Marriage Equality Thread

[LA Ute]

Comments to DesNews articles are deadly.

[Ute88]

I'm new to the forum, so forgive me if this has been brought up before. I haven't read the entire thread.

Since equality is the basis for the claim, that means that it is acceptable for a (singular) parent to marry a (singular) child so as to avoid paying the estate tax?

[Applejack]

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.

Wow! I'll have to listen to this. I just realized that I know Michael Ferguson. I used to be in his ward! What a small, strange world we live in.

[Rocker Ute]

Comments on any online article for any news source are deadly. Even the NYTimes comments are ridiculous.

Comments are what you read to lose your faith in humanity.

[Diehard Ute]

Comments are what you read to lose your faith in humanity.

One should have to get a license, in common sense, before being allowed on the Internet.

[Newbomb Turk]

One should have to get a license, in common sense, before being allowed on the Internet.

Crap, I don't have a chance.

[DrumNFeather]

Comments are what you read to lose your faith in humanity.

Yep, the Washington Post comments are pretty bad, no matter the subject.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk 2

[LA Ute]

It seems to me that by refusing to issue a stay Judge Shelby has moved from a "calling balls and strikes" judge to a true activist judge -- meaning, he's pushing for a particular result and trying to make his ruling difficult to challenge as a practical matter.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57299146-78/marriage-state-county-sex.html.csp

[Applejack]

I agree with LAU that a stay seems to be in order here.

But I'm really confused by a lot of this. What a Utah circus.

1. Why were any marriage licenses issued after the ruling? Isn't the holding of the case that the Utah Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? The result of that holding is that the legislature is no longer prohibited from providing for same-sex marriage, but it does not seem to require same-sex marriage, right? Essentially, Utah would be a state that only allows "traditional" marriage, but could change that via legislation.
2. Once we get passed issue 1, why were some counties issuing marriage licenses (SLC) and some weren't (Utah)? I mean, beyond the obvious politics of the two counties. Who is in control of the county clerks' offices?
3. Once Shelby denied the stay, how can Utah county continue to deny licenses (assuming that point 1 is overcome)? Waiting for the 10th circuit is not the proper response once a stay has been denied. The county offices all seem like sleeper cells-no centralized control.

[concerned]

I agree with LAU that a stay seems to be in order here.

But I'm really confused by a lot of this. What a Utah circus.

1. Why were any marriage licenses issued after the ruling? Isn't the holding of the case that the Utah Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? The result of that holding is that the legislature is no longer prohibited from providing for same-sex marriage, but it does not seem to require same-sex marriage, right? Essentially, Utah would be a state that only allows "traditional" marriage, but could change that via legislation.
2. Once we get passed issue 1, why were some counties issuing marriage licenses (SLC) and some weren't (Utah)? I mean, beyond the obvious politics of the two counties. Who is in control of the county clerks' offices?
3. Once Shelby denied the stay, how can Utah county continue to deny licenses (assuming that point 1 is overcome)? Waiting for the 10th circuit is not the proper response once a stay has been denied. The county offices all seem like sleeper cells-no centralized control.

As to 1, Shelby ruled that marriage is (i) a fundamental right, whether heterosexual or not, so no legislation is needed authorizing same sex licenses, and (2) issuing heterosexual licenses but not same-sex licenses would violate equal protection, so the state cannot continue to issue licenses for one but not the other.

He specifically addressed the license issue in his ruling.

[Diehard Ute]

I have yet to see any real argument from Utah that supports their request for a stay.

I certainly don't think Shelby should have issued one, the arguments the state used are the same ones used when he ruled amendment 3 unconstitutional

I could see the 10th issue a stay...if Utah ever finds an attorney who knows proper procedure (They tried to get a stay from Shelby via phone originally and had to be told that was not proper, and have since filed 2 improper stay requests with the 10th)

[NorthwestUteFan]

In UD's podcast on this issue, Mitch Mayne (openly gay man, until recently was a member of a Mormon bishopric in California) was quoted as saying 'Perhaps this is a case of Jesus stepping in to give the church a way out of the corner into which it has painted itself'.

Considering the state is currently without a functioning AG, and the stand-ins don't seem to understand a single thing about the proper procedures, I think I am willing to buy MM's argument. By the time they figure out how to present a case to the 10th Circuit, there will be thousands of married couples in the state, plus I assume the state will be forced to recognize any couple married in another state prior to the time that a stay is issued. LOL.

In other news, I just learned that my BIL and his partner of 12 years were married today at SL County Offices. I am thrilled beyond words for them and their children.

[Diehard Ute]

In UD's podcast on this issue, Mitch Mayne (openly gay man, until recently was a member of a Mormon bishopric in California) was quoted as saying 'Perhaps this is a case of Jesus stepping in to give the church a way out of the corner into which it has painted itself'.

Considering the state is currently without a functioning AG, and the stand-ins don't seem to understand a single thing about the proper procedures, I think I am willing to buy MM's argument. By the time they figure out how to present a case to the 10th Circuit, there will be thousands of married couples in the state, plus I assume the state will be forced to recognize any couple married in another state prior to the time that a stay is issued. LOL.

In other news, I just learned that my BIL and his partner of 12 years were married today at SL County Offices. I am thrilled beyond words for them and their children.

Hebert named a new AG at 11 today...not that I think that will help.

Utah is also operating on the belief they will not only win this case on appeal, but the ruling will include invalidation of any marriages which have already taken place, something I don't see happening. That was a big component of their argument for the stay, that they were looking out for those same sex couples by protecting them from future revocation.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Hebert named a new AG at 11 today...not that I think that will help.

Utah is also operating on the belief they will not only win this case on appeal, but the ruling will include invalidation of any marriages which have already taken place, something I don't see happening. That was a big component of their argument for the stay, that they were looking out for those same sex couples by protecting them from future revocation.

I have no idea how they can possibly win, but it is my understanding that one of the SCOTUS rulings over the summer required that any right extended to a person cannot be later invalidated without consent (except for felons losing rights, etc). Also with DOMA being invalidated they have to be running out of legal options. And this is a good thing, because otherwise the argument is "Because...Jesus!"


It seems to me that by refusing to issue a stay Judge Shelby has moved from a "calling balls and strikes" judge to a true activist judge -- meaning, he's pushing for a particular result and trying to make his ruling difficult to challenge as a practical matter.



Perhaps. But history will be kind to him. Dred Scott was once the law of the land and it was obviously a bad decision.

[LA Ute]

Sorry, but a Supreme Court decision holding that limiting marriage to one man and one women violates the equal protection clause is not a slam dunk by any stretch.

[Homer Crimson]

Sorry, but a Supreme Court decision holding that limiting marriage to one man and one women violates the equal protection clause is not a slam dunk by any stretch.

Please explain this, (not TIC, I honestly am ignorant of this) if marriage conveys spousal rights and benefits, then isn't denying it to a set of people discrimination and a violation of equal protection?

[LA Ute]

Please explain this, (not TIC, I honestly am ignorant of this) if marriage conveys spousal rights and benefits, then isn't denying it to a set of people discrimination and a violation of equal protection?

Good question. The short, non-legalistic answer is that the Supreme Court has never held sexual orientation to be the type of classification (characteristic) that will trigger the type of analysis that can lead to an equal protection violation. That would be a big step, and I don't think any serious Court watcher believes the current group of Supremes will do that.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Good question. The short, non-legalistic answer is that the Supreme Court has never held sexual orientation to be the type of classification (characteristic) that will trigger the type of analysis that can lead to an equal protection violation. That would be a big step, and I don't think any serious Court watcher believes the current group of Supremes will do that.

Didn't Windsor (DOMA) extend protection solely for the case of marriage? (Marriage being a fundamental right, but gays are NOT necessarily a protected class for all other forms of discrimination not otherwise prohibited).

Besides, Obama will probably get the chance to appoint two more justices... :D

[concerned]

Didn't Windsor (DOMA) extend protection solely for the case of marriage? (Marriage being a fundamental right, but gays are NOT necessarily a protected class for all other forms of discrimination not otherwise prohibited).

Besides, Obama will probably get the chance to appoint two more justices... :D

Actually, the opinion applies both strict scrutiny and rational basis analysis. The opinion says that even if sexual oreintation is not a suspect, protected class the State's justification for Amendment 3 lacks any rational basis on the evidence presented by the state (a lot of criticism of the state locally for dropping the ball both on the presentation of evidence--the ruling was on summary judgment--and the failure to file for a stay. The court noted yesterday that in the prop 8 case, the motion for a stay was filed well before the opinion issued).

[Applejack]

Good question. The short, non-legalistic answer is that the Supreme Court has never held sexual orientation to be the type of classification (characteristic) that will trigger the type of analysis that can lead to an equal protection violation. That would be a big step, and I don't think any serious Court watcher believes the current group of Supremes will do that.

That's not exactly right. The Supreme Court has never held that sexual orientation is the type of characteristic that will trigger the type of analysis that (almost) automatically results in an equal protection violation. Laws that distinguish on the basis of sexual orientation can lead to equal protection violations, it is just much harder than other types of characteristics (i.e. race).

LAU is right that this is far from a slam dunk at the Supreme Court. I think it is a violation of the EPC under rational scrutinty (we've discussed this elsewhere), but getting 5 Justices to vote that way would be a difficult (but far from impossible) proposition. If they ever had to address this precise issue (they've dodged it once already), I think Kennedy votes the law unconstitutional, but that's just a prediction.

[LA Ute]

Actually, the opinion applies both strict scrutiny and rational basis analysis. The opinion says that even if sexual oreintation is not a suspect, protected class the State's justification for Amendment 3 lacks any rational basis on the evidence presented by the state (a lot of criticism of the state locally for dropping the ball both on the presentation of evidence--the ruling was on summary judgment--and the failure to file for a stay. The court noted yesterday that in the prop 8 case, the motion for a stay was filed well before the opinion issued).

Disclaimer: I'm no Constitutional scholar. But unless the Court develops a new kind of rational basis analysis (which it might) I don't know how 99% of statutes don't pass that test.


To understand the concept of rational basis review, it is easier to understand what it is not. Rational basis review is not intelligent basis review; the legislature is merely required to be rational, not smart. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every proffered justification for it is a grossly illogical non sequitur (or even worse, a word salad). In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens reaffirmed the lenient nature of rational basis review in a concurring opinion: "[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"

Many will say that Utah's ban is stupid, wrong, etc., but I can't see a winning argument that it's a "grossly illogical non sequitur."

As for strict scrutiny, the Supremes have got to make sexual orientation a suspect class before that one applies. Maybe they will. But until they do we ought to hold off on calling Shelby's opinion a masterpiece of jurisprudence.

If the Utah AG really did blow the request for stay, they ought to be publicly flogged for malpractice -- since the people really have no other remedy. Then again, the people elected both Shurtleff and Swallow, so maybe they deserve what they get.

[Applejack]

Disclaimer: I'm no Constitutional scholar. But unless the Court develops a new kind of rational basis analysis (which it might) I don't know how 99% of statutes don't pass that test.



Many will say that Utah's ban is stupid, wrong, etc., but I can't see a winning argument that it's a "grossly illogical non sequitur."

As for strict scrutiny, the Supremes have got to make sexual orientation a suspect class before that one applies. Maybe they will. But until they do we ought to hold off on calling Shelby's opinion a masterpiece of jurisprudence.

If the Utah AG really did blow the request for stay, they ought to be publicly flogged for malpractice -- since the people really have no other remedy. Then again, the people elected both Shurtleff and Swallow, so maybe they deserve what they get.

We've hashed this out before, so I don't want to redo old arguments on this site, but where does that "grossly illogical non-sequiter" language come from? When I google it I get wikipedia (utahby5 is the fifth hit).

The standard is that the law must be "rationally related" to a legitimate state interest. I understand that opponents of gay marriage claim that protecting marriage/protecting children/encouraging "ideal" family circumstances are the state interests at stake here. But even if one agrees that those are legitimate state interests, I still have yet to hear a good argument for how banning gay marriage is rationally-related to those goals.

I don't intend to belittle anyone who is opposed to gay marriage-I think there are legitimate reasons to personally oppose it (religious, moral, etc). I just don't think there is a legitimate basis on which the government can oppose it.

[LA Ute]

We've hashed this out before, so I don't want to redo old arguments on this site, but where does that "grossly illogical non-sequiter" language come from? When I google it I get wikipedia (utahby5 is the fifth hit).

The standard is that the law must be "rationally related" to a legitimate state interest. I understand that opponents of gay marriage claim that protecting marriage/protecting children/encouraging "ideal" family circumstances are the state interests at stake here. But even if one agrees that those are legitimate state interests, I still have yet to hear a good argument for how banning gay marriage is rationally-related to those goals.

I don't intend to belittle anyone who is opposed to gay marriage-I think there are legitimate reasons to personally oppose it (religious, moral, etc). I just don't think there is a legitimate basis on which the government can oppose it.

The language comes from a SCOTUS opinion somewhere. I don't want to revisit the argument either. My point is simply that merely because a law seems irrational to its opponents doesn't mean it's irrational for purposes of rational basis review, which is very, very deferential.

The philosophical nub of the argument is one on which we'll never agree, and that's fine with me. I simply don't think decisions like this ought to be made by courts. This is like Roe v. Wade in my mind. If, however, one believes sexual orientation is exactly like race, then that compels the opposite conclusion and a Supreme Court decision is the most appropriate way to resolve the issue.

[concerned]

Both Shelby's opinion and the Ohio federal opinion the other day rely heavily on Scalia's dissent in Windsor. It will be fascinating to see what happens.

Aslo, most of the opinion rests on due process, and the "fundamental right" to marry (not distinguishing between same or opposite sex, and citing Scalia), which requires strict scrutiny but not suspect classification of sexual oreintation.

[LA Ute]

Both Shelby's opinion and the Ohio federal opinion the other day rely heavily on Scalia's dissent in Windsor. It will be fascinating to see what happens.

Aslo, most of the opinion rests on due process, and the "fundamental right" to marry (not distinguishing between same or opposite sex, and citing Scalia), which requires strict scrutiny but not suspect classification of sexual oreintation.

You're right, this will be interesting. I have no doubt as to the eventual outcome, but how we get there is important, IMO.

[Applejack]

The language comes from a SCOTUS opinion somewhere. I don't want to revisit the argument either. My point is simply that merely because a law seems irrational to its opponents doesn't mean it's irrational for purposes of rational basis review, which is very, very deferential.

The philosophical nub of the argument is one on which we'll never agree, and that's fine with me. I simply don't think decisions like this ought to be made by courts. This is like Roe v. Wade in my mind. If, however, one believes sexual orientation is exactly like race, then that compels the opposite conclusion and a Supreme Court decision is the most appropriate way to resolve the issue.

I agree with what you say here--rational basis review is highly deferential and irrationality to one is not irrational to another.

I agree that having courts decide an issue like gay marriage has consequences, but that's what courts do for better or for worse, and I think on the whole it is for the betterment of all (Roe is a good example of harmful court intervention, in my opinion, not because I disagree with the outcome, but it was an issue that had not been allowed to fully percolate through politics). I think we both agree that this issue has percolated - the ultimate outcome is clear.

[LA Ute]

I agree with what you say here--rational basis review is highly deferential and irrationality to one is not irrational to another.

I agree that having courts decide an issue like gay marriage has consequences, but that's what courts do for better or for worse, and I think on the whole it is for the betterment of all (Roe is a good example of harmful court intervention, in my opinion, not because I disagree with the outcome, but it was an issue that had not been allowed to fully percolate through politics). I think we both agree that this issue has percolated - the ultimate outcome is clear.

Get off my lawn! :D And Merry Christmas!

[Diehard Ute]

If the Utah AG really did blow the request for stay, they ought to be publicly flogged for malpractice -- since the people really have no other remedy. Then again, the people elected both Shurtleff and Swallow, so maybe they deserve what they get.

From reliable sources.

Utah (especially our esteemed "I rode Huntsman's coattails to power" Governor) did not believe they had any chance of losing this case. They believed that since it was a majority rules amendment they had a slam dunk, thus they asked for a summary judgement, as did the plaintiffs.

The state felt so confident they never filed any request for a stay in the event they lost.

Once Judge Shelby ruled, they were caught off guard. Their first course of action was to call the Judge and ask for a stay over the phone. They had to be informed that was not proper procedure.

They then filed the request for a stay after hours, which Shelby scheduled as the first course of business on the next business day.

At the same time they also filed an emergency stay request with the 10th, however it was an improper request and was rejected. They did not ask the 10th for a stay pending a ruling on appeal.

They then filed a second request with the 10th, which was also improper and was also rejected.

The third request is now pending before the 10th.

The arguments presented so far for a stay have simply been the exact same arguments they presented at the initial argument with Shelby, they just put a different shirt on it.

My confidence in our AG's office and Governor is at an all time low. (And yes, people unwisely elected two very poor AG's which had done a lot of damage to the office but also the state for poor legal advice to state officials)

"Typical wisdom would have had, with the order of last Friday, a stay to accompany with it," Herbert said. "It clearly was going to be appealed, no matter what the decision was, it would be appealed by either side. So the process will move forward, that’s the democratic process."

He just failed to understand you have to ask for something, courts don't just assume.

As an aside, the AG's office has issued a statement that any clerks office refusing to issue licenses to same sex couples is in violation of the law. Utah County is still only issuing opposite sex licenses and is already being sued.

[Jarid in Cedar]

How is it that Heterosexuality has been selected as a "protected group" that has been discriminated "for" in that it is allowed additional benefits under the law? IOW, why is heterosexuality proffered legal benefits that other groups are not given? To me, that is the basis of the equal protection violation. There is no legal rationalization to why heterosexuals are afforded additional benefits under the law.

[LA Ute]

From reliable sources.

Utah (especially our esteemed "I rode Huntsman's coattails to power" Governor) did not believe they had any chance of losing this case. They believed that since it was a majority rules amendment they had a slam dunk, thus they asked for a summary judgement, as did the plaintiffs.

The state felt so confident they never filed any request for a stay in the event they lost.

Once Judge Shelby ruled, they were caught off guard. Their first course of action was to call the Judge and ask for a stay over the phone. They had to be informed that was not proper procedure.

They then filed the request for a stay after hours, which Shelby scheduled as the first course of business on the next business day.

