for purely altruistic reasons?

[concerned]

Sorry, been gone all day. In essence I am saying (as clackamas seemed to say also) that we often frame the issues backwards: would-be parents (e.g., either unmarried and single, or gay) really want children so they should have them, and the discussion focuses on the adults' desires and needs and potential happiness. It's about more than that -- the kids' needs and happiness matter too, and may be equally important. It's just another way of saying what has been said earlier in this thread.

Example: I have a former law partner who decided she probably would not have a chance to marry during her childbearing years, so she had a daughter via IVF, using an anonymous sperm donor. Everyone was happy for her, and so was I, but I had misgivings. That child will never have a father. I wonder if she will someday resent her mom for making that decision. Added fact: the mom knew she had MS when she had the baby. I've lost touch with my old partner but by now she may not now even be able to care for the child, who's by now a teenager. To me the decision seems borderline selfish.

It would be fascinating to catch up on their relationship. In my younger days, I dated several women who were raised by single mothers (divorce, death, not IVF). In each case, the women were unbelievably close. more like sisters joined at the hip, best friends, confidantes, than like mother-daughter. I would not be surprised if that were true here.

[LA Ute]

It would be fascinating to catch up on their relationship. In my younger days, I dated several women who were raised by single mothers (divorce, death, not IVF). In each case, the women were unbelievably close. more like sisters joined at the hip, best friends, confidantes, than like mother-daughter. I would not be surprised if that were true here.

It is hard to generalize, but I think there's a difference between dealing with an unfortunate situation and intentionally choosing such a situation.

[cowboy]

Same. Especially since God violates this right all the time.
This is bullshit, and you know it. I can say this because you and I are friends, and we're still friends if you reciprocate and tell me I'm full of crap. Because we're friends, though, you know full well why I feel strongly about this. Granted, the sample size is small, but the impression is deep.

[LA Ute]

Unduly harsh. You had kids for purely altruistic reasons?

I am really just raising the example as kind of a Philosophy 101 class discussion of a multi-faceted issue. Like the hypothetical of a captured terrorist who knows the location of an atomic bomb set to explode soon in New York City.

[concerned]

It is hard to generalize, but I think there's a difference between dealing with an unfortunate situation and intentionally choosing such a situation.

Do you mean to characterize all gay parenting across the board as an unfortunate situation? That does seem unduly harsh.

[Pheidippides]

This is bullshit, and you know it. I can say this because you and I are friends, and we're still friends if you reciprocate and tell me I'm full of crap. Because we're friends, though, you know full well why I feel strongly about this. Granted, the sample size is small, but the impression is deep.
I'm serious. I don't believe it's a right any more than I believe it's a right to be born a white male. Sure helps a lot in current society, but if it's a God-given right then I have a few choice words for God.

[LA Ute]

Do you mean to characterize all gay parenting across the board as an unfortunate situation? That does seem unduly harsh.

(Raises hand, calls foul.) No, I was responding to your post, and talking about intentionally choosing to be a single parent, as opposed to becoming one due to circumstances beyond one's control.

[LA Ute]

I'm serious. I don't believe it's a right any more than I believe it's a right to be born a white male. Sure helps a lot in current society, but if it's a God-given right then I have a few choice words for God.

Even apart from that issue, I have a feeling that the Almighty is in for a real tongue-lashing the next time he sees you.

[Solon]

At the end of the day, I think all of these arguments boil down to the extent to which society is ready to normalize and legitimize homosexuality into its mainstream.

The boy-scouts issue, the arguments about inherent gender-roles, the sociology of raising children (cited by both sides), the discursive manifestos about the history of marriage, the circumlocutive terms like "same-sex attraction" and "love the sinner, hate the sin" - all of these really come down to determining to what extent individuals and society can accept homosexuality as normal and legitimate (as opposed to deviant and illicit).

I realize that there is a lot of gray in there, but I think this issue breaks down into black and white camps more clearly than most issues.

The anti-gay-marriage movement might do better if it discarded the junky social-science and fear-mongering about religious freedoms, and decided to stand more firmly on its moral footings. Their argument is, essentially, "Homosexuality is wrong. We don't want to pretend it's right." A very direct statement, sure, but one with more ethical integrity than the current BS they put out to defend their side.

[tooblue]

Same. Especially since God violates this right all the time.

All children have a mother and father by default, regardless of whether or not one or the other is omnipresent in the child's life. It's not God that violates the right of a child to have a mother and a father it is man and woman who often violate this right.

[concerned]

(Raises hand, calls foul.) No, I was responding to your post, and talking about intentionally choosing to be a single parent, as opposed to becoming one due to circumstances beyond one's control.

Do you draw a distinction between a single woman who has a child or adopts a child and two gay parents who do the same?

[Rocker Ute]

At the end of the day, I think all of these arguments boil down to the extent to which society is ready to normalize and legitimize homosexuality into its mainstream.

The boy-scouts issue, the arguments about inherent gender-roles, the sociology of raising children (cited by both sides), the discursive manifestos about the history of marriage, the circumlocutive terms like "same-sex attraction" and "love the sinner, hate the sin" - all of these really come down to determining to what extent individuals and society can accept homosexuality as normal and legitimate (as opposed to deviant and illicit).

I realize that there is a lot of gray in there, but I think this issue breaks down into black and white camps more clearly than most issues.

The anti-gay-marriage movement might do better if it discarded the junky social-science and fear-mongering about religious freedoms, and decided to stand more firmly on its moral footings. Their argument is, essentially, "Homosexuality is wrong. We don't want to pretend it's right." A very direct statement, sure, but one with more ethical integrity than the current BS they put out to defend their side.

I'm no law talking guy, but I'm pretty sure there is no standing Supreme Court decision based on the premise of 'Because God said so', so while that may be the actual position of people in opposition of gay marriage their arguments have to take on more broad social or religious freedom implications to gain merit in the courts.

The truth is because longitudinal studies take time, we really don't know what is junky social-science and what isn't right now. Kind of like my opinion that Google, Facebook and Smart Phones are making us the most worthless generation in the history of mankind. I'm pretty damn sure I'm right, but we won't know for sure until about 30 years from now when 50-year-olds won't even know how to open a can when their parents die.

[cowboy]

I'm serious. I don't believe it's a right any more than I believe it's a right to be born a white male. Sure helps a lot in current society, but if it's a God-given right then I have a few choice words for God.
The reason I disagree, is that it requires a man and a woman to create a child, hence every child is born with a mother and a father. Not every child is born white. We, as a society, often choose to rear children in circumstances where they do not live with or even know both parents, but that's a decision we make, not God.


Do you mean to characterize all gay parenting across the board as an unfortunate situation? That does seem unduly harsh.
This post summarizes the entire debate. One side looks at it from the perspective of potential parents, and the other looks at it from the perspective of a child. Without speaking for LA, yes, I believe gay parenting is unfortunate for a child because I believe that the perfect situation is to live with a mother and father, all other things being equal.

As an aside, the irony in all of this is that both sides of this argument are usually completely opposite in their positions on other things regarding nature. I just cited nature to bolster my position that children deserve a father and mother, yet I have no problem with growth hormones in cattle and genetically modified seeds. On the other side, I suspect that many advocates for gay parenting shop at organic stores because they want natural food, yet by nature it is impossible for a gay couple to create a child together.

[LA Ute]

Do you draw a distinction between a single woman who has a child or adopts a child and two gay parents who do the same?

Yes. My point in raising the example of my former partner who chose to have a child by artificial insemination without any intention of ever marrying anyone (of either sex) was that parenthood is not all about adult wishes. I was happy for her but found her choice troubling.

Similarly, gay parents who have children are making a fundamental choice for that child. It's intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise. (I'm not saying you are doing that.) We can argue all we want about the social science, but a child growing up with same-sex parents is going to grow up without a mother or without a father. Someday he or she may resent that, or at least wonder why he or he was put in that situation. Maybe people are OK with that, but to pretend it's not an important consideration seems cavalier to me.

[Diehard Ute]

Someday he or she may resent that, or at least wonder why he or he was put in that situation. Maybe people are OK with that, but to pretend it's not an important consideration seems cavalier to me.

So, just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on people who have very large families, due to religious beliefs, knowing full well they're not going to be able to provide an ideal life for those children?

[kccougar]

Who gets to decide what the ideal life is?

[Diehard Ute]

Who gets to decide what the ideal life is?

Apparently some people have that figured out already

[LA Ute]

So, just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on people who have very large families, due to religious beliefs, knowing full well they're not going to be able to provide an ideal life for those children?

Why is that relevant to whether the children in such families will have both a female mother and a male father?

[Diehard Ute]

Why is that relevant to whether the children in such families will have both a female mother and a male father?

Because you and others keep talking about people being selfish for wanting to have children as a single parent or as gay parents.

Is it not selfish to want to have a 6th child when you already rely on welfare and Medicaid for your other 5 for example?

If your concerns are about providing the best situation for a child, these situations should also be of concern I would think.

[tooblue]

Apparently some people have that figured out already

The ideal is in large part, if not completely, biology. So, it's certainly more than some people—it's nature.

[scottie]

I agree with you. I keep trying to figure out a good secular way to justify my position against same sex marriage, and I mostly draw blanks. I do believe that legitimizing homosexuality will cause more sadness in this world than happiness, and that belief is mostly based on religious knowledge that I have. I believe this to be one small piece of a general decline in Christlike virtues.

I don't see how the term "love the sinner, hate the sin" is circumlocutive, probably because I don't know what circumlocutive means. The spell checker sure doesn't like it. It certainly is possible to love people you disagree with.

Wouldn't the opposite be true?

[LA Ute]

Who gets to decide what the ideal life is?

It seems to me that society makes that decision. In other words, society decides which ideals it will seek to encourage and reinforce, when it comes to social issues. In a perfect world (an ideal world) that would be done after a full and fair debate. That is what is happening right now regarding same sex marriage. Of course ideals are not reality. That's the nature of an ideal. We strive for it, we encourage it, we support it. A lot of us are simply saying that the ideal family is one in which child is raised by a male father and a female mother, in a a low conflict marriage. Obviously that is not realized as often as we'd all like. But it is worth striving for. In other words, it is an ideal.

[Applejack]

I agree with you. I keep trying to figure out a good secular way to justify my position against same sex marriage, and I mostly draw blanks. I do believe that legitimizing homosexuality will cause more sadness in this world than happiness, and that belief is mostly based on religious knowledge that I have. I believe this to be one small piece of a general decline in Christlike virtues.

I don't see how the term "love the sinner, hate the sin" is circumlocutive, probably because I don't know what circumlocutive means. The spell checker sure doesn't like it. It certainly is possible to love people you disagree with.

I think this is a refreshingly honest take. As I've said, I don't think there are secular justifications for banning gay marriage. Even for those who believe that gay parents are less than ideal (an entirely rational position), Prop 8 doesn't further your cause. It would take legislation that is much stronger and much less constitutionally sound than Prop 8 to stop gay adoptions.

[LA Ute]

Because you and others keep talking about people being selfish for wanting to have children as a single parent or as gay parents.

Is it not selfish to want to have a 6th child when you already rely on welfare and Medicaid for your other 5 for example?

If your concerns are about providing the best situation for a child, these situations should also be of concern I would think.

There's nothing in my argument that condones selfishness by anyone.

[tooblue]

It seems to me that society makes that decision. In other words, society decides which ideals it will seek to encourage and reinforce, when it comes to social issues. In a perfect world (an ideal world) that would be done after a full and fair debate. That is what is happening right now regarding same sex marriage. Of course ideals are not reality. That's the nature of an ideal. We strive for it, we encourage it, we support it. A lot of us are simply saying that the ideal family is one in which child is raised by a male father and a female mother, in a a low conflict marriage. Obviously that is not realized as often as we'd all like. But it is worth striving for. In other words, it is an ideal.

Offering a different perspective, I live in a country where same-sex marriage is legal. It has been for a while. Society hasn't crumbled (yet :D). children from all types of stable homes are doing as well as they always have been. Anecdotally, I would say there isn't a deluge of gay and lesbian couples rushing to adopt children. In fact, not much has changed. Most people of my generation (gen-x) are simply choosing not to have or adopt children, be they straight or gay couples. That's causing different problems.

In particular, my children attend school with a few children of same-sex parents. A couple of which live in our neighbourhood. The children from those homes strike me as well-adjusted, good kids. They are a reflection of good parenting. We interact with these parents regularly at school functions and in sports. I have coached a couple of the boys in little league football.

While I feel the optimum environment for a child is in a home with a mother and a father, dedicated to good parenting. At this point, I am grateful for the good people, straight or gay who have or are choosing to have children and fully commit to good parenting. Ultimately, as a father of five, it makes my job as a parent a little easier. Also, I am grateful for the single mothers and fathers I know who raise good children for the same reasons. We have several in our Ward. I home teach several. Their struggle is all together different and much more challenging.

As an aside, legalizing same-sex marriage has had sociological effects. Put plainly, I feel I no longer have a political voice in society. If I comment on the issue, regardless of what I say, I am labeled a bigot and I could even be charged with committing a hate speech offence that carries the risk of fines and censure. Basically, I just sit and listen and do my best to get along.

[SeattleUte]

Yes. My point in raising the example of my former partner who chose to have a child by artificial insemination without any intention of ever marrying anyone (of either sex) was that parenthood is not all about adult wishes. I was happy for her but found her choice troubling.

Similarly, gay parents who have children are making a fundamental choice for that child. It's intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise. (I'm not saying you are doing that.) We can argue all we want about the social science, but a child growing up with same-sex parents is going to grow up without a mother or without a father. Someday he or she may resent that, or at least wonder why he or he was put in that situation. Maybe people are OK with that, but to pretend it's not an important consideration seems cavalier to me.

Good grief. I venture that if any one of us -- including those of us raised by parents who loved us and didn't abuse us, provided us a bed, a roof, medical care, education, and a reasonable quantum of good memories -- can't find something significant to resent about our parents we're not being reflective. As a poster noted, parents are flawed in myriad ways, under the best of circumstances; that is part of the nature of the beast. So is the uniqueness of each parent and child experience intrinsic to the experience. I defy anyone to define the optimal such experience.

LA, you are just rationalizing your past very public opposition to gay marriage. I'm sorry, but here's what's going on with you. You and the LDS church made a hard public turn against gay marriage, and now, as happened with the LDS Church's strong opposition to the right of black children to attend the same schools as white children, you suddenly find yourselves on the wrong side of public opinion, and the wrong side of history. Whatever the Supreme Court decides we know where this debate is going to wind up. My speculation (even based on some of his comments) is that Scailia will be less smarty pants about this issue than usual, at the very least. Does he want to be remembered as akin to Chief Justice Henry Billings Brown, who handed down the majority opinion in Plessy? Or as akin to Justice John Marshall Harlan "the Great Dissenter" who issued the lone dissent? However he responds to this appeal, this question about his historic legacy and public reputation has to weigh on Scalia, especially now, at his age.

You are right to be troubled about this historic turn of events. Those who publicly opposed gay marriage, who led support for Prop. 8, will be shadowed by this their entire lives, including in the eyes of their own children. I appreciate that you are reflective and troubled by this. But the constant efforts to rationalize, especially citing pseudoscience and involving the children in doing so, won't change the past, and only exacerbates the problem.

[tooblue]

Good grief. I venture that if any one of us -- including those of us raised by parents who loved us and didn't abuse us, provided us a bed, a roof, medical care, education, and a reasonable quantum of good memories -- can't find something significant to resent about our parents we're not being reflective. As a poster noted, parents are flawed in myriad ways, under the best of circumstances; that is part of the nature of the beast. So is the uniqueness of each parent and child experience intrinsic to the experience. 1-I defy anyone to define the optimal such experience.

LA, you are just rationalizing your past very public opposition to gay marriage. I'm sorry, but here's what's going on with you. You and the LDS church made a hard public turn against gay marriage, and now, as happened with the LDS Church's strong opposition to the right of black children to attend the same schools as white children, you suddenly find yourselves on the wrong side of public opinion, and 2-the wrong side of history. Whatever the Supreme Court decides we know where this debate is going to wind up. My speculation (even based on some of his comments) is that Scailia will be less smarty pants about this issue than usual, at the very least. Does he want to be remembered as akin to Chief Justice Henry Billings Brown, who handed down the majority opinion in Plessy? Or as akin to Justice John Marshall Harlan "the Great Dissenter" who issued the lone dissent? However he responds to this appeal, this question about his historic legacy and public reputation has to weigh on Scalia, especially now, at his age.

You are right to be troubled about this historic turn of events. Those who publicly opposed gay marriage, who led support for Prop. 8, will be shadowed by this their entire lives, 3-including in the eyes of their own children. I appreciate that you are reflective and troubled by this. But the constant efforts to rationalize, especially citing pseudoscience and involving the children in doing so, won't change the past, and only exacerbates the problem.

1.No one has to, nature already has.

2. I hear this often, but it rings hollow. It's a felicitous argument but, also a fallacious one. History is written by the victors. History is also, in large part, fiction. History repeats itself. Civilizations and societies rise and fall. So, ultimately, each failed society is on the wrong side of history. It's not a trumpet I'd think you'd want to be trumpeting.

3. This line of reasoning is despicable and hurtful—you should be more careful not to cast your own insecurities onto others. Based on what I know, LA's children will look on him and his contributions to their happiness and well-being with reverence and fondness.

[SeattleUte]

As an aside, legalizing same-sex marriage has had sociological effects. Put plainly, I feel I no longer have a political voice in society. If I comment on the issue, regardless of what I say, I am labeled a bigot and I could even be charged with committing a hate speech offence that carries the risk of fines and censure. Basically, I just sit and listen and do my best to get along.

The preceding, thoughtful paragraphs in your post go a long way toward explaining society's emerging consensus in reaction to opposition to gay marriage that you describe in your last one. I applaud your reflective regard for same sex parents of your children's friends and classmates. (By the way, in the U.S. hate speech is not a crime nor a basis for civil liablity. But there are adverse social consequences.) Do you feel you no longer have a political voice in society because people with whom you interact would react with repugnance and draw adverse conclusions about your character if you expressed support for racial segregation?

[SeattleUte]

1.No one has to, nature already has.

2. I hear this often, but it rings hollow. It's a felicitous argument but, also a fallacious one. History is written by the victors. History is also, in large part, fiction. History repeats itself. Civilizations and societies rise and fall. So, ultimately, each failed society is on the wrong side of history. It's not a trumpet I'd think you'd want to be trumpeting.

3. This line of reasoning is despicable and hurtful—you should be more careful not to cast your own insecurities onto others. Based on what I know, LA's children will look on him and his contributions to their happiness and well-being with reverence and fondness.

Our society is different. We have been defined for better and worse by our civil liberties struggles and breakthroughs. In that sense, the LDS Church has been shamefully on the wrong side of history without exception. Opposing social progress is what the LDS Church is all about.

[GarthUte]

Our society is different. We have been defined for better and worse by our civil liberties struggles and breakthroughs. In that sense, the LDS Church has been shamefully on the wrong side of history without exception. Opposing social progress is what the LDS Church is all about.


Yeah, in 1870, those Mormons in the Utah territory that allowed women to vote sure had it wrong, didn't they?

[tooblue]

The preceding, thoughtful paragraphs in your post go a long way toward explaining society's emerging consensus in reaction to opposition to gay marriage that you describe in your last one. I applaud your reflective regard for same sex parents of your children's friends and classmates. (By the way, in the U.S. hate speech is not a crime nor a basis for civil liablity. But there are adverse social consequences.) Do you feel you no longer have a political voice in society because people with whom you interact would react with repugnance and draw adverse conclusions about your character if you expressed support for racial segregation?

Racial segregation? I don't follow. Racial segregation isn't in question. I have family who are black. Many of my closest friends at church are black or Sri Lankan. These are people I interact with most. As well as the people I can have open and honest conversations with.

As far as having a political voice in regards to same-sex marriage, it's fear. Fear that the prejudices of people I associate with in society as a whole will be revealed in the process of discourse. Fear of discourse all together. Also, the hate speech laws in Canada have increasingly been used as a weapon of intimidation of sorts. The law was supposed to mostly address racial and unduly sexist of sexual orientation hatred. But, increasingly litigious homsexual individuals have wielded it against their neighbours in property disputes.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1954734

[tooblue]

Our society is different. We have been defined for better and worse by our civil liberties struggles and breakthroughs. In that sense, the LDS Church has been shamefully on the wrong side of history without exception. Opposing social progress is what the LDS Church is all about.

In your fiction/history that may be true. Truth is relative. This society will fail. Or, maybe a better word is it will evolve. And what is left behind or what vanishes will be on the wrong side of history.

Sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ is what the LDS Church is all about.

[SeattleUte]

Racial segregation? I don't follow. Racial segregation isn't in question. I have family who are black. Many of my closest friends at church are black or Sri Lankan. These are people I interact with most. As well as the people I can have open and honest conversations with.

As far as having a political voice in regards to same-sex marriage, it's fear. Fear that the prejudices of people I associate with in society as a whole own prejudices will be revealed in the process of discourse. Fear of discourse all together. Also, the hate speech laws in Canada have increasingly been used as a weapon of intimidation of sorts. The law was supposed to mostly address racial and unduly sexist of sexual orientation hatred. But, increasingly litigious homsexual individuals have wielded it against their neighbours in property disputes.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1954734

lol Segregation is not in question with whom? Your comment that your society will loath you if you express opposition to gay marriage shows that gay marriage is as settled as racial segregation. Hence my analogy. I'm glad you're getting a clue.

Citing the gospel of Jesus Christ as your authority for opposing gay marriage suggests this thread should be returned to the religion forum.

[SeattleUte]

Yeah, in 1870, those Mormons in the Utah territory that allowed women to vote sure had it wrong, didn't they?

They only did it to try to retain a voting majority of LDS.

[tooblue]

lol Segregation is not in question with whom? Your comment that your society will loath you if you express opposition to gay marriage shows that gay marriage is as settled as racial segregation. Hence my analogy. I'm glad you're getting a clue.

You didn't make an analogy, you made an allegation. A piss poor one. Sexuality is the same as race? Honestly, SU? You really want to play this game? Take the opportunity to speak directly to a person of a different race about this subject. I did on Sunday at Easter dinner. Then, maybe you will get a clue.

I didn't cite religion as my reasoning for any opposition I might have. I corrected your assertion about the purpose of the LDS church. That is a political issue.

[GarthUte]

They only did it to try to retain a voting majority of LDS.

Prove it. Your opinion is not fact.

[SeattleUte]

You didn't make an analogy, you made an allegation. A piss poor one. Sexuality is the same as race? Honestly, SU? You really want to play this game? Take the opportunity to speak directly to a person of a different race about this subject. I did on Sunday at Easter dinner. Then, maybe you will get a clue.

I've told you before, I'm not interested in your crackpot theories about race vs. other immutable characteristics (even the Pope doesn't believe sexual preference or orientation is a choice; neither does the American Psychiatric Association). Last time you went down that road you got yourself into some hot water. Please keep this latest anecdote to yourself.

[tooblue]

I've told you before, I'm not interested in your crackpot theories about race vs. other immutable characteristics (even the Pope doesn't believe sexual preference or orientation is a choice; neither does the American Psychiatric Association). Last time you went down that road you got yourself into some hot water. Please keep this latest anecdote to yourself.

Last time we went down this road you proved yourself an ignorant racist and religious bigot. It's funny how you keep bringing it up. It's almost as if you feel you have sprung some trap ... today is the day you might realize your vengeance. It has been weighing on your conscious. Your galling behaviour in particular must be difficult to live with. I hope you find some solace about your lack of awareness and enlightenment at some point.

[Uncle Ted]

Hmm... Michael Reagan, Ronnie's son, says that legalizing same-sex marriages will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and even murder! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303173/Ronald-Reagans-son-says-legalizing-sex-marriage-lead-polygamy-bestiality-murder.html) I guess it is a good thing that the government stepped in and stopped all those LDS polygamists in their tracks before things really got out of hand.

[LA Ute]

Offering a different perspective, I live in a country where same-sex marriage is legal. It has been for a while. Society hasn't crumbled (yet :D). children from all types of stable homes are doing as well as they always have been. Anecdotally, I would say there isn't a deluge of gay and lesbian couples rushing to adopt children. In fact, not much has changed. Most people of my generation (gen-x) are simply choosing not to have or adopt children, be they straight or gay couples. That's causing different problems.

In particular, my children attend school with a few children of same-sex parents. A couple of which live in our neighbourhood. The children from those homes strike me as well-adjusted, good kids. They are a reflection of good parenting. We interact with these parents regularly at school functions and in sports. I have coached a couple of the boys in little league football.

While I feel the optimum environment for a child is in a home with a mother and a father, dedicated to good parenting. At this point, I am grateful for the good people, straight or gay who have or are choosing to have children and fully commit to good parenting. Ultimately, as a father of five, it makes my job as a parent a little easier. Also, I am grateful for the single mothers and fathers I know who raise good children for the same reasons. We have several in our Ward. I home teach several. Their struggle is all together different and much more challenging.

As an aside, legalizing same-sex marriage has had sociological effects. Put plainly, I feel I no longer have a political voice in society. If I comment on the issue, regardless of what I say, I am labeled a bigot and I could even be charged with committing a hate speech offence that carries the risk of fines and censure. Basically, I just sit and listen and do my best to get along.

I have said this before but I'll say it again. I do not think gay marriage will cause society to crumble. I also know excellent same-sex parents. As a matter of conscience and principle, I am dismayed that gay marriage appears inevitable. But lots of societal trends dismay me. The increasing number of unmarried couples having children dismays me too. What I am fighting is another trend, best exemplified by its most extreme proponent here, SU, whose emotions sometimes seem to control his thinking. That trend is to legitimize thought crimes, and to label anyone who is even dismayed by the trend towards same-sex marriage as an evil, bigoted and hateful person at worst, dotty and old-fashioned at best. I think my opponents in this debate are wrong; they think I'm evil. It's typical of the Left to demonize the opposition that way, which is why it's so ironic that our libertarian friend SU has succumbed to that tactic.

I recommend to everyone this Ross Douthat op-ed in the N.Y. Times: Marriage, Procreation and Historical Amnesia (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/marriage-procreation-and-historical-amnesia/). Excerpt:


But [Kevin Drum] and others seem to be making a much stronger claim than this — that basically nobody would have imagined that the gay marriage debate had any implications for marriage’s connection to procreation if the anti-gay marriage cause hadn’t seized on the idea, and that the marriage-procreation link is (at best) a medieval relic exhumed to serve the ends of homophobia, and at worst just something invented by social conservatives out of animus and desperation.

That so many people find this claim credible or even self-evident is a small but potent example of exactly the two phenemona that my column’s conclusion discussed: First, the way that gay marriage inevitably has widening cultural ripple effects, in this case revising not only the law itself but also the stories people tell about where those laws came from and what they’re meant to do; and second, the way that some of these ripple effects are making it almost impossible for liberals to show magnanimity in victory, and accept the continued existence of people and institutions that still take the older view of what marriage is and means. After all, if that supposedly “older” view was just invented by Clinton or Bush-era homophobes when their Bible-thumping stopped working, then what’s to respect or even tolerate? Once you’ve rewritten the past to make your opponents look worse, then you’re well on your way to justifying writing them out of the future entirely.

This is a reasoned argument. SU, go ahead and call names and attack individuals' character, but I'd love to see some reasoned responses from someone.

[Rocker Ute]

Our society is different. We have been defined for better and worse by our civil liberties struggles and breakthroughs. In that sense, the LDS Church has been shamefully on the wrong side of history without exception. Opposing social progress is what the LDS Church is all about.

Without exception... sheesh.

Except, of course, things like immigration reforms or its stance on education through things like the perpetual education fund, among many others. It is easier to battle against something that you can make in your mind to be absolute evil though. Hey we all do it. I just heard a story about a guy I consider the be the biggest slimeball I've ever met paying the legal fees of a battered woman trying to escape her abusive husband out of his own pocket. I spent a bit of time trying to figure out the real evil motive he had for doing such a thing before I came to the realization that even 'bad dudes' are complex just like me.

[SeattleUte]

I have said this before but I'll say it again. I do not think gay marriage will cause society to crumble. I also know excellent same-sex parents. As a matter of conscience and principle, I am dismayed that gay marriage appears inevitable. But lots of societal trends dismay me. The increasing number of unmarried couples having children dismays me too. What I am fighting is another trend, best exemplified by its most extreme proponent here, SU, whose emotions sometimes seem to control his thinking. That trend is to legitimize thought crimes, and to label anyone who is even dismayed by the trend towards same-sex marriage as an evil, bigoted and hateful person at worst, dotty and old-fashioned at best. I think my opponents in this debate are wrong; they think I'm evil. It's typical of the Left to demonize the opposition that way, which is why it's so ironic that our libertarian friend SU has succumbed to that tactic.

I recommend to everyone this Ross Douthat op-ed in the N.Y. Times: Marriage, Procreation and Historical Amnesia (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/marriage-procreation-and-historical-amnesia/). Excerpt:



This is a reasoned argument. SU, go ahead and call names and attack individuals' character, but I'd love to see some reasoned responses from someone.