At the same time they also filed an emergency stay request with the 10th, however it was an improper request and was rejected. They did not ask the 10th for a stay pending a ruling on appeal.

They then filed a second request with the 10th, which was also improper and was also rejected.

The third request is now pending before the 10th.

The arguments presented so far for a stay have simply been the exact same arguments they presented at the initial argument with Shelby, they just put a different shirt on it.

My confidence in our AG's office and Governor is at an all time low. (And yes, people unwisely elected two very poor AG's which had done a lot of damage to the office but also the state for poor legal advice to state officials)

"Typical wisdom would have had, with the order of last Friday, a stay to accompany with it," Herbert said. "It clearly was going to be appealed, no matter what the decision was, it would be appealed by either side. So the process will move forward, that’s the democratic process."

He just failed to understand you have to ask for something, courts don't just assume.

As an aside, the AG's office has issued a statement that any clerks office refusing to issue licenses to same sex couples is in violation of the law. Utah County is still only issuing opposite sex licenses and is already being sued.

Utah AG's office strategy session:

996

Back in the day that office had a good reputation for appellate work.

[concerned]

From reliable sources.

Utah (especially our esteemed "I rode Huntsman's coattails to power" Governor) did not believe they had any chance of losing this case. They believed that since it was a majority rules amendment they had a slam dunk, thus they asked for a summary judgement, as did the plaintiffs.

The state felt so confident they never filed any request for a stay in the event they lost.

Once Judge Shelby ruled, they were caught off guard. Their first course of action was to call the Judge and ask for a stay over the phone. They had to be informed that was not proper procedure.

They then filed the request for a stay after hours, which Shelby scheduled as the first course of business on the next business day.

At the same time they also filed an emergency stay request with the 10th, however it was an improper request and was rejected. They did not ask the 10th for a stay pending a ruling on appeal.

They then filed a second request with the 10th, which was also improper and was also rejected.

The third request is now pending before the 10th.

The arguments presented so far for a stay have simply been the exact same arguments they presented at the initial argument with Shelby, they just put a different shirt on it.

My confidence in our AG's office and Governor is at an all time low. (And yes, people unwisely elected two very poor AG's which had done a lot of damage to the office but also the state for poor legal advice to state officials)

"Typical wisdom would have had, with the order of last Friday, a stay to accompany with it," Herbert said. "It clearly was going to be appealed, no matter what the decision was, it would be appealed by either side. So the process will move forward, that’s the democratic process."

He just failed to understand you have to ask for something, courts don't just assume.

As an aside, the AG's office has issued a statement that any clerks office refusing to issue licenses to same sex couples is in violation of the law. Utah County is still only issuing opposite sex licenses and is already being sued.

All of that is absolutely correct; they did not think they would lose. The other reason they got caught off guard is that Shelby issued his opnion earlier than expected. He told the parties he would issue the opinion by Jan. 7, when the next hering was scheduled. Nobody expected it before Xmas.

[cald22well]

All of that is absolutely correct; they did not think they would lose. The other reason they got caught off guard is that Shelby issued his opnion earlier than expected. He told the parties he would issue the opinion by Jan. 7, when the next hering was scheduled. Nobody expected it before Xmas.

Some people have talked about whether or not he did it intentionally. Not only fairly late on a Friday, but the Friday before Christmas. The timing makes it hard for the opposition.

[concerned]

Some people have talked about whether or not he did it intentionally. Not only fairly late on a Friday, but the Friday before Christmas. The timing makes it hard for the opposition.

I don't think he thought about that all. I think he filed on friday because that was when it was ready. I think he wanted to get off his desk before the christmas holidays

[Diehard Ute]

I don't think he thought about that all. I think he filed on friday because that was when it was ready. I think he wanted to get off his desk before the christmas holidays

And I also think the states poor arguments made the case easier for him.

During their argument regarding procreation he asked very pointed questions regarding the states stand on infertile couples and post menopausal women, as the state was asserting if you can't procreate you can't marry. The state had no legitimate answer to those questions. Those kinds of things, IMO, helped get him to a faster ruling.

[concerned]

I don't know that many politicians, but for the few I do know, pretty much every move is calculated to make life harder for the other team.

not fair to characterize him as a politician. I don't think he even votedin the last four elections before he was appointed

[Diehard Ute]

Guess it depends on definitions. True, he didn't run for office, but he's a key cog in a political engine who got his job through political appointment. Whatever you want to call him, I bet he thinks about timing as well as content on politically-charged rulings.

Nominated by two republican senators, put forward by a democratic president and confirmed unanimously by the senate.

I find the political blame game with federal judges screams of sour grapes.

You can't have Mike Lee spouting his praises at nomination and now accuse him of pushing a political agenda.

Beyond that, Utah easily could have asked for a stay, as California did with Prop 8, during the course of the proceedings. They chose not to do that.

[Rocker Ute]

All of that is absolutely correct; they did not think they would lose. The other reason they got caught off guard is that Shelby issued his opnion earlier than expected. He told the parties he would issue the opinion by Jan. 7, when the next hering was scheduled. Nobody expected it before Xmas.

Ironic that the whole Swallow/Shurtleff brouhaha and almost 9 years of complete ineptitude allowed this to happen as it did. I didn't know a single lawyer locally who had worked with Shurtleff before he was elected who voted for him or believed he was qualified for the job, and that didn't even account for his ethical problems. Just a poor attorney. Swallow... well that goes without saying.

Salt Lake with Lohra Miller experienced the same problem, and both offices ran off a lot of good attorneys in the process.

Utah has made their bed and now they get to sleep in it by electing people with no knowledge of who they were or their qualifications, just that they wore their religion on their sleeve and had an R by their name. Truth of the matter is I think the problems with the AGs office is probably endemic throughout the entire Republican party. A number of the people I know personally running the party I'd have a hard time leaving them alone with children in good conscience they are such large sleazeballs.

Funny how that works out.

[LA Ute]

Ironic that the whole Swallow/Shurtleff brouhaha and almost 9 years of complete ineptitude allowed this to happen as it did. I didn't know a single lawyer locally who had worked with Shurtleff before he was elected who voted for him or believed he was qualified for the job, and that didn't even account for his ethical problems. Just a poor attorney. Swallow... well that goes without saying.

Salt Lake with Lohra Miller experienced the same problem, and both offices ran off a lot of good attorneys in the process.

Utah has made their bed and now they get to sleep in it by electing people with no knowledge of who they were or their qualifications, just that they wore their religion on their sleeve and had an R by their name. Truth of the matter is I think the problems with the AGs office is probably endemic throughout the entire Republican party. A number of the people I know personally running the party I'd have a hard time leaving them alone with children in good conscience they are such large sleazeballs.

Funny how that works out.

Clowns.

[Homer Crimson]

...they wore their religion on their sleeve and had an R by their name. Truth of the matter is I think the problems with the AGs office is probably endemic throughout the entire Republican party. A number of the people I know personally running the party I'd have a hard time leaving them alone with children in good conscience they are such large sleazeballs.

Funny how that works out.

I've been trying to explain this to my GOP friends for a while, that this state is going to end up like Illinois. Many just don't buy the argument that one-party rule is bad. Of course, things that I consider corrupt and evidence of malfeasance/incompetence don't seem to faze them unless it's done by democratic politicians. Funny how THAT works. I view the two parties and their members as rival gangs, not unlike the Crips and Bloods, where both put their own interests ahead of all, collateral damage be damned.

I am really hoping the caucus system is changed. I've had a couple of conservative friends that got interested in local politics only to discover that their neighborhood caucuses were unwelcoming and stacked against them once it was discovered that they weren't going to rubber stamp the caucus leaders' choices. I've tried to encourage them to stay involved and gather more like-minded folks to try to counteract the "gangster" types, but they were pretty put off by the whole thing.

What were we talking about?

[LA Ute]

That's fine, but don't count me in that group. No blame or sour grapes here. This is not an issue I care deeply about. I was just trying to argue that a judge at that level is a political figure.

All judges are politicians. To believe otherwise is kidding yourself.

[Diehard Ute]

10th circuit has denied both stay requests made by Utah. They will now appeal to the SCOTUS, Sonya Sotomayor is the justice assigned to the 10th circuit.

[LA Ute]

10th circuit has denied both stay requests made by Utah. They will now appeal to the SCOTUS, Sonya Sotomayor is the justice assigned to the 10th circuit.

Does anyone think her decision will be non-political?

[scottie]

During their argument regarding procreation he asked very pointed questions regarding the states stand on infertile couples and post menopausal women, as the state was asserting if you can't procreate you can't marry. The state had no legitimate answer to those questions. Those kinds of things, IMO, helped get him to a faster ruling.

Is the text of that available anywhere for us to read?

[Diehard Ute]

Is the text of that available anywhere for us to read?

Not that I'm aware of. They announced the ruling about 1730 hours

[LA Ute]

What does that even mean? It's a political decision. That's like asking if my vote in the upcoming election will be non-political.

I was cheerfully snarking a bit toward those who seem to think Judge Shelby acted in a totally objective, non-ideological manner in his handling of this case.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I was cheerfully snarking a bit toward those who seem to think Judge Shelby acted in a totally objective, non-ideological manner in his handling of this case.

totally objective, non-ideological manner=When I agree with the decision
Partisan hack= When I disagree with the decision

[concerned]

I was cheerfully snarking a bit toward those who seem to think Judge Shelby acted in a totally objective, non-ideological manner in his handling of this case.


Way to spout off with no idea what you are talking about. Nobody thinks any judge is totally objective, but that is a lot different that saying it is a political decision.

[LA Ute]

totally objective, non-ideological manner=When I agree with the decision
Partisan hack= When I disagree with the decision

Yep. Pretty much true. I at least admit my bias. I don't think Shelby's a partisan hack, though. He's just a federal district court judge. Regardless of their political leanings I have low expectations of them generally (based on experience!) and especially in big cases like this. And all I said was that it's silly to assume he acted in a "totally objective, non-ideological manner."


Way to spout off with no idea what you are talking about. Nobody thinks any judge is totally objective, but that is a lot different that saying it is a political decision.

Well, I have some idea of what I am talking about, but I'll admit that with everything that's been going on personally since last Friday I haven't studied the Utah constitutional provision at issue, nor do I know the applicable rules for seeking a stay. I practice mainly in state court. I'll just say this. To me it is eyebrow-raising (at a minimum) when a judge denies a stay on technical grounds, especially when he/she has granted injunctive relief that he/she knows is allowing irreversible changes in the status quo to proceed. (Technically, irreparable harm, in the language of equitable relief, which you know.) It just makes me wonder what is really going on with that judge. I've stood in front of too many of them who've been honest with me and said, "I may get reversed on this, but that's how I see the case. I'll grant you a stay if you want." Color me skeptical, that's all.


The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals didn't see anything wrong with Judge Shelby's ruling, at least not enough to grant a stay. I looked at which judges are in the 10th Circuit and half of them were appointed by Bush Sr. or Bush Jr, it would seem to be a fairly conservative court. Could it be that Utah's Amendment 3 is simply a very poorly written amendment? I've skimmed through Amendment 3 and its main argument is that gay marriage would somehow harm traditional marriages. It's a very non-sequitur argument. I can see why the judges would conclude that there is no other purpose of the Amendment than to degrade a group of people, which is clearly against the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Understood. See my comments above. I'll add that I am a little jaded about procedural maneuvering in marriage equality cases. In California Prop 8 was effectively removed from the State Constitution because the state's Attorney General refused to defend it, probably in violation of her own duty as the state's lawyer. I have watched people who were happy with that outcome shrug their shoulders at her behavior, but there's little doubt that if positions were reversed they'd be outraged to say the least.

[chrisrenrut]

Anyone attended an SSM wedding reception yet? A coworker of mine has one on January 11th. I'm excited for them, but am a little unsure if I should bring a gift or not, seeing how they have lived together for 15 years or more. The invitation didn't say anything about it, and it seems a little tacky to ask.

[Mormon Red Death]

Anyone attended an SSM wedding reception yet? A coworker of mine has one on January 11th. I'm excited for them, but am a little unsure if I should bring a gift or not, seeing how they have lived together for 15 years or more. The invitation didn't say anything about it, and it seems a little tacky to ask.

Would you bring a gift to a hetero couple that had lived together for 15 years?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[chrisrenrut]

Would you bring a gift to a hetero couple that had lived together for 15 years?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I haven't run into that situation before, so I can't say.

[LA Ute]

Would you bring a gift to a hetero couple that had lived together for 15 years?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I would in both situations.

[OrangeUte]

I would take something as a gift.

[OrangeUte]

http://fox13now.com/2014/01/04/same-sex-marriage-opponents-call-for-an-uprising/

This all sounds very Bull Connor-esque.

It is embarassing to hear/read about talk like this.

[OrangeUte]

I wonder if they're going to bring fire hoses and German shepherds to stop their rights from being violated by these gay and lesbian people marrying.

[FMCoug]

http://fox13now.com/2014/01/04/same-sex-marriage-opponents-call-for-an-uprising/

This all sounds very Bull Connor-esque.

It is embarassing to hear/read about talk like this.

It's even more embarrassing if you live here.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

[OrangeUte]

It's even more embarrassing if you live here.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

I find myself feeling very grateful that I don't any longer.

[NorthwestUteFan]

In thinking more about this situation I find myself asking what is the likelihood of ever having a political answer to this question in favor of gay martiage.

In states like Washington, Maine, and a few others the question was put to a vote via referendum and passed by The People. In Vermont it was passed as a bill by the legislature and signed by the Governor. In Mass, Utah, and numerous others it was allowed by a court ruling (though the ruling in Mass was later upheld by the legislature).

Will the more conservative states like Utah ever truly vote to uphold same sex marriage? I cannot envision a situation were conservative state like Utah will have a majority vote to support gay marriage.

The meantime actual emotional and financial damages are suffered by people who are in stable, committed relationships and who desire marriage to a long-term partner.

As far as I can tell the most that opponents to gay marriage have at risk is their own personal feelings.

In short, a judgement that is seen as overtly political may be the only recourse in states where a natural political solution is overwhelmingly unlikely to ever occur.

[Solon]

In thinking more about this situation I find myself asking what is the likelihood of ever having a political answer to this question in favor of gay martiage.

In states like Washington, Maine, and a few others the question was put to a vote via referendum and passed by The People. In Vermont it was passed as a bill by the legislature and signed by the Governor. In Mass, Utah, and numerous others it was allowed by a court ruling (though the ruling in Mass was later upheld by the legislature).

Will the more conservative states like Utah ever truly vote to uphold same sex marriage? I cannot envision a situation were conservative state like Utah will have a majority vote to support gay marriage.

The meantime actual emotional and financial damages are suffered by people who are in stable, committed relationships and who desire marriage to a long-term partner.

As far as I can tell the most that opponents to gay marriage have at risk is their own personal feelings.

In short, a judgement that is seen as overtly political may be the only recourse in states where a natural political solution is overwhelmingly unlikely to ever occur.

In my neck of the woods (conservative, small-town Utah), people have mostly just shrugged. The religious folks generally disagree with the idea of gay marriage but there's enough of a Libertarian Independent streak for there to be a general feeling to let people live their lives freely.

I think we're a generation away from this being a ho-hum topic (maybe 2 generations in Utah, which lags behind much of the country on social issues and general fashion trends).

I would suggest that the young people I teach are pretty tolerant, but I wonder if they're just too bored & lazy to give it much thought. Either way, the idea of gay marriage doesn't move their needles much (unless he's super-attractive, I guess).

[Viking]

This whole episode is simply ridiculous. Many of those who oppose gay marriage would have opposed de-segregation.

[Devildog]

In my neck of the woods (conservative, small-town Utah), people have mostly just shrugged...


I wonder if they're just too bored & lazy to give it much thought. Either way, the idea of gay marriage doesn't move their needles much.

Yep, exactly.

Personally I couldn't care less. This is my first post in this thread and I suspect it will probably be the last too.

What does surprise me is that this thread is one of the most popular in this particular forum... which makes me think that this issue is more important to many here, than it is in the "community" at large... And this place was created as basically a Ute football forum. I realize that it is much more than that, but the Utah by 5 demographic is eclectic and unique. Some here are probably far more interested in this matter than most in Utah.

[LA Ute]

The Supreme Court did issue a stay today so the story is not over. I don't expect a different outcome but the issue should not be decided district court by district court.

[Viking]

Gerilyn Ruzeagar and the Feeble Forum need to answer: "what happened between you and a Butterfinger"?

NSFW

http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/p5qpf3/stand-up-chris-delia--uncensored---chris-d-elia---gay-friend-in-the-crew-pt--2

[Homer Crimson]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57391605-78/marriage-sex-percent-state.html.csp It may survive it's current appeals, but even if upheld this time, Amendment 3 is going to be short-lived.

[Diehard Ute]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57391605-78/marriage-sex-percent-state.html.csp It may survive it's current appeals, but even if upheld this time, Amendment 3 is going to be short-lived.

I think the quote from the person from Orem is going to be the talking point.

LaNae is obviously religious and believes marriage is between a man and woman and God. She goes on to say that "If the gay community is wanting their relationship to be legally recognized, they can do that without having a marriage license."

And that's the issue, LaNae, under Utah law their relationship can't be legally recognized, and Gary Herbert has made it quite clear he's willing to do anything to keep it that way.

Now my question is, do people such as LaNae not understand that heterosexual couples in Utah are afforded rights that others are not?

Utah, and other states, attach rights and benefits to marriage which is the main issue in the first place. Perhaps people such as LaNae are ignorant to the fact that marriage is the only way to be recognized and receive said benefits.

(In an unrelated note I think the tax system changing based on your marital status is crap in the first place)

I understand many have this moral attachment to the word marriage...perhaps that's blinding their view of the real world issues that come with that word.

[Homer Crimson]

I understand many have this moral attachment to the word marriage...perhaps that's blinding their view of the real world issues that come with that word.

I've been saying all along that a big part of the problem stems from people being unable to separate ecclesiastic marriage from secular/civil marriage. To be fair, Amendment 3 also forbade the recognition of civil unions, which to me, demonstrates that it was a fundamentally mean-spirited and bigoted act. The people who crafted it not only wanted to deny gay marriage, but also prevent any means for LGBT partners to receive anything resembling the legal rights/benefits associated with a spousal relationship. Many in the poll support civil unions but not gay marriage, but Amendment 3 denies even that, and I think a lot if not most Utahns don't realize that.