All Douthat is saying is that gay marriage supporters need to be more "magnanimous" and not call gay marriage opponents bigots and ignoramuses and such. He's not arguing against gay marraige or that it's bad for kds.

[LA Ute]

All Douthat is saying is that gay marriage supporters need to be more "magnanimous" and not call gay marriage opponents bigots and ignoramuses and such. He's not arguing against gay marraige or that it's bad for kds.

You obviously read only the portion of his column that I excerpted.

[Solon]

Last time we went down this road you proved yourself an ignorant racist and religious bigot. It's funny how you keep bringing it up. It's almost as if you feel you have sprung some trap ... today is the day you might realize your vengeance. It has been weighing on your conscious. Your galling behaviour in particular must be difficult to live with. I hope you find some solace about your lack of awareness and enlightenment at some point.

Let's give tooblue a break.
I think he has been very open and forthcoming in this thread - and his prophecy has come true. tooblue noted that those who disagree with his opinion on this matter call him a hate-speeching bigot, and then we go and call him a hate-speeching bigot.

There are intelligent people of conviction on both sides of this issue. I have my own convictions on this issue, and I respect others who are following their own convictions.

My objection is not with those who are following their religious convictions; it's with the religious institutions who claim their allegiances.

A ten-minute talk on Sunday morning from the right person could switch those Mormon allegiances in the twinkling of an eye.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Let's give tooblue a break.
I think he has been very open and forthcoming in this thread - and his prophecy has come true. tooblue noted that those who disagree with his opinion on this matter call him a hate-speeching bigot, and then we go and call him a hate-speeching bigot.

There are intelligent people of conviction on both sides of this issue. I have my own convictions on this issue, and I respect others who are following their own convictions.

My objection is not with those who are following their religious convictions; it's with the religious institutions who claim their allegiances.

A ten-minute talk on Sunday morning from the right person could switch those Mormon allegiances in the twinkling of an eye.


Well said. TooBlue, we have frequently butted heads, but I have never felt attacked for my differing opinions. Hopefully, you have felt the same.

[LA Ute]

Hey, I'm trying to be like tooblue. (Kind of reminds me of a Primary song.) Am I succeeding? Coming close?

[tooblue]

Well said. TooBlue, we have frequently butted heads, but I have never felt attacked for my differing opinions. Hopefully, you have felt the same.

SU and I have a long history of animus. I do not wish to dredge it up. I don't think he does either. Maybe he is having a bad day. I will choose my words more wisely. I have not felt attacked for my opinion. I do regret all of my spelling errors and poor grammar—I shouldn't post from my phone.

[SeattleUte]

You obviously read only the portion of his column that I excerpted.

Here is the crux of it:


Half a generation later, Sullivan’s view has carried the day almost completely. The conservative argument still has serious exponents (http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/what-is-marriage/), but it’s now chuckled at in courtrooms, dismissed by intellectuals, mocked in the media and (in a sudden, recent rush) abandoned by politicians. Indeed, it has been abandoned by Frum himself, who is now energetically urging Republicans to embrace the redefinition of marriage he once warned against.

Yet for an argument that has persuaded so few, the conservative view has actually had decent predictive power. As the cause of gay marriage has pressed forward, the social link between marriage and childbearing has indeed weakened faster than before. As the public’s shift (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage/) on the issue has accelerated, so has marriage’s overall decline (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/what-was-the-familys-least-bad-decade/).

Since Frum warned that gay marriage could advance only at traditional wedlock’s expense, the marriage rate (http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SOOU2012.pdf) has been falling faster, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has been rising faster, and the substitution of cohabitation for marriage has markedly increased. Underlying these trends is a steady shift in values: Americans are less likely to see children as important to marriage (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2007/07/01/as-marriage-and-parenthood-drift-apart-public-is-concerned-about-social-impact/) and less likely to see marriage as important to childbearing (the generation gap on gay marriage shows up on unwed parenting as well) than even in the very recent past.

Correlations do not, of course, establish causation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/douthat-marriage-looks-different-now.html

Notwithstanding the consession that he had to make in the bolded sentence, I have never seen a more disingenuous proximate cause argument. Heterosexuals have excluded gays from marriage for 5,000 years including the last ten, but Douthat blames gays for the institution's decline over the past ten because gays want to be a part of it. lol

it seems heterosexuals are only now admitting gays to an institution after heterosexuals themselves have done it significant damage. We heterosexuals have been the stewards of marriage the past 5,000 years, including the past 10 years. Good lord, let's not blame its decline on gays whom we have excluded from it for 5,000 years. Douthat's column is pretzel logic, not reason.

[LA Ute]

SU and I have a long history of animus. I do not wish to dredge it up. I don't think he does either. Maybe he is having a bad day. I will choose my words more wisely. I have not felt attacked for my opinion. I do regret all of my spelling errors and poor grammar—I shouldn't post from my phone.

Don't worry. If we are willing to let "colour" go by, why do you think we would sweat a few spelling errors? It's just part of the Anglicisation of the board. ;)

[SeattleUte]

Reading and writing about the Douthat piece it occurred to me that the very issue of whether marriage has been "damaged" or what constitutes damage to marriage is a very subjective thing. I see marriage -- like Rocker's bad dude acquaintance -- as very complicated. My feelings about it are complicated, as marriage itself has been an instrument of much oppression and suffering. Actually, I prefer it now to what it was ten, twenty or even fifty years ago. Do any of us want to eliminate no fault divorce? As for the children, having lived through a divorce after children, and witnessed many, I can say that it's often not so clear whether the kids are worse or better off as a result of the divorce. I believe what damage is done is caused by divorcing parents who see themselves and their own interests as too enmeshed with the lives of their children, who have distinct interests and are autonomous beings. Thank god for villages.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Reading and writing about the Douthat piece it occurred to me that the very issue of whether marriage has been "damaged" or what constitutes damage to marriage is a very subjective thing. I see marriage -- like Rocker's bad dude acquaintance -- as very complicated. My feelings about it are complicated, as marriage itself has been an instrument of much oppression and suffering. Actually, I prefer it now to what it was ten, twenty or even fifty years ago. Do any of us want to eliminate no fault divorce? As for the children, having lived through a divorce after children, and witnessed many, I can say that it's often not so clear whether the kids are worse or better off as a result of the divorce. I believe what damage is done is caused by divorcing parents who see themselves and their own interests as too enmeshed with the lives of their children, who have distinct interests and are autonomous beings. Thank god for villages.


Count my dad and my wife in the long list of people who wish their parents would have gotten divorced instead of "sticking it out for the kids".

[SoCalCoug]

Hmm... Michael Reagan, Ronnie's son, says that legalizing same-sex marriages will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and even murder! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303173/Ronald-Reagans-son-says-legalizing-sex-marriage-lead-polygamy-bestiality-murder.html) I guess it is a good thing that the government stepped in and stopped all those LDS polygamists in their tracks before things really got out of hand.

This is a good point. I often see polygamy as a point on that slippery slope between gay marriage and sex with goats. Did LDS polygamists ever try to bring Bessie and Trigger in as animal wives? Or is it ridiculous to think polygamy is a step toward bestiality?

[scottie]

This is a good point. I often see polygamy as a point on that slippery slope between gay marriage and sex with goats. Did LDS polygamists ever try to bring Bessie and Trigger in as animal wives? Or is it ridiculous to think polygamy is a step toward bestiality?

:rofl:

[UtahDan]

Count my dad and my wife in the long list of people who wish their parents would have gotten divorced instead of "sticking it out for the kids".

Modeling a dysfunctional marriage is one of the most damaging things a parent can do apart from abuse.

[LA Ute]

I'd just like to make clear that I am not in favor of modeling dysfunctional marriages or staying in them. :D

[Rocker Ute]

One thing we haven't talked about is how kids screw up parents. I think that needs to be addressed.

Like take today. My 9yo has saved up enough money to buy one of those Lego Mindstorms kits, where you can program them and learn some things about robotics. So we were joking about some of the things that it could do. The best idea that he came up with was a 'robot that will come and visit you guys in the rest home when you get old so I don't have to.'

I have to admit, the kid has promise.

[LA Ute]

It occurs to me that it's time for my periodic educational note: Although SU and I often go at it hammer and tongs on certain issues, we actually like each other. This fact is not always obvious to those who haven't been watching us on these boards for 10+ years. Of course, I really shouldn't speak for SU, but in addition to being wrong most of the time, he's actually quite shy at heart, so I feel compelled to explain him to people.

[SeattleUte]

It occurs to me that it's time for my periodic educational note: Although SU and I often go at it hammer and tongs on certain issues, we actually like each other. This fact is not always obvious to those who haven't been watching us on these boards for 10+ years. Of course, I really shouldn't speak for SU, but in addition to being wrong most of the time, he's actually quite shy at heart, so I feel compelled to explain him to people.

yes!

[Diehard Ute]

Do you two need a room? ;D

[SeattleUte]

One thing we haven't talked about is how kids screw up parents. I think that needs to be addressed.

Like take today. My 9yo has saved up enough money to buy one of those Lego Mindstorms kits, where you can program them and learn some things about robotics. So we were joking about some of the things that it could do. The best idea that he came up with was a 'robot that will come and visit you guys in the rest home when you get old so I don't have to.'

I have to admit, the kid has promise.

We waste away and wear out our lives on our kids, and they'll never grant us our humanity. Ultimately they'll regard us as more burden than anything else. But do you know what? I feel so strongly that's the way it is supposed to be -- a completely thankless undertaking; it's all about them. Parenting has to be its own quiet reward. I look at acqauintances who consciously decided not to have kids and I'm kind of in awe. I admire their clarity, their self-knowledge. I never dared not to have any for fear of getting old and regretting not having had any. I have always thought that would be unbearable, and since I was a teen that fear has never abated, even as I've wasted away and worn out my life on my kids. Maybe in another life I'll see what it's like to go childless.

[Rocker Ute]

We waste away and wear out our lives on our kids, and they'll never grant us our humanity. Ultimately they'll regard us as more burden than anything else. But do you know what? I feel so strongly that's the way it is supposed to be -- a completely thankless undertaking; it's all about them. Parenting has to be its own quiet reward. I look at acqauintances who consciously decided not to have kids and I'm kind of in awe. I admire their clarity, their self-knowledge. I never dared not to have any for fear of getting old and regretting not having had any. I have always thought that would be unbearable, and since I was a teen that fear has never abated, even as I've wasted away and worn out my life on my kids. Maybe in another life I'll see what it's like to go childless.

My mom is disabled and was throughout my entire life. I never realized that she was 'disabled' until my adult years when she first got her handicapped license plates and I thought, "Why is she getting those... Oh yeah."

That may seem weird, because I was perfectly aware of her physical limitations, but she never lived her life like she was disabled. She worked so hard to compensate for that, working through enormous pain and never mentioning it to provide me and my siblings with what really was and idyllic life. Sadly doing that truly did wear her out and has diminished her quality of life today. I wish that my kids knew and could see the woman who raised me.

I know many people resent their parents and often with very good reason. There may have been a time in my life when I did too, but parenthood has helped me recognize the humanity of my parents and allowed me to forgive them for their shortcomings. Even without that they provided for me a great life and more and a good model for my own parenting attempts.

I'll admit, that affects my world view. My father and mother were devoted to each other and us and were good people and provided what I think is an exceptional model for society.

One time I was kidding around with my mom and I said to her, "Come on, I have three kids now, you can tell the truth: Kids destroy your life."

She laughed about that. The sad thing is it is quite true, we in many ways did destroy her life. She lives in an enormous amount of discomfort with limited mobility because of her sacrifices for us. But then she got quite serious and said to me, "You kids have given me my life and taken it further than I could have gone on my own. I really hope you don't feel that way."

I really don't. My kids are doing the same to me (the giving me life thing). I don't say that to rub it in anyone's face, or anything else. I get that some people would love kids and can't have them and others chose not to. I don't understand that choice. As a big fan of entropy and decay and with a bit of love of the notion that I will disappear, my kids are the only monument I will leave behind. I hope they are a great one.

[Diehard Ute]

get that some people would love kids and can't have them and others chose not to. I don't understand that choice. As a big fan of entropy and decay and with a bit of love of the notion that I will disappear, my kids are the only monument I will leave behind. I hope they are a great one.

I'm one who has chosen not to have kids. It really isn't for me. I fully recognize the things I enjoy in life couples with my work, along with just my general feeling about kids means I have no desire to be a parent.

I have a couple friends with kids, I do a lot with them, but a few hours here and there for me is fine.

In that same vein, I can't fathom people wanting 10 kids. So hey ;)

[SeattleUte]

My mom is disabled and was throughout my entire life. I never realized that she was 'disabled' until my adult years when she first got her handicapped license plates and I thought, "Why is she getting those... Oh yeah."

That may seem weird, because I was perfectly aware of her physical limitations, but she never lived her life like she was disabled. She worked so hard to compensate for that, working through enormous pain and never mentioning it to provide me and my siblings with what really was and idyllic life. Sadly doing that truly did wear her out and has diminished her quality of life today. I wish that my kids knew and could see the woman who raised me.

I know many people resent their parents and often with very good reason. There may have been a time in my life when I did too, but parenthood has helped me recognize the humanity of my parents and allowed me to forgive them for their shortcomings. Even without that they provided for me a great life and more and a good model for my own parenting attempts.

I'll admit, that affects my world view. My father and mother were devoted to each other and us and were good people and provided what I think is an exceptional model for society.

One time I was kidding around with my mom and I said to her, "Come on, I have three kids now, you can tell the truth: Kids destroy your life."

She laughed about that. The sad thing is it is quite true, we in many ways did destroy her life. She lives in an enormous amount of discomfort with limited mobility because of her sacrifices for us. But then she got quite serious and said to me, "You kids have given me my life and taken it further than I could have gone on my own. I really hope you don't feel that way."

I really don't. My kids are doing the same to me (the giving me life thing). I don't say that to rub it in anyone's face, or anything else. I get that some people would love kids and can't have them and others chose not to. I don't understand that choice. As a big fan of entropy and decay and with a bit of love of the notion that I will disappear, my kids are the only monument I will leave behind. I hope they are a great one.

Awesome.

[LA Ute]

My mom is disabled and was throughout my entire life. I never realized that she was 'disabled' until my adult years when she first got her handicapped license plates and I thought, "Why is she getting those... Oh yeah."

That may seem weird, because I was perfectly aware of her physical limitations, but she never lived her life like she was disabled. She worked so hard to compensate for that, working through enormous pain and never mentioning it to provide me and my siblings with what really was and idyllic life. Sadly doing that truly did wear her out and has diminished her quality of life today. I wish that my kids knew and could see the woman who raised me.