[Diehard Ute]

I've been saying all along that a big part of the problem stems from people being unable to separate ecclesiastic marriage from secular/civil marriage. To be fair, Amendment 3 also forbade the recognition of civil unions, which to me, demonstrates that it was a fundamentally mean-spirited and bigoted act. The people who crafted it not only wanted to deny gay marriage, but also prevent any means for LGBT partners to receive anything resembling the legal rights/benefits associated with a spousal relationship. Many in the poll support civil unions but not gay marriage, but Amendment 3 denies even that, and I think a lot if not most Utahns don't realize that.

I agree 100%

And maybe that's a question such a poll should ask. If people know that there is no provision in Utah for anyone but heterosexuals to receive the benefits attached to marriage.

I think many in Utah don't understand that issue, because in their world it isn't an issue at all.

[LA Ute]

I agree 100%

And maybe that's a question such a poll should ask. If people know that there is no provision in Utah for anyone but heterosexuals to receive the benefits attached to marriage.

I think many in Utah don't understand that issue, because in their world it isn't an issue at all.

I don't want to argue but hasn't that distinction been around a long time? Married people are treated differently for tax purposes, as you've noted, and have been for decades. Back during the Vietnam-era military draft, being married increased the likelihood of getting a deferment (https://www2.bc.edu/devlin-hanson/JobMarketPaper.pdf). Has that distinction always been a unconstitutional , and we are just now discovering that fact?

[Diehard Ute]

I don't want to argue but hasn't that distinction been around a long time? Married people are treated differently for tax purposes, as you've noted, and have been for decades. Back during the Vietnam-era military draft, being married increased the likelihood of getting a deferment (https://www2.bc.edu/devlin-hanson/JobMarketPaper.pdf). Has that distinction always been discriminatory, and we are just now discovering that fact?

I think it's things such as hospital visitation, health insurance etc that have forced the issue

But personally I have always found the idea that being married somehow changed how much you should pay in taxes etc to be silly

Well I guess there is one area of government that doesn't care if you're married or not. Domestic Violence laws.

[UtahDan]

I think it's things such as hospital visitation, health insurance etc that have forced the issue

But personally I have always found the idea that being married somehow changed how much you should pay in taxes etc to be silly

Well I guess there is one area of government that doesn't care if you're married or not. Domestic Violence laws.

One big issue many people are not conscious of is that only a spouse can adopt a child. So the existing children of gay relationships are entitled to no support from the non-bio parent if he/she splits with bio parent. Similarly, non-bio parent has a few if any rights respecting the raising of the children or visitation with them.

[LA Ute]

I dug up a copy of Judge Shelby's order denying Utah's request for a stay:

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/20131223-District-Court-Judge-Shelbys-Order-on-Motion-to-Stay.pdf

Bottom line: Judge Shelby simply didn't want to stay his order. It is clear that the Utah AG screwed up by not lining up its ducks in advance, but it sure doesn't look like Shelby would have granted a stay in any case. This is a very result-oriented order, and I think anyone can see that.

Again, for the record: I think we'll end up with nationwide same-sex marriage and I will accept that. I just don't like the way we are getting there. (And Applejack, my friend, if you're reading this, I think it's far too early to say that unlike abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, this issue has already "percolated" and thus it's OK for a sweeping change by judicial fiat.)

[Diehard Ute]

I dug up a copy of Judge Shelby's order denying Utah's request for a stay:

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/20131223-District-Court-Judge-Shelbys-Order-on-Motion-to-Stay.pdf

Bottom line: Judge Shelby simply didn't want to stay his order. It is clear that the Utah AG screwed up by not lining up its ducks in advance, but it sure doesn't look like Shelby would have granted a stay in any case. This is a very result-oriented order, and I think anyone can see that.

Again, for the record: I think we'll end up with nationwide same-sex marriage and I will accept that. I just don't like the way we are getting there. (And Applejack, my friend, if you're reading this, I think it's far too early to say that unlike abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, this issue has already "percolated" and thus it's OK for a sweeping change by judicial fiat.)

So I assume you dislike the 10th circuit denying it as well? I just read it and don't come to your same conclusion.

Utah has a poor governor and poor legal counsel. That's the biggest reason no stay was granted IMO.

It's interesting to note the state dropped their procreation argument when they went to SCOTUS, the argument they'd been so attached to despite having poor arguments when questioned during oral arguments.

I don't think Utah made a good argument to either Shelby or the 10th for a stay. (The 10th also indicated they're not likely to win an appeal)

I have no issue with the way we're getting there. Shall we take up nerf guns at high noon LA? :D

[LA Ute]

So I assume you dislike the 10th circuit denying it as well? I just read it and don't come to your same conclusion.

Utah has a poor governor and poor legal counsel. That's the biggest reason no stay was granted IMO.

It's interesting to note the state dropped their procreation argument when they went to SCOTUS, the argument they'd been so attached to despite having poor arguments when questioned during oral arguments.

I don't think Utah made a good argument to either Shelby or the 10th for a stay. (The 10th also indicated they're not likely to win an appeal)

I have no issue with the way we're getting there. Shall we take up nerf guns at high noon LA? :D

I will not be defending the Utah AG's office! But I would like to see the lawyers here tell me with a straight face that Shelby's ruling is not result-oriented. And no nerf guns! I'll just buy you lunch sometime and set you straight. Clearly I have a lot of work to do with you. http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww173/prestonjjrtr/Smileys/fencing.gif

[Two Utes]

I will not be defending the Utah AG's office! But I would like to see the lawyers here tell me with a straight face that Shelby's ruling is not result-oriented. And no nerf guns! I'll just buy you lunch sometime and set you straight. Clearly I have a lot of work to do with you. http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww173/prestonjjrtr/Smileys/fencing.gif

It doesn't matter. The bottom line is no one on the 10th Circuit is going to sign their name to a Plessy v. Ferguson like ruling. You're only arguing that it was results oriented because you have absolutely nothing else to argue on this issue.

It's unbelievable that so many around me are still wanting to fight battles over this when the war has already been lost. This is a big mother f-ing locomotive that has left the train station.

What in the world is our state government doing spending money trying to stop it? History will not be kind to Herbert and others who are still trying to fight this war. And the predominant religion is sitting on the sideline, while tacitly pushing its active members to keep fighting.

[Applejack]

I will not be defending the Utah AG's office! But I would like to see the lawyers here tell me with a straight face that Shelby's ruling is not result-oriented. And no nerf guns! I'll just buy you lunch sometime and set you straight. Clearly I have a lot of work to do with you. http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww173/prestonjjrtr/Smileys/fencing.gif

I disagreed with Shelby's denial of stay at the time it issued (you can check my posts). I didn't get into the details of the filings (boring!), but for a momentous case like that in Utah, a stay seemed justified.

However, now that I've admitted that, I want you to admit that there is a solid case to be made that bans on same-sex marriage do not have a rational basis. Utah (and now Oklahoma (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/oklahoma-gay-marriage/)) agree with me.

[LA Ute]

I disagreed with Shelby's denial of stay at the time it issued (you can check my posts). I didn't get into the details of the filings (boring!), but for a momentous case like that in Utah, a stay seemed justified.

However, now that I've admitted that, I want you to admit that there is a solid case to be made that bans on same-sex marriage do not have a rational basis. Utah (and now Oklahoma (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/oklahoma-gay-marriage/)) agree with me.

Ahem. Two district court judges agree with you. I don't think the Surpreme Court will change rational basis review the way those judges think they should. They will probably find some other way to get to a result finding Constitutional protection for SSM, however. Remember, "rational" does not mean "well-reasoned."


It doesn't matter. The bottom line is no one on the 10th Circuit is going to sign their name to a Plessy v. Ferguson like ruling. You're only arguing that it was results oriented because you have absolutely nothing else to argue on this issue.

It's unbelievable so that so many around me are still wanting to fight battles over this when the war has already been lost. This is a big mother f-ing locomotive that has left the train station.

What in the world is our state government doing spending money trying to stop it? History will not be kind to Herbert and others who are still trying to fight this war. And the predominant religion is sitting on the sideline, while tacitly pushing its active members to keep fighting.

I'll say it again: Your side of this debate is eventually going to prevail. But you can't just steamroll a change like this over the people. 2/3 of the states have either constitutional provisions or statutes, enacted by popular vote, making marriage between a man and a woman -- all enacted in the last 10 years or so. That can't just be ignored without some serious damage to the credibility of the courts and the general social compact that underlies our system of government. So the train may be getting ready to leave the station, but it's still very much in the station. Just my opinion.

Edit: Also for the record, I think the Republic will survive whatever happens with this issue and I will happily attend the weddings of my gay friends and congratulate them.

[Diehard Ute]

Ahem. Two district court judges agree with you. I don't think the Surpreme Court will change rational basis review the way those judges think they should. They will probably find some other way to get to a result finding Constitutional protection for SSM, however. Remember, "rational" does not mean "well-reasoned."



I'll say it again: Your side of this debate is eventually going to prevail. But you can't just steamroll a change like this over the people. 2/3 of the states have either constitutional provisions or statutes, enacted by popular vote, making marriage between a man and a woman -- all enacted in the last 10 years or so. That can't just be ignored without some serious damage to the credibility of the courts and the general social compact that underlies our system of government. So the train may be getting ready to leave the station, but it's still very much in the station. Just my opinion.

Edit: Also for the record, I think the Republic will survive whatever happens with this issue and I will happily attend the weddings of my gay friends and congratulate them.

Yes. Popularity contests are always the best way to decide things ;)

While the premise that the "people voting" for something is a great way to do things, we all know what that results in. (See The Utah Attorney Generals Office, also caused by popular vote)

I also firmly stand by my point from yesterday that many "voters" likely believe same sex couples can attain equal legal status without being married. I truly believe the masses do not understand what's been attached to the word marriage by the states and thus don't know what they're voting for, beyond their morality vote (which is an entirely different issue)

I know your issue is with the word marriage (perhaps you can patent the word as India has patented yoga poses ;) ) and not, as far as I can tell, with allowing same sex couples the same legal rights afforded to you. Am I correct in saying that?

[LA Ute]

Yes. Popularity contests are always the best way to decide things ;)

While the premise that the "people voting" for something is a great way to do things, we all know what that results in. (See The Utah Attorney Generals Office, also caused by popular vote)

I also firmly stand by my point from yesterday that many "voters" likely believe same sex couples can attain equal legal status without being married. I truly believe the masses do not understand what's been attached to the word marriage by the states and thus don't know what they're voting for, beyond their morality vote (which is an entirely different issue)

I know your issue is with the word marriage (perhaps you can patent the word as India has patented yoga poses ;) ) and not, as far as I can tell, with allowing same sex couples the same legal rights afforded to you. Am I correct in saying that?

In California civil unions get the same recognition as marriages. I have no problem with that and support it.

[Diehard Ute]

In California civil unions get the same recognition as marriages. I have no problem with that and support it.

Which is a far cry from Utah who is actively fighting to stop any recognition.

[Mormon Red Death]

Ahem. Two district court judges agree with you. I don't think the Surpreme Court will change rational basis review the way those judges think they should. They will probably find some other way to get to a result finding Constitutional protection for SSM, however. Remember, "rational" does not mean "well-reasoned."

I'll say it again: Your side of this debate is eventually going to prevail. But you can't just steamroll a change like this over the people. 2/3 of the states have either constitutional provisions or statutes, enacted by popular vote, making marriage between a man and a woman -- all enacted in the last 10 years or so. That can't just be ignored without some serious damage to the credibility of the courts and the general social compact that underlies our system of government. So the train may be getting ready to leave the station, but it's still very much in the station. Just my opinion.

Edit: Also for the record, I think the Republic will survive whatever happens with this issue and I will happily attend the weddings of my gay friends and congratulate them.

LA Ute...Why kickest thou against the pricks?

What a waste of time and money. Can't they just pass a national law not restricting marriange to a just a man and a woman? Then when gay people get married everywhere we will all go on with our lives when the inevitable nothing happens.

[Mormon Red Death]

I love this argument. Massachusetts marries some gay couples, and a day later everyone gets in the face of whatever gay marriage opponent they know to say "See, the world didn't end! You were wrong about everything!" Gay marriage is a big deal, and there will be positive, negative, short term, long term, obvious, subtle, and intractable effects.

I live in Colorado, so currently "nothing happened" when they legalized marijuana.

Ok hot shot... It's been 10 years since mass let gays marry. What are the effects of that? Oh yeah it hasn't changed anything for those who aren't gay

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[Homer Crimson]

I love this argument. Massachusetts marries some gay couples, and a day later everyone gets in the face of whatever gay marriage opponent they know to say "See, the world didn't end! You were wrong about everything!" Gay marriage is a big deal, and there will be positive, negative, short term, long term, obvious, subtle, and intractable effects.

But are any of those effects harmful enough to justify denying citizens their equal rights?

I get that Gay marriage is a big change, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it will be a big deal, in that it will end up effecting almost no straight people in any meaningful way.

[Homer Crimson]

I'll say it again: Your side of this debate is eventually going to prevail. But you can't just steamroll a change like this over the people. 2/3 of the states have either constitutional provisions or statutes, enacted by popular vote, making marriage between a man and a woman -- all enacted in the last 10 years or so. That can't just be ignored without some serious damage to the credibility of the courts and the general social compact that underlies our system of government. So the train may be getting ready to leave the station, but it's still very much in the station. Just my opinion.

Damage like, say, Bush v. Gore did? I kid, but I would say justice delayed is justice denied. In the decade since these laws/amendments were passed, it is clear that we are moving rapidly to the view that LGBT is a class deserving equal protection, and if a judge sees them as such, to continue to deny them a civil right because the majority will be upset is more damaging than the status quo. The trib's poll yesterday shows that Amendment 3 would likely fail if tried today, mainly because it forbids ANY legal recognition of LGBT relationships, and the majority is now for that. If we followed this consideration of the will of the people and states' rights, we would still have segregation and miscegenation laws in parts of the South today. That so many Utahns seem to think that majority rule and being able to decide what rights their neighbors should have is how our system works, is sad.

It's hard to find something more ironic than the fact that passing these laws in the first place is hastening SSM. If gay couples all over the nation were petitioning the courts to be able to marry in the absence of any legal restrictions or definitions of traditional marriage, does anyone think they'd be nearly this far along?

[LA Ute]

I love this argument. Massachusetts marries some gay couples, and a day later everyone gets in the face of whatever gay marriage opponent they know to say "See, the world didn't end! You were wrong about everything!" Gay marriage is a big deal, and there will be positive, negative, short term, long term, obvious, subtle, and intractable effects.

I live in Colorado, so currently "nothing happened" when they legalized marijuana.

We won't know for decades what, if any, impact gay marriage will have on the kids raised in gay unions. Even then the results of studies will be endlessly debated. To me this debate is fundamentally about what is the ideal family that society wants to encourage. I personally think the that ideal family is one in which kids get to grow up with both a father and a mother, and that we ought to be encouraging that. Yes, such families are increasingly rare, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the ideal. I know reasonable people of good will disagree. That we disagree profoundly on a fundamental issue doesn't make them or me bad guys.

[Jarid in Cedar]

We won't know for decades what, if any, impact gay marriage will have on the kids raised in gay unions. Even then the results of studies will be endlessly debated. To me this debate is fundamentally about what is the ideal family that society wants to encourage. I personally think the that ideal family is one in which kids get to grow up with both a father and a mother, and that we ought to be encouraging that. Yes, such families are increasingly rare, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the ideal. I know reasonable people of good will disagree. That we disagree profoundly on a fundamental issue doesn't make them or me bad guys.

Decades? :blink:

And what you really are saying is that you don't want to see your ideal abandoned

[Rocker Ute]

But are any of those effects harmful enough to justify denying citizens their equal rights?

I get that Gay marriage is a big change, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it will be a big deal, in that it will end up effecting almost no straight people in any meaningful way.

What if the government makes me, a straight male, fall in love with and marry a gay man? I bet you never thought of that, huh?

[LA Ute]

Decades? :blink:

Longitudinal studies take a long time, don't they?


And what you really are saying is that you don't want to see your ideal abandoned

I suppose that's right. I believe it's an ideal worth defending and preserving. And you don't think it's only my ideal, do you?

[Applejack]

We won't know for decades what, if any, impact gay marriage will have on the kids raised in gay unions. Even then the results of studies will be endlessly debated. To me this debate is fundamentally about what is the ideal family that society wants to encourage. I personally think the that ideal family is one in which kids get to grow up with both a father and a mother, and that we ought to be encouraging that. Yes, such families are increasingly rare, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the ideal. I know reasonable people of good will disagree. That we disagree profoundly on a fundamental issue doesn't make them or me bad guys.

We've had this discussion before, but if the "ideal family" is what you are trying to protect, you should be campaigning for changes to the adoption laws, not from denying gays the right to marry. The legality of gay marriage impacts only whether a child is raised by married gay parents or two co-habitating gay parents, not whether they can adopt/raise kids - I presume you (and most gay marriage opponents) would prefer married gay parents in that scenario. That, to me, is the big disconnect in the argument and why I think it doesn't serve as a rational basis, even though it is a perfectly legitimate concern.

[Diehard Ute]

But which is more politically viable - allowing gay marriage but not gay adoption, or not allowing gay marriage? Clear now that neither wins long term, but the second was seen as possible for a while.

But if the "ideal" family is a man and a woman why would we allow single parent adoption?

The reality is people are claiming it's about the "kids" when, from where I sit, it's about the "gay"

[LA Ute]

But if the "ideal" family is a man and a woman why would we allow single parent adoption?

The reality is people are claiming it's about the "kids" when, from where I sit, it's about the "gay"

Rats. People are starting to look into my soul and discover my secret bigotry. I should have known I couldn't keep it hidden forever. ;)

[Applejack]

But which is more politically viable - allowing gay marriage but not gay adoption, or not allowing gay marriage? Clear now that neither wins long term, but the second was seen as possible for a while.

I agree with you on the political realities involved. But why fight for something that might win politically, if it has no impact on what you are striving to achieve (increasing the number of children raised in nuclear families)? That's why I think gay marriage laws cannot be justified by focusing on the kids: the only thing that happens to kids if gay marriage is illegal is that they lose out on their parents being married and all of the benefits that everyone agrees comes from that union.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I think many of the people who make that argument would also argue against single parent adoption.



It's about both. I think that legitimizing homosexual behavior will (has?) increase it, and I prefer that not happen. Not the end of the world if it does. It's a slight preference that might change for me depending on the weather (I'm like that on most issues).

Had lunch at Hires two weeks ago with a close gay friend. He was on cloud 9 after the ruling. Said for the first time he felt like an equal person. I was happy for him, even while disagreeing that he was ever unequal to begin with.

I prefer that gay marriage be legitimized as an option up front for people, for a reason you may not realize.

I know many men and women who are gay and suppressed it, but under societal peer pressure entered a heterosexual marriage. Every single one of them loved and were friendly with their spouses, at least initially, but were not fully attracted to the spouse sexually. The result in most cases is an unhappy marriage and inauthentic life, a messy divorce, broken hearts, and a mile-wide path of emotional wreckage to both partners. In marriages with,children the effect is greatly compounded.

If on the other hand these people were allowed up front to marry whomever they wanted, most of that emotional wreckage would have been avoided. (And of course replaced by a different set of problems).

Also, I hope you recognize the internal contradiction of you (an 'insider') thinking your friend (an 'outsider') should not have felt unequal or excluded in the first place.

[NorthwestUteFan]

That's why I think gay marriage laws cannot be justified by focusing on the kids: the only thing that happens to kids if gay marriage is illegal is that they lose out on their parents being married and all of the benefits that everyone agrees comes from that union.

My brother-in-law was essentially married to his partner in every way for 12 years, until they got actually married 2 weeks ago. They already had combined banking accounts, insurance plans, mortgage on their house, car loans, business loans, are listed on each others' wills, and even had Power of Attorney for one another. They raise my nephews and are tremendous parents. Their day-to-day lives will not change hardly at all.

But without that marriage certificate they could not claim to be next of kin for one another. That may not seem important on most days but without that distinction they could be denied hospital visits, death and pension benefits, inheritance rights, be kept out of end-of-life decisions, etc. All of these things are tied in to marriage laws and affect only the two partners involved. Denying them the right to make these choices for themselves is the specific damage caused by laws such as Prop 22 and Prop 8 in California, and Amendment 3 in Utah.

I don't recall whether this link was posted but it is a good read: http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57344661-219/les-marriage-mortician-equality.html.csp

[Two Utes]

I prefer that gay marriage be legitimized as an option up front for people, for a reason you may not realize.

I know many men and women who are gay and suppressed it, but under societal peer pressure entered a heterosexual marriage. Every single one of them loved and were friendly with their spouses, at least initially, but were not fully attracted to the spouse sexually. The result in most cases is an unhappy marriage and inauthentic life, a messy divorce, broken hearts, and a mile-wide path of emotional wreckage to both partners. In marriages with,children the effect is greatly compounded.

If on the other hand these people were allowed up front to marry whomever they wanted, most of that emotional wreckage would have been avoided. (And of course replaced by a different set of problems).

Also, I hope you recognize the internal contradiction of you (an 'insider') thinking your friend (an 'outsider') should not have felt unequal or excluded in the first place.

This. I live Sugar House. This part of town is filled with former Mormons who are now divorced and Gay. Their kids all come from broken families. You should be devastated LA

[LA Ute]

My brother-in-law was essentially married to his partner in every way for 12 years, until they got actually married 2 weeks ago. They already had combined banking accounts, insurance plans, mortgage on their house, car loans, business loans, are listed on each others' wills, and even had Power of Attorney for one another. They raise my nephews and are tremendous parents. Their day-to-day lives will not change hardly at all.

But without that marriage certificate they could not claim to be next of kin for one another. That may not seem important on most days but without that distinction they could be denied hospital visits, death and pension benefits, inheritance rights, be kept out of end-of-life decisions, etc. All of these things are tied in to marriage laws and affect only the two partners involved. Denying them the right to make these choices for themselves is the specific damage caused by laws such as Prop 22 and Prop 8 in California, and Amendment 3 in Utah.

I don't recall whether this link was posted but it is a good read: http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57344661-219/les-marriage-mortician-equality.html.csp

Well, both Props 8 and 22 didn't affect civil unions in CA, so they would have all the legal benefits you mention here. Notably, the LDS Church did not oppose civil unions in CA. Not sure what happened in Utah.

[Mormon Red Death]

Well, both Props 8 and 22 didn't affect civil unions in CA, so they would have all the legal benefits you mention here. Notably, the LDS Church did not oppose civil unions in CA. Not sure what happened in Utah.

Gay marriage has been happening in Massachusetts for 10 years now and straight people arent affected. They don't need civil unions when them having marriages doesn't hurt other people.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[Solon]

Gay marriage has been happening in Massachusetts for 10 years now and straight people arent affected. They don't need civil unions when them having marriages doesn't hurt other people.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

FWIW, The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in 2008 that civil unions are inherently unequal to marriage. Not that this decision will come into play in Utah's saga, but I find the argument compelling.




Arguments in the case centered on whether civil unions and marriages conferred equal rights.
. . .
“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and Lubbie Harper. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not.”
. . .
“There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage,” the court said. “Ultimately, the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[LA Ute]

Gay marriage has been happening in Massachusetts for 10 years now and straight people arent affected. They don't need civil unions when them having marriages doesn't hurt other people.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Who's arguing that gay marriages will hurt them?

[concerned]

Well you knew this was coming. the slippery slope. first polygamy, now this. (actually it is interesting that they borrow that language of the equality court decisions.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57403616-78/alta-snowboarders-lawsuit-claims.html.csp

[UTEopia]

I have followed to some extent the media reports concerning the legal battle going on in Utah but they leave a lot to be desired when really trying to get to the crux of the arguments. Also, my con law is very rusty, so I am not up to speed on those arguments. As best I can tell, the plaintiffs are arguing that marriage is a fundamental right and it is a violation of the Equal Protection clause for the State to prevent a group of people (same sex orientation) from accessing that right. I believe the argument is that the State must show more than a rational basis for the law in order for it to stand. The State on the other hand is arguing that although traditional marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right "gay marriage" is not a fundamental right and therefore the State need only show a rational basis for the law. Have I framed the legal issue correctly.

The State has raised a bunch of arguments to support the rational basis argument, which as I recall is a very, very low standard. Those arguments include: tradition, best situation for kids and then what?

Although I consider myself active LDS, I am finding that I don't really have a horse in this race. I don't think the extension of these rights will harm me or my kids or grandkids. On the other hand, I do have empathy for those who would like to have the same rights that I enjoy.

My position comes down to this. The State should get out of the marriage license business and allow people to marry at the place of their choosing. People can then, if they choose, license their relationship as a domestic partnership and thereby receive all of the State and Federal benefits that currently go to married people. I would also like to see the tax penalty of being single removed and the wealth shifting tax deductions for children eliminated. I would really like to see all deductions and tax deferral options eliminated and go to a flat tax, but I know all of this is a dream for another time.

I digress, could someone tell me if I am on the right track on the marriage issue in Utah? Thanks

[concerned]

I have followed to some extent the media reports concerning the legal battle going on in Utah but they leave a lot to be desired when really trying to get to the crux of the arguments. Also, my con law is very rusty, so I am not up to speed on those arguments. As best I can tell, the plaintiffs are arguing that marriage is a fundamental right and it is a violation of the Equal Protection clause for the State to prevent a group of people (same sex orientation) from accessing that right. I believe the argument is that the State must show more than a rational basis for the law in order for it to stand. The State on the other hand is arguing that although traditional marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right "gay marriage" is not a fundamental right and therefore the State need only show a rational basis for the law. Have I framed the legal issue correctly.

The State has raised a bunch of arguments to support the rational basis argument, which as I recall is a very, very low standard. Those arguments include: tradition, best situation for kids and then what?

Although I consider myself active LDS, I am finding that I don't really have a horse in this race. I don't think the extension of these rights will harm me or my kids or grandkids. On the other hand, I do have empathy for those who would like to have the same rights that I enjoy.

My position comes down to this. The State should get out of the marriage license business and allow people to marry at the place of their choosing. People can then, if they choose, license their relationship as a domestic partnership and thereby receive all of the State and Federal benefits that currently go to married people. I would also like to see the tax penalty of being single removed and the wealth shifting tax deductions for children eliminated. I would really like to see all deductions and tax deferral options eliminated and go to a flat tax, but I know all of this is a dream for another time.

I digress, could someone tell me if I am on the right track on the marriage issue in Utah? Thanks

You are on track, except that both the Utah case and the Oklahoma case applied a rational basis analysis, and said the state established no rational basis. the utah Court also applied stricter scrutiny, and said the state failed there too.

[LA Ute]

I have followed to some extent the media reports concerning the legal battle going on in Utah but they leave a lot to be desired when really trying to get to the crux of the arguments. Also, my con law is very rusty, so I am not up to speed on those arguments. As best I can tell, the plaintiffs are arguing that marriage is a fundamental right and it is a violation of the Equal Protection clause for the State to prevent a group of people (same sex orientation) from accessing that right. I believe the argument is that the State must show more than a rational basis for the law in order for it to stand. The State on the other hand is arguing that although traditional marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right "gay marriage" is not a fundamental right and therefore the State need only show a rational basis for the law. Have I framed the legal issue correctly.

The State has raised a bunch of arguments to support the rational basis argument, which as I recall is a very, very low standard. Those arguments include: tradition, best situation for kids and then what?

Although I consider myself active LDS, I am finding that I don't really have a horse in this race. I don't think the extension of these rights will harm me or my kids or grandkids. On the other hand, I do have empathy for those who would like to have the same rights that I enjoy.

My position comes down to this. The State should get out of the marriage license business and allow people to marry at the place of their choosing. People can then, if they choose, license their relationship as a domestic partnership and thereby receive all of the State and Federal benefits that currently go to married people. I would also like to see the tax penalty of being single removed and the wealth shifting tax deductions for children eliminated. I would really like to see all deductions and tax deferral options eliminated and go to a flat tax, but I know all of this is a dream for another time.

I digress, could someone tell me if I am on the right track on the marriage issue in Utah? Thanks

Like concerned said, you have it pretty much right. This will have to get worked out in the appellate courts, because the two trial courts' application of rational basis pushes the edge of the envelope (to put it mildly) and the Supreme Court hasn't made sexual orientation a suspect class yet (and thus strict scrutiny doesn't apply). So the legal dispute is far from over but I think when push comes to shove Justice Kennedy will vote to make same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

I don't think that will be the end of the world. It's a development I'm sorry to see occur, but there are lots of things I'm sorry to see occur -- like 37% of all children in the US now being born to a single mother (I may have that statistic off, but I think I heard that a few days ago). My main objection all along has been the way this is being forced on the country by the courts, almost always by the vote of a single judge. It was 4-3 in the Cal Supreme Court in the case that led to Prop 8. That constitutional amendment was overturned by the vote of a single district court judge. The cases in Utah and Oklahoma were by a single trial court judge. I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court was a 4-3 decision too. If the U.S. Supreme Court decides in favor of the plaintiffs in these cases it will likely be by a 5-4 decision. I just don't like huge shifts being approved that way. But maybe that's just me.

[Two Utes]

Well you knew this was coming. the slippery slope. first polygamy, now this. (actually it is interesting that they borrow that language of the equality court decisions.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57403616-78/alta-snowboarders-lawsuit-claims.html.csp

That's my good friend bringing this lawsuit. And one of the plaintiffs is my neighbor. I'm wondering if the Rustlers Lodge up there has a dress code. And, if so, whether it is unconstitutional. And I own a Toboggan. Are my rights being protected here?

[Two Utes]

I have followed to some extent the media reports concerning the legal battle going on in Utah but they leave a lot to be desired when really trying to get to the crux of the arguments. Also, my con law is very rusty, so I am not up to speed on those arguments. As best I can tell, the plaintiffs are arguing that marriage is a fundamental right and it is a violation of the Equal Protection clause for the State to prevent a group of people (same sex orientation) from accessing that right. I believe the argument is that the State must show more than a rational basis for the law in order for it to stand. The State on the other hand is arguing that although traditional marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental right "gay marriage" is not a fundamental right and therefore the State need only show a rational basis for the law. Have I framed the legal issue correctly.

The State has raised a bunch of arguments to support the rational basis argument, which as I recall is a very, very low standard. Those arguments include: tradition, best situation for kids and then what?

Although I consider myself active LDS, I am finding that I don't really have a horse in this race. I don't think the extension of these rights will harm me or my kids or grandkids. On the other hand, I do have empathy for those who would like to have the same rights that I enjoy.

My position comes down to this. The State should get out of the marriage license business and allow people to marry at the place of their choosing. People can then, if they choose, license their relationship as a domestic partnership and thereby receive all of the State and Federal benefits that currently go to married people. I would also like to see the tax penalty of being single removed and the wealth shifting tax deductions for children eliminated. I would really like to see all deductions and tax deferral options eliminated and go to a flat tax, but I know all of this is a dream for another time.

I digress, could someone tell me if I am on the right track on the marriage issue in Utah? Thanks

Pretty damn good. And your points are excellent. And I agree about taxes at death. I don't like any taxes, but it would seem those taxes would make the most sense since the children didn't earn the money and it would encourage people to spend before they die thus stimulating the economy.

Utah has a flat tax of 5% and it works great.

I nominate this for post of the day.

[Two Utes]

You are on track, except that both the Utah case and the Oklahoma case applied a rational basis analysis, and said the state established no rational basis. the utah Court also applied stricter scrutiny, and said the state failed there too.


And LAUte is taking issue with the rational basis analysis. But at the end of the day, as he knows, it doesn't matter how they reach this conclusion, the conclusion has already been reached.

[concerned]

And LAUte is taking issue with the rational basis analysis. But at the end of the day, as he knows, it doesn't matter how they reach this conclusion, the conclusion has already been reached.

do you really think that the conclusion has already been reached? it all turns on Kennedy, IMHO--he has supported state control of the definition of marriage, but has been very sympathetic to the rights of gays, and the harm inflicted on them by these kinds of statutes. I could see him going either way, and therin lies the tale. (To me, that is also one of the significant things about the 10000 marriages performed before the stay--it makes it harder to rule against the individuals (even if you grandfather the existing ones), and for state control of the definition.

[Two Utes]

do you really think that the conclusion has already been reached? it all turns on Kennedy, IMHO--he has supported state control of the definition of marriage, but has been very sympathetic to the rights of gays, and the harm inflicted on them by these kinds of statutes. I could see him going either way, and therin lies the tale. (To me, that is also one of the significant things about the 10000 marriages performed before the stay--it makes it harder to rule against the individuals (even if you grandfather the existing ones), and for state control of the definition.

Do you think Kennedy wants to put his name on a Plessy v. Ferguson-like ruling?

[concerned]

Do you think Kennedy wants to put his name on a Plessy v. Ferguson-like ruling?

No, and I think ultimately, that will tip the scale.

[Diehard Ute]

Word today is the AG's office will select their outside counsel today (not sure why we have a legal department in Utah, seems they're not very good at their jobs)

More interesting is word the state is going to allow groups like the Sutherland Institute to pick up the bill. Not sure that's a wise idea.

[Scratch]

I don't think Kennedy will pull the trigger, I think he'll manage to punt and make it an issue for the states. I think he'll do it with an opinion that is designed to be extremely sympathetic but where he essentially just says his hands are tied due to existing Supreme Court jurisprudence. I could see a lot of references to stare decisis like Justice O'Connor's opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Also, FWIW, I have a good friend who clerked for Kennedy and she thinks Kennedy will uphold the SSM bans.

[LA Ute]

Do you think Kennedy wants to put his name on a Plessy v. Ferguson-like ruling?

Ate you willing to admit that there is at least a rational good-faith argument that the rights cases like Plessy, Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia are not perfectly on point here?

[concerned]

I don't think Kennedy will pull the trigger, I think he'll manage to punt and make it an issue for the states. I think he'll do it with an opinion that is designed to be extremely sympathetic but where he essentially just says his hands are tied due to existing Supreme Court jurisprudence. I could see a lot of references to stare decisis like Justice O'Connor's opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Also, FWIW, I have a good friend who clerked for Kennedy and she thinks Kennedy will uphold the SSM bans.

It will be interesting; he is the fulcrum. The acrobatics will be balancing stare decisis with the reasoning in the DOMA case, as applied in Utah, Ohio, and now Oklahoma. You almost have to disavow your reasoning to apply stare decisis.

If I were Kennedy, I would hope that the 10th Circuit reverses Utah and Oklahoma, so they can deny cert. and let the issue percolate until another circuit court comes out the other way and creates a conflict. If the 10th Cir affirms, you would think they have to take it.

[Two Utes]

Ate you willing to admit that there is at least a rational good-faith argument that the rights cases like Plessy, Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia are not perfectly on point here?

"Perfectly on point"? Of course they are not "perfectly on point." LA, I don't believe for one second you have issues with gays. Your issue is, your religion thinks marriage should be between and man and a women (although a while back they thought it should only be between a man and lots of women). Because you believe your religion is always right you maintain this position is right.

It is you who has made a conclusion and is now backing into the argument. It's ironic that you are complaining about Shelby doing the same thing.

If you would allow yourself to look at it the opposite way (arguments and reasons first and then come to a conclusion), I firmly believe you would not be fighting the good fight on this one.

[concerned]

"Perfectly on point"? Of course they are not "perfectly on point." LA, I don't believe for one second you have issues with gays. Your issue is, your religion thinks marriage should be between and man and a women (although a while back they thought it should only be between a man and lots of women). Because you believe your religion is always right you maintain this position is right.

It is you who has made a conclusion and is now backing into the argument. It's ironic that you are complaining about Shelby doing the same thing. \

If you would allow yourself to look at it the opposite way (arguments and reasons first and then come to a conclusion), I firmly believe you would not be fighting the good fight on this one.

the Church also condemned interracial marriages (and I presume refused to perform them). Many churches refuse to perform or recognize marriages where one of the spouses is a non-member, non-believer, not in good standing, wont convert, and the couple wont agree to raise their kids n the faith. Churches recognize certain marriages but not others pursuant to their own beliefs all the time, but don't impose it outside their faith.