I know many people resent their parents and often with very good reason. There may have been a time in my life when I did too, but parenthood has helped me recognize the humanity of my parents and allowed me to forgive them for their shortcomings. Even without that they provided for me a great life and more and a good model for my own parenting attempts.

I'll admit, that affects my world view. My father and mother were devoted to each other and us and were good people and provided what I think is an exceptional model for society.

One time I was kidding around with my mom and I said to her, "Come on, I have three kids now, you can tell the truth: Kids destroy your life."

She laughed about that. The sad thing is it is quite true, we in many ways did destroy her life. She lives in an enormous amount of discomfort with limited mobility because of her sacrifices for us. But then she got quite serious and said to me, "You kids have given me my life and taken it further than I could have gone on my own. I really hope you don't feel that way."

I really don't. My kids are doing the same to me (the giving me life thing). I don't say that to rub it in anyone's face, or anything else. I get that some people would love kids and can't have them and others chose not to. I don't understand that choice. As a big fan of entropy and decay and with a bit of love of the notion that I will disappear, my kids are the only monument I will leave behind. I hope they are a great one.

Wonderful. I understand what you are saying. My dad was deaf (profoundly hearing disabled). He had cerebral meningitis as a baby and the resulting "nerve deafness" was his life-long companion. He had about 25% of his hearing in the early part of his life, then lost it all in his early 50s. When I was young, that was just my dad, hearing aid and all. As I got into my teenage years I understood that he was different, but he was still just Dad, and I watched him go through a hard time as his hearing loss, always a major disability and disappointment in his life, turned into a mid-life catastrophe. The way he handled that blow for the rest of his life has been a priceless gift to all of his children and even to his grandchildren, as we have shared his story with them. He was the kindest, gentlest man I've ever known. and lived one of those "small" lives with a huge impact. I think of him very day and try (with limited success) to be like him. If I can have 1/10 the positive impact on my kids that he had on his, I'll feel like a successful parent.

[UtahDan]

Elder Perrry's talk yesterday could not have been very encouraging to my gay and lesbian friends who hope that the church will someday recognize same sex unions. His comments were to the effect that sex is only appropriate between men and women who are married and this is an immutable unchanging truth. I suspect that his quote in that regard will find its way into more than a few correlated materials.

I have never thought that a change like this is possible though I am sympathetic to people who wish that it was.

[LA Ute]

Conservative icons disagree on gay marriage in Utah speeches (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865578167/Conservative-icons-disagree-on-gay-marriage-in-Utah-speeches.html?pg=1)

[Sullyute]

Conservative icons disagree on gay marriage in Utah speeches (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865578167/Conservative-icons-disagree-on-gay-marriage-in-Utah-speeches.html?pg=1)

I read to this bombastic quote in the second paragragh and stopped reading...

"Folks I am here to tell you, if you lose the battle on marriage, ther will be no protecting religious liberty."

How can you have a dialogue with someone that thinks that way?

[NorthwestUteFan]

I wonder if Princeton is embarrassed by him? That is a very closed-minded and untenable position.

[concerned]

Mike Leavitt is such a huge ambassador for the church these days re religious liberty and first amendment issues, and the church's reach out to other denominations, that his statements cant be seen simply as the statements of a conservative private citizen, and former public official.

[LA Ute]

Mike Leavitt is such a huge ambassador for the church these days re religious liberty and first amendment issues, and the church's reach out to other denominations, that his statements cant be seen simply as the statements of a conservative private citizen, and former public official.

That's why I posted the link.

[concerned]

That's why I posted the link.

I thought the DNews was sort of coy in its headline; Leavitt is more than just a "conservative icon" in this context.

[UtahDan]

I read to this bombastic quote in the second paragragh and stopped reading...

"Folks I am here to tell you, if you lose the battle on marriage, ther will be no protecting religious liberty."

How can you have a dialogue with someone that thinks that way?

I think the biggest risk is the loss of the tax exemption. There is precedent for that.

[LA Ute]

I think the biggest risk is the loss of the tax exemption. There is precedent for that.

That's why the church is pursuing an accommodation strategy, in its way. IMO, of course.

[Sullyute]

I think the biggest risk is the loss of the tax exemption. There is precedent for that.

Help me understand. How does gay marriage affect the church's tax exempt status?

[Solon]

It seems like almost all of these articles lately refer to a conservative's "conversion" to the pro-gay-marriage side, after a friend/loved one/other comes out. I know that my own friendships with homosexual men & women played a role in forming my thoughts about this issue.

Is it really just a matter of waiting until everyone knows and cares about a homosexual person?

Also, are there examples of people going the other direction? Is anyone who was formerly in favor of gay-marriage, or even on the fence switching over to the anti-gay-marriage camp?

[Rocker Ute]

Help me understand. How does gay marriage affect the church's tax exempt status?

There are already attempts in California to pass bills that would strip organizations like the Boy Scouts from their tax exempt status for not allowing gays into their organization. There have been many assurances that nobody would ever require churches to perform gay marriages, but there have been no assurances about tax-exempt statuses. And isn't that a sticky issue, where we begin to dictate as a government how a religion must act to keep such status? We begin to tread on some dangerous grounds if we get there.

[Sullyute]

There are already attempts in California to pass bills that would strip organizations like the Boy Scouts from their tax exempt status for not allowing gays into their organization. There have been many assurances that nobody would ever require churches to perform gay marriages, but there have been no assurances about tax-exempt statuses. And isn't that a sticky issue, where we begin to dictate as a government how a religion must act to keep such status? We begin to tread on some dangerous grounds if we get there.

The government tells me how to act (laws and punishments) and how to pay taxes (irs levies). I don't think that every organization is on equal standing to receive special tax benefits. If it ever came to that point, which I don't think it will, they could simply not marry anybody by the laws of the land but just perform religous sealings in the temple. A very easy work around in my opinion.

[UtahDan]

There are already attempts in California to pass bills that would strip organizations like the Boy Scouts from their tax exempt status for not allowing gays into their organization. There have been many assurances that nobody would ever require churches to perform gay marriages, but there have been no assurances about tax-exempt statuses. And isn't that a sticky issue, where we begin to dictate as a government how a religion must act to keep such status? We begin to tread on some dangerous grounds if we get there.

I wouldn't take away their tax exempt status but I would treat them just like any other 501(c)(3).

[LA Ute]

All churches in the USA are going to watch carefully any governmental development that tends to hem them in.

[Solon]

All churches in the USA are going to watch carefully any governmental development that tends to hem them in.

The Economist's Daily Chart:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/04/daily-chart-14

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/04/blogs/graphic-detail/20130427_gdm936.png

Even Uruguay is on board with gay marriage.

[SeattleUte]

All churches in the USA are going to watch carefully any governmental development that tends to hem them in.

:rolleyes:

[LA Ute]

:rolleyes:

In case you haven't noticed, American religions are pretty watchful over their First Amendment rights. That's all I was saying.

Meanwhile, this is an interesting piece by Rod Dreher, a mostly conservative commentator. I suspect much of it will bring joy to your atheist heart.


Sex After Christianity (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-after-christianity/)
Gay marriage is not just a social revolution but a cosmological one.

[SeattleUte]

In case you haven't noticed, American religions are pretty watchful over their First Amendment rights. That's all I was saying.

Meanwhile, this is an interesting piece by Rod Dreher, a mostly conservative commentator. I suspect much of it will bring joy to your atheist heart.

You need not worry. Atheists will see to it they are not impaired. It was atheists not believers who won them for you in the first place.

[LA Ute]

You need not worry. Atheists will see to it they are not impaired. It was atheists not believers who won them for you in the first place.

Of course. :rofl:

[SeattleUte]

Of course. :rofl:


As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the
imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral
philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819



Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of
daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the
duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820



...

[Dawminator]

Where in any of that, did TJ say he didn't believe in God?

[LA Ute]

Tell me, SU, what was TJ's role in "winning" for me the First Amendment's religious freedoms? And did he win them for me single-handedly?

:snack:

[SeattleUte]

Where in any of that, did TJ say he didn't believe in God?

Over the years I have never once called myself an atheist. Personally, I leave that to the believers. What this has made clear to me is that what atheism really means is unbelief in the Judeo-Christian Bible as history. Clearly this describest the outlook of Jefferson, Paine, etc.


You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I
know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819


It was the enlightenment movement that liberated their minds sufficiently to reject the sole authority for his position that any king could claim--God's election. Bottom line is it was the enlightenment movement sparked by Spinoza that led ineluctably to modernism and in between the first form of represenative government since the Roman republic.

Jefferson did not believe in angels, miracles, Jesus' resurrection, etc.

See Wikipedia re the "Jefferson Bible":


The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson (http://www.utahby5.com/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting numerous sections from the New Testament (http://www.utahby5.com/wiki/New_Testament) as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus (http://www.utahby5.com/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus) and most mentions of the supernatural (http://www.utahby5.com/wiki/Supernatural), including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection (http://www.utahby5.com/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus) and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.

Jefferson called himself an epicuirian. Epicurians were materialists, an ancient word for atheists, i.e., a belief that all phenomena including the mind can be explained by measurable or observable material processes.

[LA Ute]

As a counter-weight to SU's latest troll, I offer this interesting piece that he chose to ignore.

Sex After Christianity (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-after-christianity/)


Now we’re entering the endgame of the struggle over gay rights and the meaning of homosexuality. Conservatives have been routed, both in court and increasingly in the court of public opinion. It is commonly believed that the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage is rank bigotry or for religious reasons, neither of which—the argument goes—has any place in determining laws or public standards. The magnitude of the defeat suffered by moral traditionalists will become ever clearer as older Americans pass from the scene. Poll after poll shows that for the young, homosexuality is normal and gay marriage is no big deal—except, of course, if one opposes it, in which case one has the approximate moral status of a segregationist in the late 1960s.

All this is, in fact, a much bigger deal than most people on both sides realize, and for a reason that eludes even ardent opponents of gay rights. Back in 1993, a cover story in The Nation identified the gay-rights cause as the summit and keystone of the culture war:

All the crosscurrents of present-day liberation struggles are subsumed in the gay struggle. The gay moment is in some ways similar to the moment that other communities have experienced in the nation’s past, but it is also something more, because sexual identity is in crisis throughout the population, and gay people—at once the most conspicuous subjects and objects of the crisis—have been forced to invent a complete cosmology to grasp it. No one says the changes will come easily. But it’s just possible that a small and despised sexual minority will change America forever.


They were right, and though the word “cosmology” may strike readers as philosophically grandiose, its use now appears downright prophetic. The struggle for the rights of “a small and despised sexual minority” would not have succeeded if the old Christian cosmology had held: put bluntly, the gay-rights cause has succeeded precisely because the Christian cosmology has dissipated in the mind of the West.

Same-sex marriage strikes the decisive blow against the old order. The Nation’s triumphalist rhetoric from two decades ago is not overripe; the radicals appreciated what was at stake far better than did many—especially bourgeois apologists for same-sex marriage as a conservative phenomenon. Gay marriage will indeed change America forever, in ways that are only now becoming visible. For better or for worse, it will make ours a far less Christian culture. It already is doing exactly that....

Conservative Christians have lost the fight over gay marriage and, as we have seen, did so decades before anyone even thought same-sex marriage was a possibility. Gay-marriage proponents succeeded so quickly because they showed the public that what they were fighting for was consonant with what most post-1960s Americans already believed about the meaning of sex and marriage. The question Western Christians face now is whether or not they are going to lose Christianity altogether in this new dispensation.


Too many of them think that same-sex marriage is merely a question of sexual ethics. They fail to see that gay marriage, and the concomitant collapse of marriage among poor and working-class heterosexuals, makes perfect sense given the autonomous individualism sacralized by modernity and embraced by contemporary culture—indeed, by many who call themselves Christians. They don’t grasp that Christianity, properly understood, is not a moralistic therapeutic adjunct to bourgeois individualism—a common response among American Christians, one denounced by Rieff in 2005 as “simply pathetic”—but is radically opposed to the cultural order (or disorder) that reigns today.


They are fighting the culture war moralistically, not cosmologically. They have not only lost the culture, but unless they understand the nature of the fight and change their strategy to fight cosmologically, within a few generations they may also lose their religion.


“The death of a culture begins when its normative institutions fail to communicate ideals in ways that remain inwardly compelling,” Rieff writes. By that standard, Christianity in America, if not American spirituality, is in mortal danger. The future is not foreordained: Taylor shares much of Rieff’s historical analysis but is more hopeful about the potential for renewal. Still, if the faith does not recover, the historical autopsy will conclude that gay marriage was not a cause but a symptom, the sign that revealed the patient’s terminal condition.


It's a very interesting read. SU will like the author's conclusions. People like me will be discouraged.

[SeattleUte]

As a counter-weight to SU's latest troll, I offer this interesting piece that he chose to ignore.

Sex After Christianity (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-after-christianity/)



It's a very interesting read. SU will like the author's conclusions. People like me will be discouraged.

The passage you quote is well stated, though it appears that you and I draw completely different conclusions from it. I agree that gay marriage has not brought about the demise or damaged traditional institutions. It is a harbinger of their demise or impairment. But to you it is the dead canary, and to me, it is a Star of Bethlehem.

EDIT: harbinger is perhaps not really even the right word, since the universal conditions feared and loathed by gay marriage opponents are already come to pass, and gay marriage is but a byproduct.

[LA Ute]

But to you it is the dead canary, and to me, it is a Star of Bethlehem.

Sigh. Your rhetorical quiver is so empty that you must resort to iconic Christian metaphors. Sad.

[SeattleUte]

Sigh. Your rhetorical quiver is so empty that you must resort to iconic Christian metaphors. Sad.

I am a great admirer of the Christian story, and awestruck by the power of stories in general.

[SeattleUte]

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann (http://www.utahby5.com/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann_(philosopher))


(Courtesy Wikipedia.)

[concerned]

Over the years I have never once called myself an atheist. Personally, I leave that to the believers. What this has made clear to me is that what atheism really means is unbelief in the Judeo-Christian Bible as history. Clearly this describest the outlook of Jefferson, Paine, etc.


It was the enlightenment movement that liberated their minds sufficiently to reject the sole authority for his position that any king could claim--God's election. Bottom line is it was the enlightenment movement sparked by Spinoza that led ineluctably to modernism and in between the first form of represenative government since the Roman republic.

Jefferson did not believe in angels, miracles, Jesus' resurrection, etc.

See Wikipedia re the "Jefferson Bible":



Jefferson called himself an epicuirian. Epicurians were materialists, an ancient word for atheists, i.e., a belief that all phenomena including the mind can be explained by measurable or observable material processes.

Jefferson also called himself a Christian (even late in life) but he did not believe in Christ's divinity. FWIW.

[SeattleUte]

Jefferson also called himself a Christian (even late in life) but he did not believe in Christ's divinity. FWIW.

I'm a Christian too then.

[SeattleUte]

This article LA posted may inadvertently state the rationale for readicalization of religion -- secularization must be desstroyed by violent force, or otherwise unavoidably secularism will undermine and ultimately destroy religion by the sheer force of its ideas.

[LA Ute]

This article LA posted may inadvertently state the rationale for readicalization of religion -- secularization must be desstroyed by violent force, or otherwise unavoidably secularism will undermine and ultimately destroy religion by the sheer force of its ideas.

You're trolling again.

[SeattleUte]

You're trolling again.

Actually, I'm not. I'm being serious and sincere. The article concedes that social conservatives have lost in the marketplace of ideas, and the democratic process, or, loss appears inevitable. It also endorses the Nation's characterization that the winning of gay marriage rights is an important development in the march and spread of secularism through our Western culture. I don't expect social conservatives -- excpet for a few radicals -- to resort to terrorism. But that is because their socially conservative positions have been leavened by secularism, and they love their own liberties more than they love their religious faith.

I think the article expresses well the desperation and "logic" that leads religious zealots to terroism.

[LA Ute]

Now that is very high-end trolling. You have my admiration.

[CardiacCoug]

Actually, I'm not. I'm being serious and sincere. The article concedes that social conservatives have lost in the marketplace of ideas, and the democratic process, or, loss appears inevitable. It also endorses the Nation's characterization that the winning of gay marriage rights is an important development in the march and spread of secularism through our Western culture. I don't expect social conservatives -- excpet for a few radicals -- to resort to terrorism. But that is because their socially conservative positions have been leavened by secularism, and they love their own liberties more than they love their religious faith.

I think the article expresses well the desperation and "logic" that leads religious zealots to terroism.

Yep, the main problem with religion is that a few people really believe it. By that I mean they REALLY believe it.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Now that is very high-end trolling. You have my admiration.

Keep pounding the table.


Yep, the main problem with religion is that a few people really believe it. By that I mean they REALLY believe it.

Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that! I have worked on the Sabbath, eaten the flesh of swine, eaten meat mixed with dairy, talked back to my parents, laughed out loud, and spoken evil of The Lord's Annointed so many times that it is an abomination before The Lord that I have not yet been stoned to death.

[LA Ute]

Keep pounding the table.

You take a statement like this seriously?


Secularism will undermine and ultimately destroy religion by the sheer force of its ideas.

My hands are on my keyboard, and I respect my table. Besides, it makes an odd sound when pounded.

[SeattleUte]

LA, I don't know why you find my statements so incredible. It's already happened in Western Europe and some plances in the U.S. -- religion is a relic absent any vital force or influence in the micro or the macro, except for rare exceptions. The irresistible, insideous and transforming power of commercialism, represenative government, and science not only brought down communism but is deadly to religion. It's only being hugely accelerated by the Internet. The only places where religion is safe from this mortal threat is places like North Korea and pockets of the Middle East where communities have succeeded in establishing an authoritarian theocracy that through force of arms enforces essentially a medieval time capsul.

What we've seen here in the U.S. itself, the very apotheosis of the Enlightenment, is awesome. We've seen the public opinion swing dramatically and irretrievably in favor of gay marriage until now it enjoys majority support. The catalyst was religions rallying to eek out their Prop. 8 victory -- their now obviously pyhrric Prop. 8 victory. It is only by the grace of bare social niceties and habit that society looks to religion for any moral guidance at all. Recently it occurred to me that the Papal transtition news and ceremonies, etc. were essentially the same thing as the folderol involving marriages, etc. of British royalty. Ultimately, just empty and gradiose nods to tradition.

There was a time when I despaired that odds were our liberties were ephemeral, realizing that in the 100,000 years since humans had our sized brains, etc. only a relatively tiny sliver of time and place enjoyed freedoms such as we have now. But it seems that what is happening is truly extraordinary and unprecedented in world history. Liberty, freedom of thought, and science are winning in every field -- there is not only the intrinsic value of freedom, but also the spectacular fruits. Look how infant mortality rates have improved since the Enlightenmen broke Christianity's hammer lock on Europe.

I celebrate my spectacular and unlikely good fortune of having been born in this remarkable age where human dignity and quality of life are at an all-time high and continuing to improve. It all started when a quiet, reclusive lens grinder in Amsterdam named Baruch Spinoza decided there is no such thing as angels and miracles, and for talking and writing about his epiphany had the courage to suffer expulsion from his own, great thousands of years old religion.

Unlike Hitchens, I don't believe religion "poisons everything". It has served its role in human progress. But I emphasize the past tense.

[LA Ute]

LA, I don't know why you find my statements so incredible. It's already happened in Western Europe and some plances in the U.S. -- religion is a relic absent any vital force or influence in the micro or the macro, except for rare exceptions. The irresistible, insideous and transforming power of commercialism, represenative government, and science not only brought down communism but is deadly to religion. It's only being hugely accelerated by the Internet. The only places where religion is safe from this mortal threat is places like North Korea and pockets of the Middle East where communities have succeeded in establishing an authoritarian theocracy that through force of arms enforces essentially a medieval time capsul.

What we've seen here in the U.S. itself, the very apotheosis of the Enlightenment, is awesome. We've seen the public opinion swing dramatically and irretrievably in favor of gay marriage until now it enjoys majority support. The catalyst was religions rallying to eek out their Prop. 8 victory -- their now obviously pyhrric Prop. 8 victory. It is only by the grace of bare social niceties and habit that society looks to religion for any moral guidance at all. Recently it occurred to me that the Papal transtition news and ceremonies, etc. were essentially the same thing as the folderol involving marriages, etc. of British royalty. Ultimately, just empty and gradiose nods to tradition.

There was a time when I despaired that odds were our liberties were ephemeral, realizing that in the 100,000 years since humans had our sized brains, etc. only a relatively tiny sliver of time and place enjoyed freedoms such as we have now. But it seems that what is happening is truly extraordinary and unprecedented in world history. Liberty, freedom of thought, and science are winning in every field -- there is not only the intrinsic value of freedom, but also the spectacular fruits. Look how infant mortality rates have improved since the Enlightenmen broke Christianity's hammer lock on Europe.

I celebrate my spectacular and unlikely good fortune of having been born in this remarkable age where human dignity and quality of life are at an all-time high and continuing to improve. It all started when a quiet, reclusive lens grinder in Amsterdam named Baruch Spinoza decided there is no such thing as angels and miracles, and for talking and writing about his epiphany had the courage to suffer expulsion from his own, great thousands of years old religion.

Unlike Hitchens, I don't believe religion "poisons everything". It has served its role in human progress. But I emphasize the past tense.

490

[Flystripper]

You take a statement like this seriously?



My hands are on my keyboard, and I respect my table. Besides, it makes an odd sound when pounded.

The word "destroy" is a bit strong, but I think it is completely reasonable to think that secularism will transform religion. I think there will always be some believers in divinity, but what they believe today will likely be much different than what they will believe in 50 years. Secularism will likely be the primary catalyst for these religious evolutionary leaps. Some people would call these leaps a form of destruction, and I don't know that they are completely off base.

[SeattleUte]

The word "destroy" is a bit strong, but I think it is completely reasonable to think that secularism will transform religion. I think there will always be some believers in divinity, but what they believe today will likely be much different than what they will believe in 50 years. Secularism will likely be the primary catalyst for these religious evolutionary leaps. Some people would call these leaps a form of destruction, and I don't know that they are completely off base.

This is well stated. We'll see religion in a secularized, more enlightened condition, except for fringe radicals. I see the RLDS Church (whatever it's called now) as an obvious model for the future LDS Church. I.e., women and gay clergy, regarding the scriptures as allegarical, denouncing the LDS racist, sexist and polygamous past, etc.

However, while this form of religion is now widespread among the mainstream protestant sects in Europe it has not stemmed the tide of lost members and religious apathy.

[Solon]

it is an abomination before The Lord that I have not yet been stoned to death.

Let me know if you want to take care of that getting stoned stuff next time you're back in the homeland.
(but not to death!)


The word "destroy" is a bit strong, but I think it is completely reasonable to think that secularism will transform religion. I think there will always be some believers in divinity, but what they believe today will likely be much different than what they will believe in 50 years. Secularism will likely be the primary catalyst for these religious evolutionary leaps. Some people would call these leaps a form of destruction, and I don't know that they are completely off base.

I wonder if we need to make a distinction between established religion and personal faith in this discussion.
Established religions are on the run. Personal faith is, well, personal.

[wuapinmon]

I wonder if we need to make a distinction between established religion and personal faith in this discussion.
Established religions are on the run. Personal faith is, well, personal.

Was there a similar period of religion reeling in the Roman Empire before the rise of Christianity? I know that there were countless local religions, but I'm wondering if there is anything new in this decline, or is it part of a circle of faith/doubt.

[Scratch]

Look how infant mortality rates have improved since the Enlightenmen broke Christianity's hammer lock on Europe.


For those of you who were wondering, this is a perfect example of what folks in the scientific community refer to as "direct causation."

[Applejack]

For those of you who were wondering, this is a perfect example of what folks in the scientific community refer to as "direct causation."

France is close to passing a gay-marriage (and adoption) bill. Gay marriage opponents are protesting in a manner whose meaning must get lost in translation: a bunch of (presumably straight) men going topless.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130423070143-14-france-marriage-protest-0422-horizontal-gallery.jpg

[SeattleUte]

Was there a similar period of religion reeling in the Roman Empire before the rise of Christianity? I know that there were countless local religions, but I'm wondering if there is anything new in this decline, or is it part of a circle of faith/doubt.

There is no cycle. It all started with the ancient Greeks, and what is going on now is a new and exciting chapter in the greatest story ever told. Rome occupied ancient Greece, and then Rome was conquered by Greece from within, as in a way we have been to this day. However, ancient Greek culture was so potent, multifaceted and innovative, that different aspects of it have prevailed in the centuries following its fall.

Rome originally adopted mainstream Classical Greek culture and greatly admired and aped its democratic institutions, civil liberties guarantes, legal codes, intellectual traditions including history and science, philosophers and poets, etc. We can thank the Romans that these achievments remain with us today. Of course this is the phase of history we call Republican Rome.

Christianity took root within a century after Rome fell into dictatorship, Republican Rome was effectively lost, Romans began to deify Emperors, and civil liberties were greatly curtailed. Brutus, Cassius, et al. foresaw this dire outcome, which is why they assassinated Caesar, attempting to forestall it. But Octavian (aka Augustus) wound up the victor in the ensuing civil wars, and Rome entered its period of dictatorship, moving away from its republican Greco-Roman heritage.

There are some notable exceptions, but overall Rome's intellectual output and traditions did not match the Greeks'; thus, when Rome turned away from its Greek roots there were meager means by which Romans could obtain intellectual or psychic inspiration, hope or relief from the daily grind of human existence. Rome's authoritarianism and cruelty to Jews and Christians has been in some respects exaggerated by Christian hagiography, Christian novels, and cinematic adaptations of Christian literature. Rome, like America, was vast and culturally pluralistic, and this required a certain amount of tolerance. However, once Romans were confronted with the prospect of military dictatorship and a fairly barren cultural or artistic tradition, they were ripe for Christianity, which itself was a fusion of Greek and Jewish philosophical and religious traditions. And Rome's relatively tolerant, multi-cutural empire provided superb soil for Christianity to take root. The orignial Christians were Greek speaking, Greco-Roman Jews, who created this fusion. This is evident from Paul's known biography, and the fact that the Christian canon was originally written in Greek, and Greek influences in Christian scriptures.

However, eventually Roman dictators coopted Christianity as a means to enslaving the bodies and minds of the people. This continued into the Middle Ages.

[LA Ute]

I don't find them incredible. The very religions that are dying prophesied their own demise a long time ago. This decline is expected.

It's not the credibility of the statements that makes them ludicrous, but that of their author. You may not be as familiar with SU's body of work as I am. He and I are friends, I just don't discuss religion with him on these boards. Half the time he is just messing with people.

[tooblue]

LA, I don't know why you find my statements so incredible. It's already happened in Western Europe and some plances in the U.S. -- religion is a relic absent any vital force or influence in the micro or the macro, except for rare exceptions. The irresistible, insideous and transforming power of commercialism, represenative government, and science not only brought down communism but is deadly to religion. It's only being hugely accelerated by the Internet. The only places where religion is safe from this mortal threat is places like North Korea and pockets of the Middle East where communities have succeeded in establishing an authoritarian theocracy that through force of arms enforces essentially a medieval time capsul.

What we've seen here in the U.S. itself, the very apotheosis of the Enlightenment, is awesome. We've seen the public opinion swing dramatically and irretrievably in favor of gay marriage until now it enjoys majority support. The catalyst was religions rallying to eek out their Prop. 8 victory -- their now obviously pyhrric Prop. 8 victory. It is only by the grace of bare social niceties and habit that society looks to religion for any moral guidance at all. Recently it occurred to me that the Papal transtition news and ceremonies, etc. were essentially the same thing as the folderol involving marriages, etc. of British royalty. Ultimately, just empty and gradiose nods to tradition.

There was a time when I despaired that odds were our liberties were ephemeral, realizing that in the 100,000 years since humans had our sized brains, etc. only a relatively tiny sliver of time and place enjoyed freedoms such as we have now. But it seems that what is happening is truly extraordinary and unprecedented in world history. Liberty, freedom of thought, and science are winning in every field -- there is not only the intrinsic value of freedom, but also the spectacular fruits. Look how infant mortality rates have improved since the Enlightenmen broke Christianity's hammer lock on Europe.

I celebrate my spectacular and unlikely good fortune of having been born in this remarkable age where human dignity and quality of life are at an all-time high and continuing to improve. It all started when a quiet, reclusive lens grinder in Amsterdam named Baruch Spinoza decided there is no such thing as angels and miracles, and for talking and writing about his epiphany had the courage to suffer expulsion from his own, great thousands of years old religion.

Unlike Hitchens, I don't believe religion "poisons everything". It has served its role in human progress. But I emphasize the past tense.

The problem with the enlightenment is that it created a false intellectual and philosophical paradigm that is beginning to fold in on itself. Secularist veneration of the human capacity to be guided by intellect and reason alone have resulted in mass confusion, not mass awareness. The notion of awareness as control is propped up not only as being viable but a necessary “spinozan” evil—good or evil being relative in the spinozan construct.

However, as opposed to institutional control, personal or individual control within today’s society is an abject illusion promoted by secularists. The only thing the enlightenment has empowered is institutions, whose relative truths and morality enslave western society with the promise of a moderated freedom … a freedom where individuals must surrender certain inalienable liberties in order to secure a place at the table or in the bread line. Which one of us has access and the means to truly operate outside the machine of government, economy and society?