[Mormon Red Death]

I prefer that gay marriage be legitimized as an option up front for people, for a reason you may not realize.

I know many men and women who are gay and suppressed it, but under societal peer pressure entered a heterosexual marriage. Every single one of them loved and were friendly with their spouses, at least initially, but were not fully attracted to the spouse sexually. The result in most cases is an unhappy marriage and inauthentic life, a messy divorce, broken hearts, and a mile-wide path of emotional wreckage to both partners. In marriages with,children the effect is greatly compounded.

If on the other hand these people were allowed up front to marry whomever they wanted, most of that emotional wreckage would have been avoided. (And of course replaced by a different set of problems).

Also, I hope you recognize the internal contradiction of you (an 'insider') thinking your friend (an 'outsider') should not have felt unequal or excluded in the first place.

combine that with the the new revenue coming from the "Marriage tax" and gay marriage becomes a net positive for society.

[LA Ute]

the Church also condemned interracial marriages (and I presume refused to perform them).

I don't think that's true, at least in the modern era. During my lifetime I've seen church counsel to be careful about interracial marriages. Spencer Kimball (prior to 1978)said:


we recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background. Some of these are not an absolute necessity, but preferred; and above all, the same religious background, without question. In spite of the most favorable matings, the evil one still takes a monumental toll and is the cause for many broken homes and frustrated lives.

So he didn't recommend interracial marriage, but grouped it with other differences (such as socio-economic) which might make marriage harder, but are not as absolutely necessary to success as sharing the same beliefs. Nowadays the culture has changed so much that I don't think race differences would have a negative impact on a couple in most places the USA. I've told my kids I have no problem with the ethnicity of anyone they date.

[concerned]

I don't think that's true, at least in the modern era. During my lifetime I've seen church counsel to be careful about interracial marriages. Spencer Kimball (prior to 1978)said:



So he didn't recommend interracial marriage, but grouped it with other differences (such as socio-economic) which might make marriage harder, but are not as absolutely necessary to success as sharing the same beliefs. Nowadays the culture has changed so much that I don't think race differences would have a negative impact on a couple in most places the USA. I've told my kids I have no problem with the ethnicity of anyone they date.

I may have overstated it. I was thinking of this:

Mark E. Petersen addressed the issue of race and Priesthood in his address to a 1954 Convention of Teachers of Religion at the College Level at Brigham Young University. He said:


The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of negro blood can hold the priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the priesthood marries a negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a negro is to forfeit a 'nation of priesthood holders'....

[LA Ute]

I may have overstated it. I was thinking of this:

Mark E. Petersen addressed the issue of race and Priesthood in his address to a 1954 Convention of Teachers of Religion at the College Level at Brigham Young University. He said:


The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of negro blood can hold the priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the priesthood marries a negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a negro is to forfeit a 'nation of priesthood holders'....



An infamous talk by Elder Peterson, one which I wish had never been given. It was before I was born, however, so my "in my lifetime" qualification still holds! Just barely....

[concerned]

An infamous talk by Elder Peterson, one which I wish had never been given. It was before I was born, however, so my "in my lifetime" qualification still holds! Just barely....

In other words, your qualificaiton "in my lifetime" was highly calculated--you knew exactly what you were doing and excluding. You will make a good witness on cross.

[LA Ute]

In other words, your qualificaiton "in my lifetime" was highly calculated--you knew exactly what you were doing and excluding. You will make a good witness on cross.

I wish I were that clever. Pure luck.

[Diehard Ute]

In other words, your qualificaiton "in my lifetime" was highly calculated--you knew exactly what you were doing and excluding. You will make a good witness on cross.

Or a good BYU football fan.....:D

[wally]

I fancy myself as sort of libertarian-esque but without the crazy. That is I don’t think that the federal government should liquidate the IRS, department of education, etc. The general principle that I believe in is that government (state or federal) should minimally intrude on people’s lives, and then only when there is pretty strong evidence that doing so betters the entirety of the population significantly. I realize that the idea of what “betters” society is subject to disagreement, but I tend to follow the cold hard cash route, rather than emotionally charged rhetoric, when it cannot be established that the intrusion infringes on personal liberties.

Ignoring the debate whether SSM is a “personal liberty”, unless there is some widespread economic harm that results from gay marriage, then I don’t think it is the governments business to regulate it.

On the other hand, the State of Utah has decided to tackle chronic homelessness by giving out very modest apartments. This intrudes on the lives of people (the general public that funds the program and the homeless), but the state found that the cost of police, jail, and ER time for homeless, was less than an apartment and social worker. So in this scenario the intrusion is justified.

These situations with all their fuzzy externalities are difficult to monetize and even then the economists can really cook the books to get a desired monetization outcome, but whatever.

I am sure that everyone pretty much agrees with me 100% on this by now, so I will cut my diatribe short here.

[NorthwestUteFan]

(For Two Utes, paraphrasing SeattleUte)
So you are saying this is due to the CULTure? ;)

(For MRD)
Yes, and you know the weddings will be FABULOUS!!

(For LA Ute, on my phone, from memory)
I lived in Mass when this happened. An existing state law similar to DOMA was challenged in a lawsuit, and the Supreme Judicial Court decided for the plaintiff in a 3-2 decision. The state shortly afterward began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

In the next election a ballot initiative was passed by the people which would add an amendment to the constitution of the Commonwealth to define a marriage as between one man and one woman. Once passed, however, a ballot initiative to add a constitutional amendment must also be passed by TWO CONSECUTIVE legislative sessions before it can go to the Governor's desk and be signed to become law.

As I recall it was barely passed by the first legislative session. By the time it could come up for the next legislative session (2 years after the initial ballot initiative) the public opinion had shifted and it was resoundingly defeated. Sure the issue was initially 'authorized' by a single judge, but it was also debated by two full legislatures (which were seperated by an election) and is now the de facto law of the land.

Much in the same way Prop 8 would be crushed at the ballot box were it on the ballot in CA this year, I suspect that Amendment 3 (as written) would likely lose in Utah in 2014.

[Diehard Ute]

So first Utah wants this case fast tracked, and now they want more time.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57412265-78/state-court-utah-marriage.html.csp

[LA Ute]

I hesitate to restart this discussion, but I am posting this link because Ross Douthat does such a good job here (IMO) of expressing worries that I share:

The Terms of Our Surrender (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1)

Note: I don't agree with everything he says (I'm agnostic and pretty much uninformed about the Arizona law), but he articulates a legitimate concern pretty well:


[Bills like the one in Arizona] have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender — to accept same-sex marriage’s inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don’t get to negotiate anymore.

Which has a certain bracing logic. If your only goal is ensuring that support for traditional marriage diminishes as rapidly as possible, applying constant pressure to religious individuals and institutions will probably do the job. Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform....

But it’s still important for the winning side to recognize its power. We are not really having an argument about same-sex marriage anymore, and on the evidence of Arizona, we’re not having a negotiation. Instead, all that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose.

[Applejack]

I hesitate to restart this discussion, but I am posting this link because Ross Douthat does such a good job here (IMO) of expressing worries that I share:

The Terms of Our Surrender (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1)

Note: I don't agree with everything he says (I'm agnostic and pretty much uninformed about the Arizona law), but he articulates a legitimate concern pretty well:

C'mon, LA. No use playing the victim card here. Just get on board with other "Republicans From the West" who not only acquiesce to gay marriage, they actively support it! This is the future, not Douhat's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/us/republicans-from-west-give-support-for-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

[LA Ute]

C'mon, LA. No use playing the victim card here. Just get on board with other "Republicans From the West" who not only acquiesce to gay marriage, they actively support it! This is the future, not Douhat's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/us/republicans-from-west-give-support-for-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

All snark aside, I think Douthat makes a serious point.

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA, your ox is barely getting scratched and won't lose any blood over it, while the other side stands to be (and daily is) horribly gored over the issue.

It is time for the Republican party to break free from the chains imposed in it by the Conservative Christian far right. Their views are antithetical in many ways to the stated Republican principles of small government, individual freedom, etc. There exists a sizeable number of people who are forced to hold their noses and vote Democrat because of Repub inflexibility on certain HIGHLY COMPLICATED personal issues. These people would prefer smaller government, increased freedom,decreased federal spending, etc. But a sizeable portion of the Republican party can't seem to refrain from invoking some version of God when explaining their position on an upcoming vote on a highway bill, for instance.

People in the youngest several brackets of voters (in the 18 - 40 range) 1) are largely atheist, agnostic, or prefer no religion ('atheist' or 'no religion' are by far the fastest growing demographic); 2) prefer a logical argument for or against on any topic, and want political parties and elected officials to present arguments based on logic and reason, not cheap pandering to emotions; 3) care very deeply about gay friends and family members and can't understand why the topic of gay marriage is seen as such a bad thing; 4) generally seem to support smaller, more efficient government and want to see the available money be put to the best use; 5) generally prefer a social safety net for the less advantaged; 6) see the War on Drugs as a failed policy in need of serious overhaul (probably including decriminalizing many drugs -- prefering to trest addicts rather than jail them -- and legalizing marijuana).

When national elections are won by such slim margins it would be in the Republicans best interest to soften their position on these issues. Because softening on these positions would bring many small-government types into the ranks of Republican voters.

[Applejack]

All snark aside, I think Douthat makes a serious point.

Unlike virtually all of my posts, there was no snark intended. We can have a discussion on this topic if you want, but I really don't see what there is to discuss. His entire argument is a HUGE straw man: no one is trying to undermine traditional marriage.

As for the Arizona bill, it seems like nearly everyone--including a large number of Arizona republicans--agrees that bill was a huge mistake. Are there people in Arizona who have been forced to perform gay marriages against their will? No, Douthat himself admits that nothing of the sort is happening:


Never mind that in Arizona it’s currently legal to discriminate (https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/lgbt-inclusive-public-accommodations-laws1) based on sexual orientation — and mass discrimination isn’t exactly breaking out.

So why support a bill that does nothing but reaffirm an existing right to discriminate against gay people? I am hard-pressed to identify an un-bigoted reason for doing so. But Douthat makes it seem like the Christians are the ones being picked on.

Lastly, I can't take someone seriously who uses lines like this:


If your only goal is ensuring that support for traditional marriage diminishes as rapidly as possible,

Who, exactly, is seeking to undermine support for traditional marriage? Gays? Gay marriage supporters? Atheists? The answer is nobody. This is the straw man. That's why, in 10 years, virtually no one will be against gay marriage; there will still be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, but they won't care whether those sinners get married or not. In fact, like the Republicans I noted above, most people will be in favor of marriage, period: the traditional flavor, or the gay one.

[LA Ute]

AJ and NWU Fan, I think I failed to make my point clear. (Either that, or you missed it; but I'll take the blame. ;))


Unlike virtually all of my posts, there was no snark intended.

OK. I withdraw mt sidelong accusation.


As for the Arizona bill, it seems like nearly everyone--including a large number of Arizona republicans--agrees that bill was a huge mistake. Are there people in Arizona who have been forced to perform gay marriages against their will? No, Douthat himself admits that nothing of the sort is happening.

I don't know about the Arizona bill and so I left it out of my post.


So why support a bill that does nothing but reaffirm an existing right to discriminate against gay people? I am hard-pressed to identify an un-bigoted reason for doing so.

This is what I don't understand (or like) about the positions so often taken by your side in this debate. If a florist or a baker doesn't want to provide services to a gay wedding as a matter of conscience, that person is a bigot? "Bigot" has become like "fascist" or "commie" -- so overused that the word's meaning is practically lost. It is an awfully tough word to throw at someone in a debate.

Here is the core of Douthat's point, which I think is a serious one:


Once [the Supreme Court make same-sex marriage Constitutionally protected], the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.


So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it.
In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage. And where conflicts arise — in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding — gay rights supporters would heed the advice of gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor, Andrew Sullivan (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/24/erick-erickson-has-a-point/), and let the dissenters opt out “in the name of their freedom — and ours.”


But there’s another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business — which is the intent of recent legal actions against a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020743969_floristlawsuitxml.html) State, and a baker in Colorado (http://www.npr.org/2013/12/10/250098572/no-cake-for-you-saying-i-dont-to-same-sex-marriage).

I hope that latter scenario doesn't become reality, and my optimistic side thinks it won't. But no one can deny it is not a real possibility. You can brush it aside all you want, but it is out there, and there are lots of people on the Left who see nothing wrong with it.


LA, your ox is barely getting scratched and won't lose any blood over it, while the other side stands to be (and daily is) horribly gored over the issue.

It is time for the Republican party to break free from the chains imposed in it by the Conservative Christian far right. Their views are antithetical in many ways to the stated Republican principles of small government, individual freedom, etc. There exists a sizeable number of people who are forced to hold their noses and vote Democrat because of Repub inflexibility on certain HIGHLY COMPLICATED personal issues. These people would prefer smaller government, increased freedom,decreased federal spending, etc. But a sizeable portion of the Republican party can't seem to refrain from invoking some version of God when explaining their position on an upcoming vote on a highway bill, for instance.

People in the youngest several brackets of voters (in the 18 - 40 range) 1) are largely atheist, agnostic, or prefer no religion ('atheist' or 'no religion' are by far the fastest growing demographic); 2) prefer a logical argument for or against on any topic, and want political parties and elected officials to present arguments based on logic and reason, not cheap pandering to emotions; 3) care very deeply about gay friends and family members and can't understand why the topic of gay marriage is seen as such a bad thing; 4) generally seem to support smaller, more efficient government and want to see the available money be put to the best use; 5) generally prefer a social safety net for the less advantaged; 6) see the War on Drugs as a failed policy in need of serious overhaul (probably including decriminalizing many drugs -- prefering to trest addicts rather than jail them -- and legalizing marijuana).

When national elections are won by such slim margins it would be in the Republicans best interest to soften their position on these issues. Because softening on these positions would bring many small-government types into the ranks of Republican voters.

Excellent subjects for a debate, but not really on point here. I actually agree with you on most of what you say. I'm just saying that on matters of conscience people's deeply-held views ought to be respected. The LDS Church has said in a letter just last week that members must engage in discussions about these issues with civility and respect, but at the same time there will be no same-sex weddings performed by LDS bishops or stake presidents and no weddings will be performed, or receptions held, in Mormon buildings. I'm wondering if the church -- and other churches who have the same view -- will be allowed to have that policy without facing social, governmental, or legal pressure to change? Once this debate is over as a legal matter, will each side come to an agreement to disagree, and just live and let live? That remains to be seen. I am sure you and AJ support "live and let live," but I don't know about others.

So that's what I am saying.

[jrj84105]

So why support a bill that does nothing but reaffirm an existing right to discriminate against gay people? I am hard-pressed to identify an un-bigoted reason for doing so. But Douthat makes it seem like the Christians are the ones being picked on.


This is the main point. The Arizona legislation is like the school bully reminding the nerd that he could beat him up every day but chooses not too. It's just an Asshole move. The religious right seems to think that a rejection of religious dogma-based morality is the same as being anti-religious and amoral. To add to Northwest's list of social values of non-religious young people, one common trait among this demographic (and if you have to manage gen Y people you know this is taken to extremes at time) is the idealization of the notion of fairness. For this generation, if you are not being fair, you are being an Asshole, and that is a mortal "sin".

I think the religious right overestimates how "pro-Gay" and "anti-Religion" America is becoming and fail to recognize that the reason the majority of young American's oppose the efforts of the right, is that the right keeps playing the part of the Asshole on social issues. Most of the same people who oppose unfair treatment of gays also oppose unfair treatment of religious people because it is the sense of fairplay that guides their ideology more than religion or sexual politics. It is the misinterpretation of the fair play dynamic as "anti-Religious" and "pro-Gay" which makes the right so irrationally afraid of retribution. It's really not much different than the BYU fans who think they are disliked for their religion when really they're disliked because they're assholes.

[LA Ute]

I think the religious right overestimates how "pro-Gay" and "anti-Religion" America is becoming and fail to recognize that the reason the majority of young American's oppose the efforts of the right, is that the right keeps playing the part of the Asshole on social issues. Most of the same people who oppose unfair treatment of gays also oppose unfair treatment of religious people because it is the sense of fairplay that guides their ideology more than religion or sexual politics. It is the misinterpretation of the fair play dynamic as "anti-Religious" and "pro-Gay" which makes the right so irrationally afraid of retribution. It's really not much different than the BYU fans who think they are disliked for their religion when really they're disliked because they're assholes.

I disagree with the bolded part. I'm no fan of the religious right and do battle with them regularly. I also don't know about the Arizona bill. Let me give you an example of how a-holery is not limited to the religious right. I'm thinking of a California Supreme Court decision, North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. San Diego County Superior Court, 44 Cal. 4th 1145 (Cal. 2008). A fertility doctor (an OB/GYN) was treating a female patient who happened to be gay. The patient had been attempting intravaginal self-insemination using sperm from a sperm bank, but that was not working. During the initial meeting between doctor and patient, the physician went through the patient's options, including intrauterine insemination (IUI). The doctor said that if IUI became necessary, her religious beliefs would prevent her from performing the procedure. The patient did decide to try IUI and her doctor referred her to another physician who performed the IUI successfully. (The woman now has several children conceived through IUI.)

That's where the case got interesting. Even though she had been referred to another physician and had a successful pregnancy, the patient sued for damages and other relief under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. In their defense, the physicians raised their rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion under both the US and California constitutions. The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous 7-0 decision, held in favor of the patient. The law in California now is that if you advertise any service to the public you have to provide it to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation and regardless of any religious objection.

Under the law, the plaintiffs won fair and square. I get that. But in a world where "live and let Live" is the goal, or as even Andrew Sullivan says, we let people opt out of certain activities “in the name of their freedom — and ours,” it's troubling that the plaintiffs (heavily supported by gay rights organizations) had to push this issue all the way to the state Supreme Court. Why couldn't they say to the physician, "OK, doc, I get it that you don't want to do this. Thanks for the referral to someone who will?"

That approach to these issues is what worries me. I see no sign that it is going away.

You can read a summary of the North Coast case here: http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/1/132.full

[Diehard Ute]

LA:

So I assume, based on your stance that someone refusing to serve a gay person out of some moral or ethical belief is ok, you'd have no issue with someone refusing service to someone who's LDS?

I fail to see how someone's sexual orientation is any different than their religious beliefs, and I only use that comparison because some will choose to argue the more logical comparison, gender, ethnicity, race, aren't choices and sexual orientation is.