It is this illusion of control and a lack of freedom that the world, through social media available on the World Wide Web, via the Internet, is rebelling against. It is also the former enlightenment, which you so often venerate, that is under duress. It is ripe to be replaced by a new enlightenment. The evidence for this lies in the renewed vigor with which the philosophies of one of its forefathers and perhaps founder are being re-examined. The more that is revealed, understood and critiqued, the more the old ideas may prove antiquated, inadequate and potentially harmful? And then, what side of history will you and any other spinozans find them selves on?

[RobinFinderson]

My students are shedding religion very quickly. I serve an historically faithful community (catholics and christians) with the typical homophobic baggage that often accompanies those belief systems. Unlike the religious debates of my youth, which involved competing religious views, the most comparable debates among my students are between atheists and religious folk in general. The kids are becoming increasingly vocal in their open support of gay rights (marriage equality), and atheism, while the religiously observant students are becoming increasingly reserved in their expressions of faith and faith-based-morality.*

*Observed in my advisory class, where we discuss prejudices, college prep, life prep, etc.

[Solon]

Was there a similar period of religion reeling in the Roman Empire before the rise of Christianity? I know that there were countless local religions, but I'm wondering if there is anything new in this decline, or is it part of a circle of faith/doubt.

There's definitely something to this, wuap. To an old-school Roman, the observance of the traditional religious rites was seen as a patriotic duty, and the breakdown of Roman institutions and order in the 3rd century went hand-in-hand with Christianity's appeal.

I think it would be hard to compare the role of personal faith and actual religious "conversion" or "belief" into an ancient context before the Christians, but it's not off-base to say that the great upheavals of the Hellenistic Age caused the people of the Roman Empire to look for answers to Life's Big Questions outside of the traditional box of state religious cults.

The rise of mystery religions during the Hellenistic period (Isis, Eleusis, Orpheus, Dionysus, Mithras, Sol Invictus), and Christianity's surge during the "third century crisis" suggest a need that the traditional state observances & rituals weren't filling.

[SeattleUte]

I don't doubt that there's a real trend here, but in the current state of the debate, you can't necessarily interpret quiet students as students shedding religion. You yourself already labeled certain beliefs as "homophobic baggage." In a class discussing prejudice, you would have to be crazy to speak up contrary to the socially accepted position.

In America, the socially accepted position is what the contest is all about. For example, this is the only thing that caused the LDS Church to shed it's apharteid against blacks. Now even pundits who formerly opposed gay marriage are changing sides in droves.

[wuapinmon]

There's definitely something to this, wuap. To an old-school Roman, the observance of the traditional religious rites was seen as a patriotic duty, and the breakdown of Roman institutions and order in the 3rd century went hand-in-hand with Christianity's appeal.

I think it would be hard to compare the role of personal faith and actual religious "conversion" or "belief" into an ancient context before the Christians, but it's not off-base to say that the great upheavals of the Hellenistic Age caused the people of the Roman Empire to look for answers to Life's Big Questions outside of the traditional box of state religious cults.

The rise of mystery religions during the Hellenistic period (Isis, Eleusis, Orpheus, Dionysus, Mithras, Sol Invictus), and Christianity's surge during the "third century crisis" suggest a need that the traditional state observances & rituals weren't filling.

I fear that Islam will fill the void.

[LA Ute]

I fear that Islam will fill the void.

No, the sheer weight of secular ideas will overcome it. Have faith!

[SeattleUte]

For those of you who were wondering, this is a perfect example of what folks in the scientific community refer to as "direct causation."

The chain of causation is not attenuated. Science not religion has reduced infant mortality.

[Flystripper]

I fear that Islam will fill the void.

What sort of Islam will fill the void? The only sort of Islam to be fearful of will not fill a void for the overwhelming majority of the earth's inhabitants. You need not fear this.

[Harry Tic]

I fear that Islam will fill the void.

I don't think that Islam competes with mystery religions, New Age spiritualities, etc. The mystical strands of Islam tend to be isolated and marginalized. I think the appeal of Islam is due to its satisfaction of other needs.

[wuapinmon]

What sort of Islam will fill the void? The only sort of Islam to be fearful of will not fill a void for the overwhelming majority of the earth's inhabitants. You need not fear this.


I don't think that Islam competes with mystery religions, New Age spiritualities, etc. The mystical strands of Islam tend to be isolated and marginalized. I think the appeal of Islam is due to its satisfaction of other needs.

Islam seems to be in its adolescence, while Christianity is having a mid-life crisis. Simple population replacement rates seem to indicate (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/01/a-muslim-europe/303700/) a majority Muslim Europe inside of 100-150 years. To me, Islam seems like a huge peer pressure machine. Also, since the penalty for apostasy is death, there's not a lot of dialogue about theology that involves questioning, so we get the dogmatism of, say, Torquemadan Spain, across three continents. I know some Muslims, and they are genteel and kind people. They are also extremely well educated and no longer live in Muslim lands. I cannot hold them up, in any way, as average.

[Flystripper]

Islam seems to be in its adolescence, while Christianity is having a mid-life crisis. Simple population replacement rates seem to indicate (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/01/a-muslim-europe/303700/) a majority Muslim Europe inside of 100-150 years. To me, Islam seems like a huge peer pressure machine. Also, since the penalty for apostasy is death, there's not a lot of dialogue about theology that involves questioning, so we get the dogmatism of, say, Torquemadan Spain, across three continents. I know some Muslims, and they are genteel and kind people. They are also extremely well educated and no longer live in Muslim lands. I cannot hold them up, in any way, as average.

So you see Islam "filling the void" through population growth and demographics? I don't see the world converting to Islam (at least the radical variety) to fill a spiritual void. Their treatment of women alone will keep out 50% of the potential converts of those not born in the faith.

[SeattleUte]

Islam seems to be in its adolescence, while Christianity is having a mid-life crisis. Simple population replacement rates seem to indicate (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/01/a-muslim-europe/303700/) a majority Muslim Europe inside of 100-150 years. To me, Islam seems like a huge peer pressure machine. Also, since the penalty for apostasy is death, there's not a lot of dialogue about theology that involves questioning, so we get the dogmatism of, say, Torquemadan Spain, across three continents. I know some Muslims, and they are genteel and kind people. They are also extremely well educated and no longer live in Muslim lands. I cannot hold them up, in any way, as average.

Islam's advantage is its theocracies. In some parts of the globe Islam simply functions as a vile totolitarian ideology; this is as true among some of our allies as our enemies. Islam is the totalitarian system du jour; 21st century fascism. However, as you note, and as history has shown, adherants of Islam are as subject to assimilation by modernization, Classical culture or allied secular influences as is Christianity. Nevertheless, it seems that something inherant in Christianity's DNA enabled the rise of a separation of church and state, and eventually representative government, while Islam held fast to theocracy. Maybe Turkey is the model for breaking this gridlock.

In isolated instances, Islam is a means to identity for lonely, desperate, angry young men including some exposed to the West who simply fail to assimilate. In this respect, Islam's hold is a mystery, since the West's great virtue is its porousness and susceptiblity to assimilate and even incorporate and become enriched by disparate cultures. Nevertheless, freedoms entail inequality, accountability, etc. which is a tough way of life for some. See also Russia.

I don't think the differences in the religions' ages makes a difference. In the 8th century when Islam started and began its rapid growth, Christianity was still nascent. The East-West schism was 350 years in the future, etc. I think that much like humans compared to horses, Christianity's youth was longer than Islam's. This may have been partly due to Christianity being more of an urban religion with Classical roots and Islam (with some very notable exceptions like the Umayyad Empire) being rural and less complex.

[Solon]

Islam's advantage is its theocracies. In some parts of the globe Islam simply functions as a vile totolitarian ideology; this is as true among some of our allies as our enemies. Islam is the totalitarian system du jour; 21st century fascism. However, as you note, and as history has shown, adherants of Islam are as subject to assimilation by modernization, Classical culture or allied secular influences as is Christianity. Nevertheless, it seems that something inherant in Christianity's DNA enabled the rise of a separation of church and state, and eventually representative government, while Islam held fast to theocracy. Maybe Turkey is the model for breaking this gridlock.

In isolated instances, Islam is a means to identity for lonely, desperate, angry young men including some exposed to the West who simply fail to assimilate. In this respect, Islam's hold is a mystery, since the West's great virtue is its porousness and susceptiblity to assimilate and even incorporate and become enriched by disparate cultures. Nevertheless, freedoms entail inequality, accountability, etc. which is a tough way of life for some. See also Russia.

I don't think the differences in the religions' ages makes a difference. In the 8th century when Islam started and began its rapid growth, Christianity was still nascent. The East-West schism was 350 years in the future, etc. I think that much like humans compared to horses, Christianity's youth was longer than Islam's. This may have been partly due to Christianity being more of an urban religion with Classical roots and Islam (with some very notable exceptions like the Umayyad Empire) being rural and less complex.

I would argue that the theocratic nature of Islam is a later introduction.
Muhammed was a lot of things, but among them he was a reformer.

I would also argue that Christianity was never able to extinguish Platonism, and the rationalism of the Greeks.
Not that it wouldn't have gladly done so.

Rodney Stark has argued that Christianity's rational thinkers invented things like freedom and capitalism. It's one of the worst books I have ever read.
http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333/ref=la_B000APQGM6_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1366761013&sr=1-3

[wuapinmon]

So you see Islam "filling the void" through population growth and demographics? I don't see the world converting to Islam (at least the radical variety) to fill a spiritual void. Their treatment of women alone will keep out 50% of the potential converts of those not born in the faith.

Well, in the absence of faith, if people start seeking instead of personalizing spirituality, Islam is there, actively proselytizing, and grants almost immediate acceptance into something larger than oneself.


Islam's advantage is its theocracies. In some parts of the globe Islam simply functions as a vile totolitarian ideology; this is as true among some of our allies as our enemies. Islam is the totalitarian system du jour; 21st century fascism. However, as you note, and as history has shown, adherants of Islam are as subject to assimilation by modernization, Classical culture or allied secular influences as is Christianity. Nevertheless, it seems that something inherant in Christianity's DNA enabled the rise of a separation of church and state, and eventually representative government, while Islam held fast to theocracy. Maybe Turkey is the model for breaking this gridlock.

In isolated instances, Islam is a means to identity for lonely, desperate, angry young men including some exposed to the West who simply fail to assimilate. In this respect, Islam's hold is a mystery, since the West's great virtue is its porousness and susceptiblity to assimilate and even incorporate and become enriched by disparate cultures. Nevertheless, freedoms entail inequality, accountability, etc. which is a tough way of life for some. See also Russia.

I don't think the differences in the religions' ages makes a difference. In the 8th century when Islam started and began its rapid growth, Christianity was still nascent. The East-West schism was 350 years in the future, etc. I think that much like humans compared to horses, Christianity's youth was longer than Islam's. This may have been partly due to Christianity being more of an urban religion with Classical roots and Islam (with some very notable exceptions like the Umayyad Empire) being rural and less complex.

There's something different, though I'm not sure I'm with oxcoug on his relentless criticism. I think being a child during the Iranian Hostage Crisis forever made me fearful of Islam. When I saw Argo, I was amazed at how strong a reaction I had to images of Khomenei.

[jrj84105]

498
I think you missed the point about infertility. I also think you underestimate the rapidity with which we are approaching a time where that basic biological assumption will be false.

******* Crap. That wound up in completely the wrong thread. I sort of like it here though, so it stays:)********

[NorthwestUteFan]

Let me know if you want to take care of that getting stoned stuff next time you're back in the homeland.
(but not to death!)





My State says "Yes! Yes!", but my employer says "No! No!", so I will vote with my wallet.

I will bring you a nice bottle of liquid refreshment from my favorite local distillery, if you promise to share a few glasses with me. :beer:


You take a statement like this seriously?
.

His hyperbole is more than adequately matched by yours.

Ying should not call Yang a troll. ;)

[NorthwestUteFan]

On a serious note, one of the findings in the Prop 8 case was to classify gays as a protected class who require Strict Scrutiny rather than Rational Basis judicial review. As I understand it this means that denying marriage rights to any two consenting adults would in fact be discrimination under the law.

Legal minds of the board, what are your feelings on this?

[LA Ute]

My State says "Yes! Yes!", but my employer says "No! No!", so I will vote with my wallet.

I will bring you a nice bottle of liquid refreshment from my favorite local distillery, if you promise to share a few glasses with me. :beer:



His hyperbole is more than adequately matched by yours.

Ying should not call Yang a troll. ;)

No jury would convict me of trolling. SU, OTOH, is a known serial offender.

[Diehard Ute]

No jury would convict me of trolling. SU, OTOH, is a known serial offender.

You know what juries so rarely make sense ;)

[LA Ute]

You know what juries so rarely make sense ;)

No DA would indict me.

[Jarid in Cedar]

No DA would indict me.

With all that bribe money provided, they would be crazy to bite the hand that feeds.

I would also add that the "I'm not as bad at trolling as that guy" defense is a poor idea.

[LA Ute]

With all that bribe money provided, they would be crazy to bite the hand that feeds.

I would also add that the "I'm not as bad at trolling as that guy" defense is a poor idea.

Et tu, Jarid? 500

[U-Ute]

Is it really just a matter of waiting until everyone knows and cares about a homosexual person?

Isn't that what a politician is all about?

They'll cave to any position that gets them (re)elected, unless it actually affects them personally.

[U-Ute]

There are already attempts in California to pass bills that would strip organizations like the Boy Scouts from their tax exempt status for not allowing gays into their organization. There have been many assurances that nobody would ever require churches to perform gay marriages, but there have been no assurances about tax-exempt statuses. And isn't that a sticky issue, where we begin to dictate as a government how a religion must act to keep such status? We begin to tread on some dangerous grounds if we get there.

I don't see why we can't have both: let gays get married, let the religious wet their collective pants, but no reason to take away tax-exemption. Its a private club that does an incredible amount of civic service. No reason to force it on them.

Look, as far as government goes, marriage is about property transfer and management (ie: where does one's stuff go when they die). If people want to get married in religious ceremonies, or civic ones, it shouldn't matter. In some places, historically, the only requirement is for both parties to say "I do" in front of two witnesses (aka: Anvil Weddings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_Green)). The only reason any kind of restrictions were added was because sometimes the parents didn't exactly care for who the daughter was saying "I do" to. :)

[Solon]

And now France.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21576692-frances-parliament-votes-legalise-gay-marriage-and-adoption-rainbow-warriors

I'd like to point out that this article is dated April 27, 2013 - two days in the future.
It's like that Black Sabbath song - I'm living in a time machine.

[concerned]

And now France.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21576692-frances-parliament-votes-legalise-gay-marriage-and-adoption-rainbow-warriors

I'd like to point out that this article is dated April 27, 2013 - two days in the future.
It's like that Black Sabbath song - I'm living in a time machine.

I'll bet April 27 is the date of the print edition, since all magazines come out several days before the date printed on them.

[Senioritis]

There is no cycle. It all started with the ancient Greeks, and what is going on now is a new and exciting chapter in the greatest story ever told. Rome occupied ancient Greece, and then Rome was conquered by Greece from within, as in a way we have been to this day. However, ancient Greek culture was so potent, multifaceted and innovative, that different aspects of it have prevailed in the centuries following its fall.

Rome originally adopted mainstream Classical Greek culture and greatly admired and aped its democratic institutions, civil liberties guarantes, legal codes, intellectual traditions including history and science, philosophers and poets, etc. We can thank the Romans that these achievments remain with us today. Of course this is the phase of history we call Republican Rome.

Christianity took root within a century after Rome fell into dictatorship, Republican Rome was effectively lost, Romans began to deify Emperors, and civil liberties were greatly curtailed. Brutus, Cassius, et al. foresaw this dire outcome, which is why they assassinated Caesar, attempting to forestall it. But Octavian (aka Augustus) wound up the victor in the ensuing civil wars, and Rome entered its period of dictatorship, moving away from its republican Greco-Roman heritage.

There are some notable exceptions, but overall Rome's intellectual output and traditions did not match the Greeks'; thus, when Rome turned away from its Greek roots there were meager means by which Romans could obtain intellectual or psychic inspiration, hope or relief from the daily grind of human existence. Rome's authoritarianism and cruelty to Jews and Christians has been in some respects exaggerated by Christian hagiography, Christian novels, and cinematic adaptations of Christian literature. Rome, like America, was vast and culturally pluralistic, and this required a certain amount of tolerance. However, once Romans were confronted with the prospect of military dictatorship and a fairly barren cultural or artistic tradition, they were ripe for Christianity, which itself was a fusion of Greek and Jewish philosophical and religious traditions. And Rome's relatively tolerant, multi-cutural empire provided superb soil for Christianity to take root. The orignial Christians were Greek speaking, Greco-Roman Jews, who created this fusion. This is evident from Paul's known biography, and the fact that the Christian canon was originally written in Greek, and Greek influences in Christian scriptures.

However, eventually Roman dictators coopted Christianity as a means to enslaving the bodies and minds of the people. This continued into the Middle Ages.


This was so epically important that I thought it deserved to be run through gizoogle, to see how Snoop would've said it. F-bombs removed, per my cultural preferences:

There is no cycle. Well shiiiit, it all started wit tha ancient Greeks, n' what tha **** is goin on now be a freshly smoked up n' excitin chapter up in tha top billin rap eva holla'd at. Y'all KNOW dat shit, mutha****a! Rome occupied ancient Greece, n' then Rome was conquered by Greece from within, as up in a way we done been ta dis day. It make me wanna hollar playa! But **** dat shiznit yo, tha word on tha street is dat ancient Greek culture was so potent, multifaceted n' innovative, dat different aspectz of it have prevailed up in tha centuries followin its fall.

Rome originally adopted mainstream Classical Greek culture n' pimped outly admired n' aped its democratic institutions, civil libertizzles guarantes, legal codes, intellectual traditions includin history n' science, philosophers n' poets, etc. Our thugged-out asses can give props ta tha Romans dat these achievments remain wit our asses todizzle. It make me wanna hollar playa! Of course dis is tha phase of history we call Republican Rome.

Christianitizzle took root within a cold-ass lil century afta Rome fell tha **** into dictatorship, Republican Rome was effectively lost, Romans ****in started ta deify Emperors, n' civil libertizzles was pimped outly curtailed. Y'all KNOW dat shit, mutha****a! Brutus, Cassius, et al. It aint nuthin but tha nick nack patty wack, I still gots tha bigger sack. foresaw dis dire outcome, which is why they assassinated Caesar, attemptin ta forestall dat shit. But Octavian (aka Augustus) wound up tha victor up in tha ensuin civil wars, n' Rome entered its period of dictatorship, movin away from its republican Greco-Roman heritage.

There is some notable exceptions yo, but overall Romez intellectual output n' traditions did not match tha Greeks'; thus, when Rome turned away from its Greek roots there was meager means by which Romans could obtain intellectual or psycho inspiration, hope or relief from tha everyday grind of human existence. Romez authoritarianizzle n' wackty ta Jews n' Christians has been up in some respects exaggerated by Christian hagiography, Christian novels, n' cinematic adaptationz of Christian literature. Rome, like America, was vast n' culturally pluralistic, n' dis required a cold-ass lil certain amount of tolerance. But **** dat shiznit yo, tha word on tha street is dat once Romans was confronted wit tha prospect of military dictatorshizzle n' a gangbangin' fairly barren cultural or artistic tradition, they was ripe fo' Christianity, which itself was a gangbangin' fusion of Greek n' Jewish philosophical n' religious traditions fo' realz. And Romez relatively tolerant, multi-cutural empire provided superb soil fo' Christianitizzle ta take root. Da orignial Christians was Greek bustin lyrics, Greco-Roman Jews, whoz ass pimped dis fusion. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. This is evident from Paulz known biography, n' tha fact dat tha Christian canon was originally freestyled up in Greek, n' Greek influences up in Christian scriptures.

But **** dat shiznit yo, tha word on tha street is dat eventually Roman dictators coopted Christianitizzle as a means ta enslavin tha bodies n' mindz of tha people. This continued tha **** into tha Middle Ages.

[wuapinmon]

lol

[UtahDan]

Kaimi Wenger from Times and Seasons (and lately interviewed on Mormon Expositor for Ordain Women /endshamelessplug) who is a law professor at Thomas Jefferson in San Diego has just published about the Mormon Church's involvement in Prop 8 in a legal journal. It can be downloaded for free.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2254634&download=yes

[LA Ute]

Kaimi Wenger from Times and Seasons (and lately interviewed on Mormon Expositor for Ordain Women /endshamelessplug) who is a law professor at Thomas Jefferson in San Diego has just published about the Mormon Church's involvement in Prop 8 in a legal journal. It can be downloaded for free.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2254634&download=yes

Looks interesting. I haven't read the whole thong yet, but the abstract worries. I hope he hasn't made some factual errors. For example, if he's saying the much-criticized "Six Consequences" document came from church leaders, he's simply wrong.

Now I have tantalized UtahDan. No interviews, buddy!

[U-Ute]

Did the Mormon Church just take the first step on the slippery slope?

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/mormon-church-approves-boy-scouts-proposal-to-end-gay-youth-ban.html?no_redirect=true

[Rocker Ute]

Did the Mormon Church just take the first step on the slippery slope?

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/mormon-church-approves-boy-scouts-proposal-to-end-gay-youth-ban.html?no_redirect=true

No.




But seriously, even if it is a step on the slippery slope, it isn't the first one. Those may have come from the LDS church openly meeting with the LGBT community, or when they backed civil right laws for gays in SL County, or even when Marlin Jensen spoke to and cried and apologized to the LGBT community, or even when Handbook 2 talks about how people with same-sex attractions can hold callings within the church. All of those were bigger steps than simply saying the BSA proposed policy is 'positive'.

I don't think it is a slippery slope anyway.

[U-Ute]

No.

Dang. I was looking forward to the next press release allowing horses and goats to be in the Boy Scouts.

[UtahDan]

Looks interesting. I haven't read the whole thong yet, but the abstract worries. I hope he hasn't made some factual errors. For example, if he's saying the much-criticized "Six Consequences" document came from church leaders, he's simply wrong.

Now I have tantalized UtahDan. No interviews, buddy!

We'll see about that. I will get you on one day.

[UtahDan]

Looks interesting. I haven't read the whole thong yet, but the abstract worries. I hope he hasn't made some factual errors. For example, if he's saying the much-criticized "Six Consequences" document came from church leaders, he's simply wrong.

Now I have tantalized UtahDan. No interviews, buddy!

Do you know where it in fact came from by the way?

[UtahDan]

Looks interesting. I haven't read the whole thong yet, but the abstract worries. I hope he hasn't made some factual errors. For example, if he's saying the much-criticized "Six Consequences" document came from church leaders, he's simply wrong.

Now I have tantalized UtahDan. No interviews, buddy!

Went and found that section. He seems to say that there were many things said by local leaders and then offers that as an example of something recirculated by leaders though he stops short of claiming one created it. Is that how you read it too?

[LA Ute]

One guy came up with that "6 Consequences" document. All by himself. A non-lawyer.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Was the person who put that together Dennis Hollingsworth, the Protectmarriage.com guy? If so, he crowd-sourced those 6 points from his own focus group without any kind of true expert input.

His entire Defense in Hollingsworth v. Perry (originally Perry v. Schwartzenegger) was embarrassingly poor and based mostly on the legal maxims of "... 'cause it is yucky, and God said not to... ". No wonder the state of California didn't want to defend prop in court.


Edit: Hollingsworth is the named appellant, but I don't think he is the person of whom I am thinking. Could it be Ron Prentice?

[LA Ute]

Was the person who put that together Dennis Hollingsworth, the Protectmarriage.com guy? If so, he crowd-sourced those 6 points from his own focus group without any kind of true expert input.

His entire Defense in Hollingsworth v. Perry (originally Perry v. Schwartzenegger) was embarrassingly poor and based mostly on the legal maxims of "... 'cause it is yucky, and God said not to... ". No wonder the state of California didn't want to defend prop in court.


Edit: Hollingsworth is the named appellant, but I don't think he is the person of whom I am thinking. Could it be Ron Prentice?

No, it wasn't Hollingsworth. All I'll say is that it was not thought through, was not the product of any legal analysis, and many lawyers who were involved in the Yes On 8 campaign were distressed about it. Not to excuse that, but to add a sense of proportion, I'll note that initiative campaigns in California are kind of like organized, well-funded food fights, and both sides in every campaign (including this one) make statements that are inaccurate, often wildly so. I hate initiative campaigns.

[NorthwestUteFan]

There is a fair amount of buyer's remorse on that initiative among some of my relatives, particularly those who were pursuaded over the pulpit at church to do fundraising and put up lawn signs.

[LA Ute]

There is a fair amount of buyer's remorse on that initiative among some of my relatives, particularly those who were pursuaded over the pulpit at church to do fundraising and put up lawn signs.

They are watching too much television. ;)

[NorthwestUteFan]

They are watching too much television. ;)

Watching tv is counterproductive when the intent is to keep the base uninformed.

May 26th is the fifth anniversary of my family being abruptly and very tragically affected by the repercussions of this issue. I miss this particular family member terribly, every single day.

[Scratch]

No, it wasn't Hollingsworth. All I'll say is that it was not thought through, was not the product of any legal analysis, and many lawyers who were involved in the Yes On 8 campaign were distressed about it. Not to excuse that, but to add a sense of proportion, I'll note that initiative campaigns in California are kind of like organized, well-funded food fights, and both sides in every campaign (including this one) make statements that are inaccurate, often wildly so. I hate initiative campaigns.

The only thing worse than a legislature making laws is the voting public making laws.

[U-Ute]

The only thing worse than a legislature making laws is the voting public making laws.

That's why we let corporations make them now.

[UtahDan]

The only thing worse than a legislature making laws is the voting public making laws.

Hear hear.

[UtahDan]

Watching tv is counterproductive when the intent is to keep the base uninformed.

May 26th is the fifth anniversary of my family being abruptly and very tragically affected by the repercussions of this issue. I miss this particular family member terribly, every single day.

:( There is no expletive sufficiently strong.

[LA Ute]

Watching tv is counterproductive when the intent is to keep the base uninformed.

May 26th is the fifth anniversary of my family being abruptly and very tragically affected by the repercussions of this issue. I miss this particular family member terribly, every single day.

I had no idea, NWUF. So sorry for you and yours.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No, it wasn't Hollingsworth. All I'll say is that it was not thought through, was not the product of any legal analysis, and many lawyers who were involved in the Yes On 8 campaign were distressed about it. Not to excuse that, but to add a sense of proportion, I'll note that initiative campaigns in California are kind of like organized, well-funded food fights, and both sides in every campaign (including this one) make statements that are inaccurate, often wildly so. I hate initiative campaigns.

Isn't this the one that Morris Thurston ripped to shreds? And wasn't it originally posted on the LDS.org website? In the Newsroom or something?

[LA Ute]

Isn't this the one that Morris Thurston ripped to shreds? And wasn't it originally posted on the LDS.org website? In the Newsroom or something?

Yep, that's the one. I don't know if I was posted on the church site.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yep, that's the one. I don't know if I was posted on the church site.

I thought it was, but maybe my memory is faulty on that one. In any case, it appears that it was used quite substantially as part of the training for LDS volunteers during the campaign. Here is Thurston's analsyis:

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/secondversionresponsestosixconsequencesifprop8fail s1.pdf

And it appears that someone took responsibility for it:

http://www.chinoblanco.com/2010/02/mormon-pollster-gary-lawrence-im-idiot.html

[LA Ute]

Anecdotally I can say that a number of people responsible at the highest levels of the campaign for training door-to-door volunteers didn't use that document or its contents. Some even drafted their own talking points for use in training. (EDIT: I guess that is evidence that the effort was not correlated. It certainly wasn't, as far I could see. ;))

As with any campaign, especially initiative battles, it's important to remember that claims on both sides are often emotional and very overblown. Neither side in Prop 8 covered itself in glory in that regard.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The pain is always raw of course, but I should have clarified a bit. My intention was not meant to shock.

This is the type of thing that causes a paradigm shift in those closest to the person. Suddenly I realized that I was consciously denying what I had understood intrinsically. My church, my political philosophy, and my political party all told me one thing: Being gay is a choice (whether conscious of not), and therapy can help the sufferer change to avoid the 'error' or 'sin'.

But my experience with gay friends and relatives of course told me an entirely different story. While they didn't necessarily have true sexual feelings for the same sex as young children, they all just felt more attracted to members of the same sex as early as they could remember.

I believed the leaders of my church spoke to God on a regular basis, so I took their words quite literally as gospel. This event demonstrated numerous cracks in the facade. And once one notices a few cracks they become readily apparent and obvious elsewhere.

Being personally affected by this issue gave me an entirely different and broader perspective. This is not a black and white issue, and is full of nuances. But in the end I believe we are denying a fundamental right to a specific group of people and this is just as disturbing to me as was denying mixed race couples the right to marry a generation ago.

[OrangeUte]

The pain is always raw of course, but I should have clarified a bit. My intention was not meant to shock.