I firmly believe sexual orientation is not a choice (why would anyone choose to be hated by some of the most powerful people in the world?) but even if it were, how is that any different than a persons chosen religious beliefs?

[LA Ute]

LA:

So I assume, based on your stance that someone refusing to serve a gay person out of some moral or ethical belief is ok, you'd have no issue with someone refusing service to someone who's LDS?

I fail to see how someone's sexual orientation is any different than their religious beliefs, and I only use that comparison because some will choose to argue the more logical comparison, gender, ethnicity, race, aren't choices and sexual orientation is.

I firmly believe sexual orientation is not a choice (why would anyone choose to be hated by some of the most powerful people in the world?) but even if it were, how is that any different than a persons chosen religious beliefs?

A Mormon Ph.D. cannot get a teaching job at Baylor. I have seen letters of rejection from Baylor politely but specifically citing the applicant's religion as the reason. We had a photographer here in L.A. refuse to take our family portrait when he found out we are Mormons. I could have sued him under the Unruh act but I just took my business elsewhere. Really, what would the point have been? To make him do something he didn't want to do?

[Solon]

LA:

So I assume, based on your stance that someone refusing to serve a gay person out of some moral or ethical belief is ok, you'd have no issue with someone refusing service to someone who's LDS?

I fail to see how someone's sexual orientation is any different than their religious beliefs, and I only use that comparison because some will choose to argue the more logical comparison, gender, ethnicity, race, aren't choices and sexual orientation is.

I firmly believe sexual orientation is not a choice (why would anyone choose to be hated by some of the most powerful people in the world?) but even if it were, how is that any different than a persons chosen religious beliefs?

I think these are valid points, and I also wonder just how much impact the law would have had (hard to imagine asking someone his/her orientation before making the customer a sandwich).

The shift in this debate to "religious freedom", championed in the LDS faith by Oaks of late, saddens me.
I've been to countries without religious freedom. Having to do business with a gay/lesbian person is hardly comparable to the very real religious oppression that exists in many parts of the world.

[Diehard Ute]

A Mormon Ph.D. cannot get a teaching job at Baylor. I have seen letters of rejection from Baylor politely but specifically citing the applicant's religion as the reason. We had a photographer here in L.A. refuse to take our family portrait when he found out we are Mormons. I could have sued him under the Unruh act but I just took my business elsewhere. Really, what would the point have been? To make him do something he didn't want to do?

Because a lawyer convinces someone they can get rich ;)

[Applejack]

This is what I don't understand (or like) about the positions so often taken by your side in this debate. If a florist or a baker doesn't want to provide services to a gay wedding as a matter of conscience, that person is a bigot? "Bigot" has become like "fascist" or "commie" -- so overused that the word's meaning is practically lost. It is an awfully tough word to throw at someone in a debate.


I never called the New Mexican baker a bigot: he/she can do whatever he/she wants. I called the Arizona legislature bigoted. Can you offer a non-bigoted explanation for that bill (when the right to discriminate already existed)?

I'm much less worried about a rash of New Mexican bakery suits than you are, I suppose. There are a lot of reasons not to worry: (1) most people will just take their business elsewhere - as you did; (2) I've still yet to hear about a religion that forbids making pastries for gay weddings. It certainly does not violate any tenants of mormonism. Should mormons be allowed to refuse business to single parents? (3) in ten years there will be hardly any business person that discriminates against gays - not because they've been litigated into submission, but because very few people will dislike gays in the near future.

I also think the case of the doctor in California is a clear victory for civil rights. Sorry, not troubled by that one at all.

[USS Utah]

That's why, in 10 years, virtually no one will be against gay marriage; there will still be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, but they won't care whether those sinners get married or not. In fact, like the Republicans I noted above, most people will be in favor of marriage, period: the traditional flavor, or the gay one.

I love it when people tell me what I'm going to be thinking in the future.

[jrj84105]

It's hard to find something more ironic than the fact that passing these laws in the first place is hastening SSM. If gay couples all over the nation were petitioning the courts to be able to marry in the absence of any legal restrictions or definitions of traditional marriage, does anyone think they'd be nearly this far along?


Once again, it's the asshole factor that is pushing people to the other side.

As for the discrimination against religious folks stuff, given the huge numbers of stupid legal rulings, it's not surprising that an asshole sued to get a cake and won. That's very different from enacting legislation that forces religious clergy to perform same sex marriage. As for the fertility case, if the patient went through costly and invasive procedures to diagnose the cause of infertility and plan the approriate treatment before being informed of refusal of service, then damn straight she was harmed by the physician because most of those risky, costly, and time-consuming procedures and medication trials are going to repeated by the doc to whom the patient was referred. That's no different than opening a patient up for an appendectomy, finding out they're gay then closing her up and sending her on her way.

[USS Utah]

The single largest victory in the entire debate was the convincing of the public that it was acceptable to paint any opposition as bigoted. Once that was accomplished, the end was inevitable. That move was not a logical argument, but it was decisive. On this issue like most, people's opinions formed based on sources of knowledge other than reason - experience, love, and faith - and on sources of confusion - fear, bitterness, and hate.

Pandering to emotions is how politics gets done.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

[concerned]

A Mormon Ph.D. cannot get a teaching job at Baylor. I have seen letters of rejection from Baylor politely but specifically citing the applicant's religion as the reason. We had a photographer here in L.A. refuse to take our family portrait when he found out we are Mormons. I could have sued him under the Unruh act but I just took my business elsewhere. Really, what would the point have been? To make him do something he didn't want to do?

Yes, but that does not answer Diehard's basic question: is it ok for a person of sincere religious belief to refuse service to you because you are Mormon--is it ok for the photographer to do what he did, whether or not you could currently sue him? Does any evangeical Christian for example have the right to refuse to engage a Mormon in the marketplace because they think that Mormonism is an abomination and false teaching? Ala Voltiare, do you defend that person's right of refusal.

(Baylor, BYU and other religious institutions do not count as examples, for obvious reasons.)

[LA Ute]

As for the fertility case, if the patient went through costly and invasive procedures to diagnose the cause of infertility and plan the approriate treatment before being informed of refusal of service, then damn straight she was harmed by the physician because most of those risky, costly, and time-consuming procedures and medication trials are going to repeated by the doc to whom the patient was referred. That's no different than opening a patient up for an appendectomy, finding out they're gay then closing her up and sending her on her way.

I'd agree with you on the appendectomy. But in the North Coast case the physician told the patient in the very first meeting what would happen if the patient ended up needing IUI. The patient then proceeded to use that same physician, and when she decided to go the IUI route was referred out, just as the physician had said would happen. The lawsuit was brought to make sure that no physician could lawfully make such a refusal in the future.

I'm pretty sympathetic to the physician in the case, who tried to everything right and to be very up-front about her conscience-based issues. I once was approached by Planned Parenthood to do some legal work that I was uniquely-qualified to provide. I didn't want to work with PP for reasons of conscience, so I referred the matter to a colleague who was similarly qualified and was delighted to work with them. Decisions like that get made all the time. (I know that is different from the fertility case.)


Yes, but that does not answer Diehard's basic question: is it ok for a person of sincere religious belief to refuse service to you because you are Mormon--is it ok for the photographer to do what he did, whether or not you could currently sue him? Does any evangeical Christian for example have the right to refuse to engage a Mormon in the marketplace because they think that Mormonism is an abomination and false teaching? Ala Voltiare, do you defend that person's right of refusal.

(Baylor, BYU and other religious institutions do not count as examples, for obvious reasons.)

I think it is a false analogy (religious creed to a same-sex wedding). It would be a better analogy if someone were refusing to sell a good or service to someone simply because that person is gay. That's not what is going on here. If my child were getting married and a caterer told me "I don't do cakes for Mormon weddings because I think Mormonism teaches false doctrine and I can't be a part of that as a practicing [insert the intolerant faith of your choice]," I'd think that person is behaving idiotically but I'd just go somewhere else for my cake. I really don't like coercion in matters of conscience.


I never called the New Mexican baker a bigot: he/she can do whatever he/she wants. I called the Arizona legislature bigoted. Can you offer a non-bigoted explanation for that bill (when the right to discriminate already existed)?

I am not going to defend the bill. I have heard some people say it was intended to prevent the kind of coercion I mentioned above.


I also think the case of the doctor in California is a clear victory for civil rights. Sorry, not troubled by that one at all.

That's fine; we can agree to disagree. But can you see that it does trouble lots of intelligent people of good will? I understand why you are not troubled.

Here's Andrew Sullivan (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/should-christian-bakers-be-allowed-to-refuse-wedding-cakes-to-gays/284061/), one of the most famous gay activists and writers in the USA:


I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding—or anything else for that matter—if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

The truth is: we’re winning this argument. We’ve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think they’re mistaken—but we’re not talking logic here. We’re talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space.


Eric Erickson (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/should-christian-bakers-be-allowed-to-refuse-wedding-cakes-to-gays/284061/), a conservative commentator with whom I disagree strongly on many matters:


There are Christians who have no problem providing goods and services for a gay marriage. Some of them are fine with gay marriage. Some of them think gay marriage is wrong, but they still have no problem providing goods and services. Other Christians, including a significant number of Catholic and Protestant preachers, believe that a gay marriage is a sinful corruption of a relationship God himself ordained. Because they try to glorify God through their work, they believe they cannot participate in a wedding service.

Yes, because they believe they are glorifying God in their work and view it as a ministry, they view providing goods and services as a way to advance, even in a small way, God’s kingdom. Herein lies the dispute of the day... We are not talking about race. We are not talking about restaurants. We are talking about a specific ceremony people of faith believe God himself created and ordained. Should the state force people to violate their conscience in that regard?



For the record, if I were in the catering business I would have no problem servicing a gay wedding. I just don't like the idea of the coercion that seems acceptable to many on the Left and where that might lead.

But I'm OK with you guys seeing it differently.

[concerned]

I think it is a false analogy (religious creed to a same-sex wedding). It would be a better analogy if someone were refusing to sell a good or service to someone simply because that person is gay. That's not what is going on here. If my child were getting married and a caterer told me "I don't do cakes for Mormon weddings because I think Mormonism teaches false doctrine and I can't be a part of that as a practicing [insert the intolerant faith of your choice]," I'd think that person is behaving idiotically but I'd just go somewhere else for my cake. I really don't like coercion in matters of conscience.



It is not a false analogy, b/c there is no way to distinguish gay/Mormon weddings from matters of creed, and the Ariz. statute did not attempt to do so. A first amendment right of conscience, association, or religion based on sincerely held religious belief cannot be circumscribed to core doctrinal religious events, such as weddings, as the Hobby Lobby case shows. We will see how that comes out. But I guess that, like Voltaire, you would defend to the death the photographer's right to refuse to come to your kid's wedding, but not his right to refuse to take a family portrait.

[LA Ute]

It is not a false analogy, b/c there is no way to distinguish gay/Mormon weddings from matters of creed, and the Ariz. statute did not attempt to do so. A first amendment right of conscience, association, or religion based on sincerely held religious belief cannot be circumscribed to core doctrinal religious events, such as weddings, as the Hobby Lobby case shows. We will see how that comes out. But I guess that, like Voltaire, you would defend to the death the photographer's right to refuse to come to your kid's wedding, but not his right to refuse to take a family portrait.

I am not really interested in the Arizona statute. I am just hoping that after the legal issue is finally settled "live and let live" will prevail in some manner that society can live with in a rough consensus sort of way. That's what the Douthat column and Andrew Sullivan's position are all about, it seems to me.

[cald22well]

Live and let live is pretty broad. Especially when you are using to to apply to people refusing services. In your arguments, I gather that forcing someone to give those services regardless of creed, sexual orientation, etc. is against 'letting someone live'. However, refusing to provide that service is not. There seems to be a disconnect there. In my opinion, if someone is entering the public arena, then they need to play by the public rules and set their personal issues aside. If you don't like that, then don't enter the public arena.

What really has me curious though is all this talk of rufusing service on the basis of religious beliefs. Why don't those same people refuse to do service for people that had sex before marriage? Or people that cheated on their spouse and are now getting married to the person they had an affair with? Are those things not against Christian values just as same sex relationships? If somebody want to use that as the argument, then it has to be applied equally to all people whose lifestyles do not allign with their religious views. Otherwise, you are simply singling out gay people. And yes, I do believe that if someone singles out another person and refuses them service simply for being gay, then they are a bigot.

[USS Utah]

So, when can, and when can't a business owner refuse service?

[Mormon Red Death]

So, when can, and when can't a business owner refuse service?
When there is
No shirt and no shoes

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[USS Utah]

My only experience as an owner was in the family business, a book bindery. From what I can recall, we generally did not concern ourselves with the content of the books we bound.

[Dawminator]

Removed.

[LA Ute]

Live and let live is pretty broad. Especially when you are using to to apply to people refusing services. In your arguments, I gather that forcing someone to give those services regardless of creed, sexual orientation, etc. is against 'letting someone live'. However, refusing to provide that service is not. There seems to be a disconnect there.

I disagree. One is coercive, the other is not.


And yes, I do believe that if someone singles out another person and refuses them service simply for being gay, then they are a bigot.

Of course that's bigotry. I agree with you. That's not what we're talking about here, though.

Keep in mind that I would not refuse service to anyone based on sexual orientation. Now, if I were a wedding caterer I might decline an engagement to service a Satanic wedding, just because I would feel uncomfortable being part of such a thing. Yes, a Satanic wedding is a far different thing from a gay wedding, but it's the same principle: the right to decline to provide a service that violates one's own conscience. Nobody here seems to want to respond to the coercion/freedom of conscience issue Andrew Sullivan and Eric Erickson articulate in my earlier post.

[Applejack]

I am not really interested in the Arizona statute. I am just hoping that after the legal issue is finally settled "live and let live" will prevail in some manner that society can live with in a rough consensus sort of way. That's what the Douthat column and Andrew Sullivan's position are all about, it seems to me

I know you want to avoid the Arizona statute (and with good reason), but what are we talking about otherwise? Some random baker in Colorado who got sued by some pissed off gay couple? The article you posted is clearly focused on that statute. Also, I don't read Douthat as arguing for "live and let live." Instead, I read him as arguing that the outcry over a statute that explicitly permits discrimination when that discrimination is already permissible (essentially an in-your-face statute) somehow represents an attack against religious belief. It is a baffling argument to me.


I love it when people tell me what I'm going to be thinking in the future.

I'm sorry if you understood this as being directed at you, USS, it wasn't. I don't know you and have no idea what you'll be doing tomorrow let alone in the distant future. But the general trend of sentiment towards homosexuality in the country seems pretty clear - it won't be very controversial in a decade. individual mileage may vary, of course.

[Applejack]

Nobody here seems to want to respond to the coercion/freedom of conscience issue Andrew Sullivan and Eric Erickson articulate in my earlier post.

I have. Basically, the argument is a red herring. With all the hoopla surrounding Christians being forced to serve at gay weddings, why do we keep hearing about the same penny ante stories of bakers in arid, sparsely populated, Western states getting "sued?" Why don't we hear about the oppressive damages that courts impose on these bakers or the thousands of cases that are being filed annually? My guess is because the coercion is simply not happening.

Everyone on here has stated that they would not refuse to serve anyone who came to them for services. Nearly every business owner the U.S. will do the same (if you are a wedding caterer, you'd better really be anti-gay marriage to refuse to do their weddings - those things are lavish!).

Similarly, everyone on here has stated that they wouldn't be offended if services were refused to them. Nearly every gay couple who can't get their dream cake from WestboroWeddingCakes will just get a delicious, gay-friendly ice cream cake at Baskin Robbins. Everyone wins!

[concerned]

I have. Basically, the argument is a red herring. With all the hoopla surrounding Christians being forced to serve at gay weddings, why do we keep hearing about the same penny ante stories of bakers in arid, sparsely populated, Western states getting "sued?" Why don't we hear about the oppressive damages that courts impose on these bakers or the thousands of cases that are being filed annually? My guess is because the coercion is simply not happening.

Everyone on here has stated that they would not refuse to serve anyone who came to them for services. Nearly every business owner the U.S. will do the same (if you are a wedding caterer, you'd better really be anti-gay marriage to refuse to do their weddings - those things are lavish!).

Similarly, everyone on here has stated that they wouldn't be offended if services were refused to them. Nearly every gay couple who can't get their dream cake from WestboroWeddingCakes will just get a delicious, gay-friendly ice cream cake at Baskin Robbins. Everyone wins!

I haven't responded to it, because it seems to me that Andrew Sullivan has it right.

[mUUser]

As an active Mormon, I think any business person (pizza shop, department store, photographer, etc.) should have an absolute right to deny me service based on the fact I am Mormon. In fact, I would appreciate it if they would be so candid so I could go to a different place to get service from someone who wasn't doing it because the law forced them too.


Small town. One doctor, one dentist, one grocery store, one service station.....no service for you mormon boy. Go to the next town 20 miles down the road and maybe you'll get some attention. Not thrilled with that prospect.

[cald22well]

I disagree. One is coercive, the other is not.

So since we are coercing people, we'll call them group A, to "let others live" we are not letting group A live. But when group A refuses to "let others live" because those others are in group B then group A is choosing to live and let live and group B should just deal with? It still doesn't add up to me.


That's not what we're talking about here, though.

That's exactly what we're talking about. The focus is denying gays services, whether it be the Arizona Bill or the topic of gay weddings. I haven't heard an anecdote of a bakery refusing to do a wedding because the bride had children out of wedlock. So the term bigot fits as people are using it. I would even say that the photographer that refused you service because you are a mormon was a bigot unless he refused service to people of every single faith that was not his own.


Nobody here seems to want to respond to the coercion/freedom of conscience issue Andrew Sullivan and Eric Erickson articulate in my earlier post.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I don't believe that it is coercion or taking away anyones liberties or religion freedom to tell people that they have to play by public rules when they are in a public domain. Should the board of admissions (all of whom happen to be Christian) for a public university have the right to deny admission to a gay student because of his sexual orientation? Should a Christian employer have the right to fire an employee if they find out that they are gay? In both cases the reasoning is their religious beliefs affecting their conscience. I would hope that your answer to those questions is no. And if it is, why should it be any different for a business providing a service?