This is the type of thing that causes a paradigm shift in those closest to the person. Suddenly I realized that I was consciously denying what I had understood intrinsically. My church, my political philosophy, and my political party all told me one thing: Being gay is a choice (whether conscious of not), and therapy can help the sufferer change to avoid the 'error' or 'sin'.

But my experience with gay friends and relatives of course told me an entirely different story. While they didn't necessarily have true sexual feelings for the same sex as young children, they all just felt more attracted to members of the same sex as early as they could remember.

I believed the leaders of my church spoke to God on a regular basis, so I took their words quite literally as gospel. This event demonstrated numerous cracks in the facade. And once one notices a few cracks they become readily apparent and obvious elsewhere.

Being personally affected by this issue gave me an entirely different and broader perspective. This is not a black and white issue, and is full of nuances. But in the end I believe we are denying a fundamental right to a specific group of people and this is just as disturbing to me as was denying mixed race couples the right to marry a generation ago.

this was my experience as well, and i believe a lot of other's had this experience too. This awakening to the realities of existence that my gay friends and family members had to deal with, coupled with the misleading information by the Church that was thrown about in advertisements, etc., made the Prop 8 campaign the first time in my life I was embarassed to be LDS.

[Solon]

I thought it was, but maybe my memory is faulty on that one. In any case, it appears that it was used quite substantially as part of the training for LDS volunteers during the campaign. Here is Thurston's analsyis:

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/secondversionresponsestosixconsequencesifprop8fail s1.pdf

And it appears that someone took responsibility for it:

http://www.chinoblanco.com/2010/02/mormon-pollster-gary-lawrence-im-idiot.html

I had a family member receive this document from his church leaders as talking-points in going door-to-door in Santa Maria County during the Prop. 8 campaign.

Updated versions of some of these points are still making the rounds: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-top-ten-harms-of-same-sex-marriage

On the other side, here's a writeup from earlier this month from the Wall Street Journal's "ideas market" regarding the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.

http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2013/04/03/the-science-on-same-sex-marriage/

It's interesting how both sides use the same examples (like Netherlands) but come to different conclusions.

[LA Ute]

I curse the day that document came out.

[Applejack]

The Church of Christ (nee RLDS) has endorsed same sex marriage (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56286496-180/church-marriage-sex-christ.html.csp). As SeattleUte is fond of noting, the CoC is our future.

[LA Ute]

Here's an Atlantic cover story (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/06/the-gay-guide-to-wedded-bliss/309317/), "The Gay Guide to Wedded Bliss," subtitled "Research finds that same-sex unions are happier than heterosexual marriages. What can gay and lesbian couples teach straight ones about living in harmony?"

Here's an essay, also in the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/unequal-unfair-and-unhappy-the-3-biggest-myths-about-marriage-today/276468/), responding to that cover story, and entitled
"Unequal, Unfair, and Unhappy: The 3 Biggest Myths About Marriage Today," subtitled "Most married couples with children are satisfied with their relationships."

Enjoy!

[Applejack]

Gay marriage is coming. To Utah. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/20/judge-strikes-down-utah-same-sex-marriage-ban-as-unconstitutional/)

[Diehard Ute]

Gay marriage is coming. To Utah. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/20/judge-strikes-down-utah-same-sex-marriage-ban-as-unconstitutional/)

It's here, but Herbert is doing everything he can to stop it.

He tried to stop the SL County Clerk from issuing license but lacked the authority.

I know many here will not like this, but Herbert needs to be smart and not fight this. The chances of winning it are slim to none and it, IMO, would be a huge waste of state funds. (Ones that should be going to things like raises for DCFS caseworkers who are making $15-$16 an hour)

[LA Ute]

Meh. It's coming anyway. I am sure that Utah will fight this district judge's ruling. (C'mon, AJ, it's only a trial court ruling by an Obama appointee.) I think Gary Herbert has to fight it, as a practical/political matter. The result will be whatever it's going to be. The Republic will survive.

[Diehard Ute]

Meh. It's coming anyway. I am sure that Utah will fight this district judge's ruling. (C'mon, AJ, it's only a trial court ruling by an Obama appointee.) I think Gary Herbert has to fight it, as a practical/political matter. The result will be whatever it's going to be. The Republic will survive.

Or a personal matter, which given Herbert's response seems more likely

[Applejack]

It's here, but Herbert is doing everything he can to stop it.

He tried to stop the SL County Clerk from issuing license but lacked the authority.

I know many here will not like this, but Herbert needs to be smart and not fight this. The chances of winning it are slim to none and it, IMO, would be a huge waste of state funds. (Ones that should be going to things like raises for DCFS caseworkers who are making $15-$16 an hour)

That's interesting that he lacked the authority to stop the SL County Clerk. I don't know how those power structures work, but I would assume the Governor controls the clerks.


Meh. It's coming anyway. I am sure that Utah will fight this district judge's ruling. (C'mon, AJ, it's only a trial court ruling by an Obama appointee.) I think Gary Herbert has to fight it, as a practical/political matter. The result will be whatever it's going to be. The Republic will survive.

Not sure why the fact that it's a district judge or Obama appointee matters, but I agree with you, the Republic will survive. It is ironic that a judge in Utah is the first to rely on Windsor to strike down a state constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Yeah Utah!

[Diehard Ute]

That's interesting that he lacked the authority to stop the SL County Clerk. I don't know how those power structures work, but I would assume the Governor controls the clerks.

He can't just say "I don't like this". The ruling nullifies Utah's constitutional amendment that restricted the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples.

So the county clerks, as Sim Gill said, should process those requests just like any other couple. The only way for this to be stopped is for a stay to be issued by a federal court stoping any license issuances until an appeal can be heard.

[LA Ute]

Not sure why the fact that it's a district judge or Obama appointee matters....

Because a trial court ruling is not the end of the story? I mean, I don't know where this will go, but unless I am missing something and Gary Herbert is going to channel Jerry Brown and not defend the statute, this is just beginning.

[Diehard Ute]

Because a trial court ruling is not the end of the story? I mean, I don't know where this will go, but unless I am missing something and Gary Herbert is going to channel Jerry Brown and not defend the statute, this is just beginning.

But you must admit it's unlikely the 10th Circuit will overturn this ruling, and even less likely the Supreme Court will hear it.

Make no mistake about it. Herbert will blow tons of money trying. His shot at Judge Shelby in his statement makes it pretty clear he takes this personally.

[LA Ute]

But you must admit it's unlikely the 10th Circuit will overturn this ruling, and even less likely the Supreme Court will hear it.

I really don't know. I haven't read the opinion. Keep in mind, I think same-sex marriage in inevitable. I'm just puzzled that you and AJ seem to think that a trial court ruling means game, set and match to the plaintiffs in this case.

[Diehard Ute]

I really don't know. I haven't read the opinion. Keep in mind, I think same-sex marriage in inevitable. I'm just puzzled that you and AJ seem to think that a trial court ruling means game, set and match to the plaintiffs in this case.

I don't think it means that, but I do think it will survive appeal. (And for at least one couple they have won, they were married at the Salt Lake County Clerks office this afternoon)

I wish our elected representatives were wise enough to not waste limited resources trying to appeal this because I don't think Utah will win the appeal.

[Applejack]

I really don't know. I haven't read the opinion. Keep in mind, I think same-sex marriage in inevitable. I'm just puzzled that you and AJ seem to think that a trial court ruling means game, set and match to the plaintiffs in this case.

I'm not sure why you think I think that. I simply stated that it's coming, a point with which you agree.

Anyway, I don't even know why the clerks are issuing marriage licenses. (Having not read the opinion) doesn't this decision just overturn the Utah constitutional amendment? I presume there would still have to be a law enacted to allow same-sex marriages before the clerks could issue them, no?

[LA Ute]

I'm not sure why you think I think that. I simply stated that it's coming, a point with which you agree.

Anyway, I don't even know why the clerks are issuing marriage licenses. (Having not read the opinion) doesn't this decision just overturn the Utah constitutional amendment? I presume there would still have to be a law enacted to allow same-sex marriages before the clerks could issue them, no?

I don't know. I try to stay as far away from the workings of Utah politics and law as I can. I heard on the radio that the state is seeking a stay from the 10th circuit, which is typical in cases like this

[Diehard Ute]

I'm not sure why you think I think that. I simply stated that it's coming, a point with which you agree.

Anyway, I don't even know why the clerks are issuing marriage licenses. (Having not read the opinion) doesn't this decision just overturn the Utah constitutional amendment? I presume there would still have to be a law enacted to allow same-sex marriages before the clerks could issue them, no?

No, from what I understand, the way the legal wrangling has gone, Utah chose to go down the path of banning such marriages rather than legalizing others. (That's why Sim Gill was consulted prior to the issuance of the first license)

[concerned]

But you must admit it's unlikely the 10th Circuit will overturn this ruling, and even less likely the Supreme Court will hear it.

Make no mistake about it. Herbert will blow tons of money trying. His shot at Judge Shelby in his statement makes it pretty clear he takes this personally.

This could very easily go all the way to the Supreme Court. It raises the issue the Court avoided in the Prop 8 case--whether there is a federal constitutional right to gay marriage that trumps state law. That is the big question in all of the gay marriage litigation. The ruling strikes down state constitutional amendment approved by a large % of voters. I would be surprised if the S. Ct. avoids it, unless the 10th Cir. reverses.

We were wondering today what other district court judge in Utah would have ruled the way Shelby did. Not many. So much depends on the random assignment of the case at the beginning.

[UtahDan]

I have just recorded an interview with Michael Ferguson and Seth Anderson who are the first gay couple to have their marriage solemnized in the state of Utah. I'll put a link up as soon as the editing is complete. Everyone should hear their story in their own words. This is amazing history unfolding.

[UtahDan]

Because a trial court ruling is not the end of the story? I mean, I don't know where this will go, but unless I am missing something and Gary Herbert is going to channel Jerry Brown and not defend the statute, this is just beginning.

I think for Utah the cat is completely out of the bag as a practical matter. Hundreds of people were married tonight and apparently the clerks offices will open tomorrow to issue more licenses. No matter what happens in Denver, the fact is that gay married couples are now going into circulation in Utah. People will very soon see that it has no effect on them whatsoever. That bell cannot be un-rung. And from the reports I am getting, and you'll hear this in the interview, the clerks office was very much in support, the people waiting in line for passports and other things stopped and partook in the moment, and no one seemed anything other than happy. I think the people of Utah will rise to the occasion and that the vast majority of them will move on and feel relieved that this is no longer a defining issue (and least in a public or active sense) for their state or their church. Everyone won today.

[LA Ute]

I think for Utah the cat is completely out of the bag as a practical matter. Hundreds of people were married tonight and apparently the clerks offices will open tomorrow to issue more licenses. No matter what happens in Denver, the fact is that gay married couples are now going into circulation in Utah. People will very soon see that it has no effect on them whatsoever. That bell cannot be un-rung. And from the reports I am getting, and you'll hear this in the interview, the clerks office was very much in support, the people waiting in line for passports and other things stopped and partook in the moment, and no one seemed anything other than happy. I think the people of Utah will rise to the occasion and that the vast majority of them will move on and feel relieved that this is no longer a defining issue (and least in a public or active sense) for their state or their church. Everyone won today.

I know how strongly you feel about this. As you know, philosophically I strongly dislike the idea of changes like this being imposed by judicial fiat. Sadly, I'm not emperor, so things have an annoying way of not going as I would like. ;)

[NorthwestUteFan]

I wish our elected representatives were wise enough to not waste limited resources trying to appeal this because I don't think Utah will win the appeal.

Herbert is stuck. He will likely choose the short term win/long term loss strategy, and will put tremendous effort and funds into fighting this.

If he chooses to be a martyr on this particular hill he will sacrifice the state treasury with him.

[Diehard Ute]

Herbert is stuck. He will likely choose the short term win/long term loss strategy, and will put tremendous effort and funds into fighting this.

If he chooses to be a martyr on this particular hill he will sacrifice the state treasury with him.

Maybe they can take it out of his proposed $37,000 pay raise

[NorthwestUteFan]

Maybe they can take it out of his proposed $37,000 pay raise

Good idea, but bad precedent.

[wuapinmon]

I know how strongly you feel about this. As you know, philosophically I strongly dislike the idea of changes like this being imposed by judicial fiat. Sadly, I'm not emperor, so things have an annoying way of not going as I would like. ;)

But, isn't that why the courts are there? A last refuge against the willful intractability of the other two branches to enforce/uphold the Constitution?

[LA Ute]

But, isn't that why the courts are there? A last refuge against the willful intractability of the other two branches to enforce/uphold the Constitution?

Do you think that's what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade?

[UtahDan]

I have just recorded an interview with Michael Ferguson and Seth Anderson who are the first gay couple to have their marriage solemnized in the state of Utah. I'll put a link up as soon as the editing is complete. Everyone should hear their story in their own words. This is amazing history unfolding.

http://mormonexpositor.com/59-breaking-news-podcast-gay-marriage-in-utah-an-interview-with-history-makers-and-a-panel-analysis/

[DrumNFeather]

That was fast.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk 2

[UtahDan]

That was fast.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk 2

Greg knows these guys and just took a shot in the dark that they could talk to us and they did. It was sort of impromptu, but they were really great. The headed off to speak to Al Jazeera right after us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[NorthwestUteFan]

Very nicely done UD. You scooped several powerful international news media outlets (al Jazeera, BBC, etc.).

This is a relief and is a momentous day for Utah. And I agree with Mitch Mayne, this could be a blessing in disguise for the LDS church as it gives them a way out of the corner into which they have painted themselves.

I also love your Christmas intro song, very nicely done my friend!

[OrangeUte]

What a wonderful thing! I'm so happy for many of my friends growing up who had tumultuous childhoods because of their sexual orientation and were ostracized and criticized and condemned because they were who they were. This is a wonderful thing!

I hope the church doesn't embarrass itself officially or through the actions of its zealous members over this. Or maybe I do because it will be fun to watch unfold. As far as this event is concerned, that is the only problem I need to work out in my mind. The decision is clearly a wonderful spiritual/emotional/physical/equitable/justiciablevictory for freedom and liberty!

(I love people trying to argue that the 14th amendment was only meant for the issue of
Slavery and shouldn't extend to any other issue, including gay marriage. Not sure I've heard anything so idiotic in a very long time!)

[Diehard Ute]

I made the mistake of reading the Deseret News editorial which called the ruling "Judicial Tyranny" and then reading the comments to it.

No matter which side of this particular debate you stand on, I think we can all agree that the vast majority of Americans have little knowledge of how their government works. It's sad.

(My favorite was the commenter who wants Shelby removed from the bench as he is not following the "Proclamation On Families")