[cald22well]

Small town. One doctor, one dentist, one grocery store, one service station.....no service for you mormon boy. Go to the next town 20 miles down the road and maybe you'll get some attention. Not thrilled with that prospect.

He should just move to another town. Clearly the people's religious belief make it so that they shouldn't have to let him live the life of a normal person.

[LA Ute]

Small town. One doctor, one dentist, one grocery store, one service station.....no service for you mormon boy. Go to the next town 20 miles down the road and maybe you'll get some attention. Not thrilled with that prospect.

You're talking about refusing services just because someone is a Mormon. That's bigotry. The issue here is requiring someone to provide a service that makes him/her a part of something that runs counter to his/her most important personal beliefs. (I'm not talking about myself.) Erickson again:


There are Christians who have no problem providing goods and services for a gay marriage. Some of them are fine with gay marriage. Some of them think gay marriage is wrong, but they still have no problem providing goods and services. Other Christians, including a significant number of Catholic and Protestant preachers, believe that a gay marriage is a sinful corruption of a relationship God himself ordained. Because they try to glorify God through their work, they believe they cannot participate in a wedding service.

Yes, because they believe they are glorifying God in their work and view it as a ministry, they view providing goods and services as a way to advance, even in a small way, God’s kingdom. Herein lies the dispute of the day... We are not talking about race. We are not talking about restaurants. We are talking about a specific ceremony people of faith believe God himself created and ordained. Should the state force people to violate their conscience in that regard?

I don't feel that way, but he describes the issue. I'm not a big "slippery slope" guy, but the precedent worries me. I think Sullivan is right:


I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding—or anything else for that matter—if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

The truth is: we’re winning this argument. We’ve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think they’re mistaken—but we’re not talking logic here. We’re talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space.

Do you disagree with him?

[Diehard Ute]

I think that's your problem here LA. You can't grasp the concept that to others Mormons can be counter to their most personal beliefs.

I guess that's my exact point. Why is sexual orientation something that people can wave their religious flag on, but race and gender aren't? (I'm not saying they should be, rather that it's an all or nothing argument, not one that should changed based on the "group")

[cald22well]

As it pertains to Erickson, I have no problem with churches or church officials refusing to do wedding ceremonies for gay couples. However, if they are opening the doors of their halls for business purposes, I don't believe that they should have the right to refuse to let a gay couple hold the reception there. Again, if you don't want to follow public discourse, then keep out of the public. If, like the LDS church, they those spaces are offered for free then they definitely have the right to refuse someone the use of it.

As for Sullivan, I agree that we should let live, even if the other side is not necessarily letting us (I use 'us' in a general sense for any situation of discrimination we might face) live. If a business were to refuse service to me for any reason, I would just go about my day and never give that business or their affiliates my money. However, I don't necessarily believe that they should be protected for such discrimination. What if it was my religious belief that woman should not be allowed out in public without a man, should I be allowed to refuse a woman service if she comes into my shop alone?

I agree with you about "slippery slope" but think of the precedent it sets on the other side. If we allow people to discriminate for one reason, why not for all reasons? And why only religious convictions? I am atheist but have strong moral views on certain things, should I be allowed to discriminate even though my beliefs are not founded in the "ruling religion".

[LA Ute]

I think that's your problem here LA. You can't grasp the concept that to others Mormons can be counter to their most personal beliefs.

I guess that's my exact point. Why is sexual orientation something that people can wave their religious flag on, but race and gender aren't? (I'm not saying they should be, rather that it's an all or nothing argument, not one that should changed based on the "group")

Do you agree or disagree with Andrew Sullivan?

[LA Ute]

For those inclined to spend 5-10 minutes reading an interesting thought piece, this one by Jonathan Rauch has some relevance to the discussion here:

Law and Disorder: Why too much due process is a dangerous thing (http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/2005/01/law_and_disorde.html)

I'm not endorsing everything he says, just the interesting nature of what he says.

[cald22well]

I think Sullivan is right

What do think of the precedent that is set by allowing discrimination?

[Diehard Ute]

Do you agree or disagree with Andrew Sullivan?

Can't say that I agree or disagree. Because I don't believe for a second this debate should be in the vacuum of a "gay marriage".

It's far more complex than that. I think the question has to be asked. Would that person be allowed to refuse an interracial couple service without ramifications? I guess if the answer is you can refuse anyone for any reason, then ok. But I don't see that happening, do you?

Now, do I see a business differently than a church? Certainly. Churches should be allowed to do what they wish with regards to their church itself without interference. If they also happen to venture into the business world, their business proceedings should be separate from their religious proceedings and follow the same rules everyone else plays by.

[cald22well]

Can't say that I agree or disagree. Because I don't believe for a second this debate should be in the vacuum of a "gay marriage".

It's far more complex than that. I think the question has to be asked. Would that person be allowed to refuse an interracial couple service without ramifications? I guess if the answer is you can refuse anyone for any reason, then ok. But I don't see that happening, do you?

^^^This.

When opening the door to any discrimination, I believe that it becomes hard to close it on other discrimination.

[LA Ute]

Would anyone here place any limits on the government's power to coerce a citizen to act contrary to his conscience? This is not an easy line to draw. Remember, the shoe may be on the other foot someday and you'll have to live with the line you draw.

Diehard, you chickened out. ;)

[Jarid in Cedar]

I am not really interested in the Arizona statute. I am just hoping that after the legal issue is finally settled "live and let live" will prevail in some manner that society can live with in a rough consensus sort of way. That's what the Douthat column and Andrew Sullivan's position are all about, it seems to me.

I find it humorous when those who have benefited most from the status quo are asking that they are allowed to "live and let live" when the tide starts to swing against them.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Would anyone here place any limits on the government's power to coerce a citizen to act contrary to his conscience? This is not an easy line to draw. Remember, the shoe may be on the other foot someday and you'll have to live with the line you draw.

Diehard, you chickened out. ;)

Signed Brown v. Board of Education.
Signed Jim Crow Laws.
Signed, Rosa Parks

[LA Ute]

I find it humorous when those who have benefited most from the status quo are asking that they are allowed to "live and let live" when the tide starts to swing against them.

Which status quo have I benefited from that's relevant here? I admit I've benefited from a lot of them. Graduating from the U., for example.

This is a tough room. Nobody wants to answer the question and it's not even a trick question.

[LA Ute]

Signed Brown v. Board of Education.
Signed Jim Crow Laws.
Signed, Rosa Parks

You're trying to make Andrew Sullivan into Bull Connor. Dog won't hunt.

[cald22well]

Nobody wants to answer the question and it's not even a trick question.

You've dodged a lot of questions yourself.

Should the board of admissions (all of whom happen to be Christian) for a public university have the right to deny admission to a gay student because of his sexual orientation? Should a Christian employer have the right to fire an employee if they find out that he or she is gay? In both cases the reasoning is their religious beliefs affecting their conscience. I would hope that your answer to those questions is no. And if it is, why should it be any different for a business providing a service?

What if it was my religious belief that woman should not be allowed out in public without a man, should I be allowed to refuse a woman service if she comes into my shop alone?

What do think of the precedent that is set by allowing discrimination?

Would that person (one who refuses service to gay couples) be allowed to refuse an interracial couple service without ramifications? I guess if the answer is you can refuse anyone for any reason, then ok. But I don't see that happening, do you?




Would anyone here place any limits on the government's power to coerce a citizen to act contrary to his conscience?

I assume that this is the question you're referring to nobody answering. The problem is, we're not simply talking about "the government's power to coerce a citizen to act contrary to his conscience" because those people are singling out one group. They act contrary to their conscience when they give service to other people that live in a way that is clearly against their religious beliefs.

And although I did not act this question directly, I believe that I did answer it in my other responses discussing when institutions should be able to refuse something to homosexuals. But the reality is, when you're in the public arena, you play by those rules. You don't get to pick and choose based on your "conscience" especially when that is not applied consistently. You see it as the government forcing people, I see it as the government placing limits to protect citizens. Your same logic that wants to protect peoples rights to discriminate against gays can also apply to someone who refuses service to black people as long as the only criterion is it being "against their conscience". Put plain and simply, if you really want to "live and let live" then give service to people without discrimination and then go about your day. One the far right truly starts "living and let live" as you seem to suggest is what they want to do, I believe that the activists will also live and let live.

[LA Ute]

I need reinforcements.

[USS Utah]

I'm sorry if you understood this as being directed at you, USS, it wasn't. I don't know you and have no idea what you'll be doing tomorrow let alone in the distant future. But the general trend of sentiment towards homosexuality in the country seems pretty clear - it won't be very controversial in a decade. individual mileage may vary, of course.

I knew it wasn't directed at me personally, so I was speaking generally.

It is one thing to say gay marriage won't be controversial ten years from now -- I expect that will be the case -- but something else to say those against it, or even aquiesing, now will be in favor of gay marriage in ten years -- that I don't see happening.

[USS Utah]

I need reinforcements.

The problem is that, while I might feel some sympathy for folks uncomfortable with gay marriage, I just don't see the big deal in providing a service to a gay couple getting married. The business owner is not being asked to endorse or participate -- sorry, making a cake, providing flowers, or even taking photographs, is not participating. It's business, so get over it. In any case, the marriage ceremony itself does not strike me as an objectional act.

[LA Ute]

The problem is that, while I might feel some sympathy for folks uncomfortable with gay marriage, I just don't see the big deal in providing a service to a gay couple getting married. The business owner is not being asked to endorse or participate -- sorry, making a cake, providing flowers, or even taking photographs, is not participating. It's business, so get over it. In any case, the marriage ceremony itself does not strike me as an objectional act.

If I were a photographer or caterer I'd have no problem serving a gay wedding. I know a couple of LDS photogs who do that all the time. Also, Evangelical Christians do not represent my favorite world view. I am just worried about the principle I see involved here. But I'm taking a lot of body blows and I think Applejack is getting frustrated with me, so I may decide to leave the Evangelicals to stew in their own juice for a while.

[Applejack]

If I were a photographer or caterer I'd have no problem serving a gay wedding. I know a couple of LDS photogs who do that all the time. Also, Evangelical Christians do not represent my favorite world view. I am just worried about the principle I see involved here. But I'm taking a lot of body blows and I think Applejack is getting frustrated with me, so I may decide to leave the Evangelicals to stew in their own juice for a while.

I'm not frustrated at all - in fact, I still don't know what the fuss is about. Even USS agrees that this seems like a lot of skirmishing over cake crumbs.

[Diehard Ute]

I'm not frustrated at all - in fact, I still don't know what the fuss is about. Even USS agrees that this seems like a lot of skirmishing over cake crumbs.

Mmmm cake

[LA Ute]

I'm not frustrated at all - in fact, I still don't know what the fuss is about. Even USS agrees that this seems like a lot of skirmishing over cake crumbs.

I can't resist arguing about what are arguably obscure principles sometimes. But I do love cake.

[USS Utah]

Let 'em eat cake.

[LA Ute]

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich to Step Down (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579479741125367618?mod=dj emalertTECH)

Attention Focused on His Support of An Anti-Gay Marriage Ballot Proposal


Mozilla, the organization behind the FireFox web browser, on Thursday said co-founder Brendan Eich, who last week was appointed chief executive, has stepped down from the post.

The appointment of Mr. Eich generated mounting criticism that focused on his support of an anti-gay marriage California ballot measure in 2008. The controversy led OKCupid, a popular dating website, to issue a message that encouraged users to access the website through a different browser.

"Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it," the company said in a blog post (http://online.wsj.com/home-page)on its website Thursday. "We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves."

The nonprofit web organization added it believes "both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

Mr. Eich, who had previously indicated that he wouldn't resign unless the board asked him to step aside, was most recently the organization's chief technology officer. He invented JavaScript, the popular Internet programming language, in 1995. Mr. Eich helped start Mozilla in 1998 with Mitchell Baker and was instrumental in the launch of Firefox in 2004....

Eich donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign in 2008. An interesting take on his situation here, from a gay journalist who knows Eich:

http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/02/the-public-trial-of-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-interview/

[concerned]

Andrew Sullivan ‏@sullydish (https://twitter.com/sullydish) 1m (https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/451830266039123968)
The hounding and firing of @BrendanEich (https://twitter.com/BrendanEich) disgusts me – as it should anyone interested in a tolerant & diverse society: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/ … (http://t.co/4NsQKeIpzi)

[LA Ute]

Andrew Sullivan ‏@sullydish (https://twitter.com/sullydish) 1m (https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/451830266039123968)
The hounding and firing of @BrendanEich (https://twitter.com/BrendanEich) disgusts me – as it should anyone interested in a tolerant & diverse society: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/ … (http://t.co/4NsQKeIpzi)

Full Sullivan piece:

The Hounding of a Heretic (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/)

And this:


Whether or not Eich keeps his position, this episode is instructive for those who hold out hope for a détente in the culture wars. The flawed analogy between the movement to end discrimination against African-Americans and the movement to allow gays and lesbians to marry is sincerely believed by many. But it is not merely a convenient piece of rhetoric or a skillful legal strategy. The moral force of the civil rights movement did not permit any sort of accommodation or compromise with bigots, and contemporary social conservatives who believe that they can negotiate more favorable terms of surrender have fallen prey to wishful thinking. What Thomas’s statement and others reveal is that the same-sex marriage movement has inherited that same genuine moral outrage, that same crusading zeal. While supporters of traditional marriage would like to convince the world that they are correct, they may soon find it difficult enough just to establish that they are not monsters. What is certain is that this will not be the last time that a public example is made of a dissenter from the new moral order.

[Applejack]

That's too bad about Eich. I don't like to see people lose their jobs for dumb reasons.

Here's a question about the marriage equality cases: everyone assumes they are headed to the Supreme Court, but what if there is no circuit split? Right now there are appeals pending in the 10th, 4th, 9th, 5th, and 6th (in roughly that order). The 10th, 5th, and 4th are generally considered more conservative courts. So far, every federal case challenging gay marriage bans has been successful, except for a case in Nevada which the state's attorney general is now refusing to support. I could see a scenario in which all of the appeals courts come to the same conclusion: banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The 5th circuit is the most likely to come out differently. But if all the circuits agree, I can see SCOTUS happily letting the issue pass away without having to deal with it.

[concerned]

That's too bad about Eich. I don't like to see people lose their jobs for dumb reasons.

Here's a question about the marriage equality cases: everyone assumes they are headed to the Supreme Court, but what if there is no circuit split? Right now there are appeals pending in the 10th, 4th, 9th, 5th, and 6th (in roughly that order). The 10th, 5th, and 4th are generally considered more conservative courts. So far, every federal case challenging gay marriage bans has been successful, except for a case in Nevada which the state's attorney general is now refusing to support. I could see a scenario in which all of the appeals courts come to the same conclusion: banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The 5th circuit is the most likely to come out differently. But if all the circuits agree, I can see SCOTUS happily letting the issue pass away without having to deal with it.

the Utah case gets argued this Thursday (the 10th), and the Oklahoma case the following Thursday. Same panel. An older, more conservative panel. 1 41 appointee, 1 Clinton, 1 43. The Clinton appointee was the judge who initially denied the stay before Sotomayor granted it. (I am writing this b/c I assume you are not in Utah and may not read the paper)

At first, I would have thought the 10th cir would reverse; the absolute cascade and unaninimity of district court opinions since the Utah case in December have made me think the 10th circuit may uphold. If one court upholds one of these district court opinions, I would have thought the Supremes have to take it. But maybe you are right. Still, I think the public clamor would be great to have the Supremes clarify and reconcile all circuit court rulings with Windsor.

Didn't I read somewhere that the 9th Circuit applied something stricter than rational scrutiny in a related gay rights case recently (not marriage, but employment or something like that). Might even have been suspect class scrutiny.

[LA Ute]

A modest proposal from Will Saletan:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_ant igay_donors_to_prop_8.1.html

And a balanced summary from NY Times blogger

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-chief/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[SeattleUte]

Full Sullivan piece:

The Hounding of a Heretic (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/)

And this:

LA, this is not an easy issue. I usually agree with Sullivan. Here I see both sides of the argument. It seems that as more liberties are granted and society becomes more enlightened, the arguments become more knotty. But, to compare the forced resignation of a super wealthy CEO from a big rich tech company that needs to be sensitive to its public image in response to free speech exercise by directors, shareholders, employees, and customers with medievel burnings at the stake by religious zealots like Thomas More, and to cite the First Amendment as authority for OPPOSING such forced resignation is just plain ridiculous, even ignorant. I don't feel to sorry for Eich. He's a big boy and should be willng to be held accountable by his fiduciaries and constituents for his own speech exercise.

[LA Ute]

LA, this is not an easy issue. I usually agree with Sullivan. Here I see both sides of the argument. It seems that as more liberties are granted and society becomes more enlightened, the arguments become more knotty. But, to compare the forced resignation of a super wealthy CEO from a big rich tech company that needs to be sensitive to its public image in response to free speech exercise by directors, shareholders, employees, and customers with medievel burnings at the stake by religious zealots like Thomas More, and to cite the First Amendment as authority for OPPOSING such forced resignation is just plain ridiculous, even ignorant. I don't feel to sorry for Eich. He's a big boy and should be willng to be held accountable by his fiduciaries and constituents for his own speech exercise.

Thanks for acknowledging that it is not an easy issue. This is not about Brendan Eich, in my opinion. (I don't think Andrew Sullivan considers it to be about Eich either.) My main concern is about intimidation of political opponents and chilling of public discourse. It is not an easy balance to strike. I'm hopeful that calmer heads will prevail and that people on your side of the issue will take the longer view.

[SeattleUte]

Thanks for acknowledging that it is not an easy issue. This is not about Brendan Eich, in my opinion. (I don't think Andrew Sullivan considers it to be about Eich either.) My main concern is about intimidation of political opponents and chilling of public discourse. It is not an easy balance to strike. I'm hopeful that calmer heads will prevail and that people on your side of the issue will take the longer view.

Well said. This is a hard issue. It almost feels good to get a hard issue for once. Fortunately, this is only happening to rich CEOs, and business owners and managers and mangers of nonprofits and the like who had a lot of gay or lesbian shareholders, customers, employees, donors, etc., people who had helped make them prominent, elite and affuent, and really should have taken a longer or more pragmatic view themselves.Your point is well made in this darkly funny Slate piece.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_ant igay_donors_to_prop_8.html

[LA Ute]

Fortunately, this is only happening to rich CEOs, and business owners and managers and mangers of nonprofits and the like....

Don't you think that (a) what happens to this segment of the population will affect others in less prominent positions? and (b) those who wanted Eich's head were not trying to send a message to people generally? (They themselves say they were.) Or maybe you're just saying that people will not be punished for their political views unless they are in high positions of influence? Who decides where the dividing line is?

Just a few friendly questions. :D You are on the side of suppressing speech here, SU. Good luck carrying the argument.

[SeattleUte]

Don't you think that (a) what happens to this segment of the population will affect others in less prominent positions? and (b) those who wanted Eich's head were not trying to send a message to people generally? (They themselves say they were.) Or maybe you're just saying that people will not be punished for their political views unless they are in high positions of influence? Who decides where the dividing line is?

Just a few friendly questions. :D You are on the side of suppressing speech here, SU. Good luck carrying the argument.

The only thing that brought down Eich was speech.

[NorthwestUteFan]

This has been an extraordinarily unfair fight since before time began, with 2-10% of the population (depending on how one counts) suffering ALL of the damages at the hands of the ultramajority with the sanction of God and King.

Now that the pendulum has swung partially toward equality for most people (and indeed beyond equality for some people such as Eich), do not complain that the fight has suddenly become 'unfair'.

[LA Ute]

So it's payback, NWUF? That's the justification for suppressing political speech, the most important kind of speech?

[Rocker Ute]

This has been an extraordinarily unfair fight since before time began, with 2-10% of the population (depending on how one counts) suffering ALL of the damages at the hands of the ultramajority with the sanction of God and King.

Now that the pendulum has swung partially toward equality for most people (and indeed beyond equality for some people such as Eich), do not complain that the fight has suddenly become 'unfair'.

The problem is it isn't a pendulum, it is possible that both sides are employing tactics that are reprehensible, and you would hope that the correct side would also be able to take the moral high ground,particularly a group who has been victim of these same sort of practices for so long. I've felt for a long time, on issues that don't even related to the gay rights movement but public discourse in general is that our society no longer believes in a person's right to be wrong about something.

As painful as it might be in these sort of issues, I think the friction of opinion in society is actually critical for its health. If you don't believe that look no further than the Utah Legislature that has no opposition to anything. The only thing that ever takes them down is the weight of their own hubris.

Moves by opponents to quiet the voices of opposition is disturbing to me. Our current state of politics means that there are only extremes from both sides and that carries down to everything, even personal morality. The other day a friend of mine were debating about an issue and he finally said to me, "I can't believe you of all people believe that!" and I said, "I don't, but I believe in the right of other people to believe what they want... however stupid that belief might be." That's what it boils down to for me. And we need that because what seems obviously right isn't always right... 50 years ago a belief in support of gay marriage would have been viewed as a very stupid belief.

And maybe it is just human nature we are fighting against. The need to purge out the problems from the herd. I suppose this is just proof of what the band Fugazi said, "We are all bigots, so filled with hatred..."

[SeattleUte]

The problem is it isn't a pendulum, it is possible that both sides are employing tactics that are reprehensible, and you would hope that the correct side would also be able to take the moral high ground,particularly a group who has been victim of these same sort of practices for so long. I've felt for a long time, on issues that don't even related to the gay rights movement but public discourse in general is that our society no longer believes in a person's right to be wrong about something.

As painful as it might be in these sort of issues, I think the friction of opinion in society is actually critical for its health. If you don't believe that look no further than the Utah Legislature that has no opposition to anything. The only thing that ever takes them down is the weight of their own hubris.

Moves by opponents to quiet the voices of opposition is disturbing to me. Our current state of politics means that there are only extremes from both sides and that carries down to everything, even personal morality. The other day a friend of mine were debating about an issue and he finally said to me, "I can't believe you of all people believe that!" and I said, "I don't, but I believe in the right of other people to believe what they want... however stupid that belief might be." That's what it boils down to for me. And we need that because what seems obviously right isn't always right... 50 years ago a belief in support of gay marriage would have been viewed as a very stupid belief.

And maybe it is just human nature we are fighting against. The need to purge out the problems from the herd. I suppose this is just proof of what the band Fugazi said, "We are all bigots, so filled with hatred..."

The forced resignations and boycotts have only occurred through the free market of ideas and verbal expression that you rightly extoll. Only people who depend on public goodwill such as CEOs and business owners have been affected. They have known how to deploy public goodwill to their advantage, and it cuts both ways (e.g., no wage earning employee will get fired for supporting Prop. 8.) You are right, it is a painful and necessary process.

[LA Ute]

Feedback on Mozilla's page is overwhelmingly negative:

https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/?selected=7d&date_start=2014-03-28

And Mozilla is not respondiong to news media inquiries anymore:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/05/mozilla-clams-up/

[LA Ute]

Only people who depend on public goodwill such as CEOs and business owners have been affected. They have known how to deploy public goodwill to their advantage, and it cuts both ways (e.g., no wage earning employee will get fired for supporting Prop. 8.) You are right, it is a painful and necessary process.

C'mon, SU, you're trying to defend the indefensible. Deep down in your libertertarian-leaning heart you know it is wrong to punish people for expressing their political beliefs, and you know that doing so is the stuff of banana republics and totalitarianism.

You're now arguing that only people who depend on public goodwill have been "affected" so far. Nice try, but will you object if it goes farther?

Nate Silver analyzed Silicon Valley donations in support of Prop 8. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-rare-are-anti-gay-marriage-donations-in-silicon-valley/) Based on what he discovered, I'd say the payback isn't over yet. Here's a breakdown (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/04/uh-oh-60-of-intel-employees-who-donated-in-prop-8-debate-supported-banning-gay-marriage/) by another pundit:



[Quoting Silver to begin:]The Los Angeles Times maintains a database of contributions for and against Proposition 8. The database includes the names of a donor’s employer, as is required by campaign finance law. I checked the records for some of the largest technology companies in Silicon Valley: specifically those that were in the Fortune 500 as of 2008. The list includes Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Cisco Systems, Apple, Google, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Oracle, Yahoo, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Symantec. I limited the search to donors who listed California as their location.

In total between these 11 companies, 83 percent of employee donations were in opposition to Proposition 8. So Eich was in a 17 percent minority relative to the top companies in Silicon Valley…

However, there was quite a bit of variation from business to business. At Intel, 60 percent of employee donations were in support of Proposition 8. By contrast, at Apple, 94 percent of employee donations were made in opposition to Proposition 8. The opposition was even higher at Google, where 96 percent of employee donations were against it, including $100,000 from co-founder Sergey Brin.


Follow the link for Silver’s table with the numbers for each company. The only footnote to Intel being the sole outlier is that, at Hewlett-Packard, while there were more employees who donated against Prop 8 than for it (103/54), supporters ended up donating more actual money than opponents did ($40,990/$32,616). Sounds like someone, or ones, at HP is busting out big bucks to defeat equality. We should find them. “HP” does resemble “H8,” you know.

As for Intel, there are four ways the Eich-purgers can play it. One: Boycott the company. Won’t happen, though — Intel’s too important and it might be judged unfair to punish the entire institution for the views of a few dozen employees. Two: Ignore it on “mission accomplished” grounds. The point in banishing Eich was to warn other social conservatives in the industry to stay in line. You can do that by diligently hounding dozens of middle managers at Intel or you can do it by scalping one big-name guy with lots of press coverage. The latter’s more efficient and the message will be received just as loudly and clearly by interested parties. No need to scalp anyone else, for now. the Three: Identify the highest-ranking Prop 8 supporter at each company named by Silver and purge him/her. What kind of witch hunt only ends up burning one witch, after all? There may be no Prop 8 fan at Intel quite as prominent as Eich but someone necessarily qualifies as the biggest fish in that particular pond. Throw out a line! Four: Suspend the purges in favor of a “no major promotion” policy instead. Like I said earlier, that’s really what the Eich case is about. His donation’s been a matter of public record for five years but only after he became the face of Mozilla by being named CEO was it deemed an unforgivable trespass. Prop 8 fans can continue to work in tech as long as they aren’t given positions of significant influence. That’s when the hammer comes down.

Looks like strategy no. 4 is the one you favor. Am I right?

[SeattleUte]

C'mon, SU, you're trying to defend the indefensible. Deep down in your libertertarian-leaning heart you know it is wrong to punish people for expressing their political beliefs, and you know that doing so is the stuff of banana republics and totalitarianism.

You're now arguing that only people who depend on public goodwill have been "affected" so far. Nice try, but will you object if it goes farther?

Nate Silver analyzed Silicon Valley donations in support of Prop 8. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-rare-are-anti-gay-marriage-donations-in-silicon-valley/) Based on what he discovered, I'd say the payback isn't over yet. Here's a breakdown (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/04/uh-oh-60-of-intel-employees-who-donated-in-prop-8-debate-supported-banning-gay-marriage/) by another pundit:



Looks like strategy no. 4 is the one you favor. Am I right?

What's indefensible? That I recognize even approve of the right of shareholders, employees, directors and customers to express disapproval on the Internet, etc. at the election of a CEO of a major corporation because said CEO opposes gay marriage? Personally, I don't feel sorry for him, I think he supported a reprehensible cause, but I didn't feel strongly either way about whether he should be promoted or he should resign (truth is, I was unaware any of this was going on). But I reject this "purge" hysteria.

What are we talking about when we say there was a "purge"? We're talking about verbal expressions of protest that forced him to resign. It sounds pretty American, and pretty libertarian to me.

[Applejack]

C'mon, la....totalitarianism? Don't you think that is a bit much for a private company laying off its CEO? It's too bad for this guy, but I fail to see this as anything more than a company overreacting. Read an employment law casebook and much, much worse examples will be found.

[USS Utah]

So McCarthyism is okay if directed at people of prominence with what you consider to be reprehensible opinions?

[Applejack]

So McCarthyism is okay if directed at people of prominence with what you consider to be reprehensible opinions?

I don't know if this is directed at me, but why is this like McCarthy? Is the government behind Mozilla in a way in which I am unaware?

[USS Utah]

I don't know if this is directed at me, but why is this like McCarthy? Is the government behind Mozilla in a way in which I am unaware?

Does the government have to be involved for it to be McCarthyism? Blackballing is blackballing.

If people want to protest or boycott, that is their right, but where is the line? What constitutes the free market and what constitutes hounding?

From the third Andrew Sullivan piece linked to earlier by LA Ute:


Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I’d fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I’m concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

Eich no doubt has the means to survive losing his job, but about people down the line who may have some prominence but cannot afford to lose their job? And if other employers refuse to hire them? Its one thing to shame people, it's another to mess with their livelihood.

[LA Ute]

AJ, I'm just fascinated by this topic, and am thus arguing vigorously. I don't want anyone to think I'm angry. This piece in the Atlantic asks intelligent questions in a non-inflammatory way, and along the way makes my point better than I have been able to. The title and subtitle sum up my concerns:


Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/)
The forced resignation of Brendan Eich will have a chilling effect on political discourse. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/)


The author was a staunch opponent of Prop 8. The whole thing is worth reading (it's not terribly long). One bit:


Consider an issue like abortion, which divides the country in a particularly intense way, with opponents earnestly regarding it as the murder of an innocent baby and many abortion-rights supporters earnestly believing that a fetus is not a human life, and that outlawing it is a horrific assault on a woman's bodily autonomy. The political debate over abortion is likely to continue long past all of our deaths. Would American society be better off if stakeholders in various corporations began to investigate leadership's political activities on abortion and to lobby for the termination of anyone who took what they regard to be the immoral, damaging position?

Punishing people in business for bygone political donations is likely to entrench powerful interests and weaken the ability of the powerless to challenge the status quo.

It isn't difficult to see the wisdom in inculcating the norm that the political and the professional are separate realms, for following it makes so many people and institutions better off in a diverse, pluralistic society. The contrary approach would certainly have a chilling effect on political speech and civic participation, as does Mozilla's behavior toward Eich.

Its implications are particularly worrisome because whatever you think of gay marriage, the general practice of punishing people in business for bygone political donations is most likely to entrench powerful interests and weaken the ability of the powerless to challenge the status quo. There is very likely hypocrisy at work too. Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing to do with a CEO's ability to do his job? They'd have called that firing an illiberal outrage, but today they're averse to vocally disagreeing with allies.

[Applejack]

Does the government have to be involved for it to be McCarthyism? Blackballing is blackballing.

If people want to protest or boycott, that is their right, but where is the line? What constitutes the free market and what constitutes hounding?

From the third Andrew Sullivan piece linked to earlier by LA Ute:

Y

Eich no doubt has the means to survive losing his job, but about people down the line who may have some prominence but cannot afford to lose their job? And if other employers refuse to hire them? Its one thing to shame people, it's another to mess with their livelihood.

Look, no one in this thread is supportive of what Mozilla did. But I do find it a little disingenuous that gay marriage opponents are suddenly up in arms about freedom of speech in employment when up until two years ago a gay person would be dishonorably discharged from the military for revealing their sexual orientation. I didn't hear the outrage over that.

I feel bad for Eich, but his situation is nothing compared to all the gay individuals who have lost their jobs and livelihood.

[SeattleUte]

So McCarthyism is okay if directed at people of prominence with what you consider to be reprehensible opinions?

What you're saying here is that you're completely clueless about what McCarthy did and what McCarthyism means.

[LA Ute]

Look, no one in this thread is supportive of what Mozilla did. But I do find it a little disingenuous that gay marriage opponents are suddenly up in arms about freedom of speech in employment when up until two years ago a gay person would be dishonorably discharged from the military for revealing their sexual orientation. I didn't hear the outrage over that.

I feel bad for Eich, but his situation is nothing compared to all the gay individuals who have lost their jobs and livelihood.

Fair enough. I still believe this is not about Eich and is more about the future and how we move on as this extraordinarily difficult debate is resolved.

[SeattleUte]

Look, no one in this thread is supportive of what Mozilla did. But I do find it a little disingenuous that gay marriage opponents are suddenly up in arms about freedom of speech in employment when up until two years ago a gay person would be dishonorably discharged from the military for revealing their sexual orientation. I didn't hear the outrage over that.

I feel bad for Eich, but his situation is nothing compared to all the gay individuals who have lost their jobs and livelihood.

Indeed. The whole notion that same sex marriage somehow abridges the liberties of social conservatives or harms families has always been disingenuous. They mounted a guerrilla campaign supporting Prop 8 just to satisfy their personal pscychic gratification from seeing marriage denied to homosexuals. This was about as nasty and cruel as politics gets. It was monumentally selfish and callous. Then when the democratic tables are turned on them they whine that there must a be political price to pay for their own ruthless politics. The passage of Prop 8 must have been only a snapshot of the electorate, as it lacked popular support to the extent that the governor and attorney general would not even defend it when it was attacked in the courts.

[SeattleUte]

AJ, I'm just fascinated by this topic, and am thus arguing vigorously. I don't want anyone to think I'm angry. This piece in the Atlantic asks intelligent questions in a non-inflammatory way, and along the way makes my point better than I have been able to. The title and subtitle sum up my concerns:


Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/)
The forced resignation of Brendan Eich will have a chilling effect on political discourse. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/)


The author was a staunch opponent of Prop 8. The whole thing is worth reading (it's not terribly long). One bit:

LA, so what's the solution? Banning the kind of speech that induced Eich to resign? That is not what the Atlantic writer would want. I doubt it's what you want. So what's your all's point? All this is showing me is something I knew -- liberals can be so muddled sometimes by their utopianism about the very meaning of liberty.All he's doing is disagreeing with someone else's exericse of free speech. Well, nobody has done anything but here exercise their constitutional rights. Nobody accused Eich of being anything he wasn't. You don't like what I'm saying, and I don't like what you're saying. That doesn't make either of us like McCarthy and nor were the people who used their persuasive skills and political clout to push him out. This is the way dialogue and liberty works.

[Rocker Ute]

Indeed. The whole notion that same sex marriage somehow abridges the liberties of social conservatives or harms families has always been disingenuous. They mounted a guerrilla campaign supporting Prop 8 just to satisfy their personal pscychic gratification from seeing marriage denied to homosexuals. This was about as nasty and cruel as politics gets. It was monumentally selfish and callouse. Then when the democratic tables are turned on them they whine that there must be political a price to pay for their own ruthless politics. The passage of Prop 8 must have been only a snapshot of the electorate, as it lacked popular to the extent that the governor and attorney general would not even defend it when it was attacked in the courts.

Interestingly, if you recall, some speculated that were Barrack Obama not running as president Prop 8 would have failed. 70% of Black voters voted Yes, stronger than voters who identified themselves as religious.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html

[SeattleUte]

Interestingly, if you recall, some speculated that were Barrack Obama not running as president Prop 8 would have failed. 70% of Black voters voted Yes, stronger than voters who identified themselves as religious.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html

I do recall. And I did not hisitate to write that support for proposition 8 was ignorant, bigoted, hateful, and disgusting whether coming from Mormons, blacks, Catholics, Hispanics or whatever.


http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?507-The-New-Yorker-Prop-8-a-last-stand/page2&highlight=proposition

[LA Ute]

This is a reassuring view from Jonathan Rauch:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/04/the-weight-of-executives-personal-beliefs/mozilla-ceos-forced-exit-was-intolerance-in-the-name-of-tolerance

I respect Rauch a lot, and I hope he's right.

[Applejack]

What you're saying here is that you're completely clueless about what hate is and what hate means. Just thought I'd keep the ball rolling with over the top insults.

Actually, McCarthyism can be used as a comparison just fine. No comparison is perfect, but we all know the point that is being made. Actually, that is what makes for a good comparison - if it helps the audience understand your point. Who cares if it's the government or a corporation? It's the people that drive these things to happen. Of course, there are a million differences. One big difference is that there are no celebrities like Pete Seeger or Bertold Brecht involved to hilariously insult their accusers.

Since we're posting articles about this, here's Frank Bruni's. He's my favorite NYT columnist. I think he and Maureen Dowd are the best writers they have. George Will is the best writer in the news business, though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-new-gay-orthodoxy.html?ref=frankbruni&_r=0

I think it's a solid response. He is apparently good with equating this guy to a racist. I am not.

Sorry, equating one guy losing his job at a private company (likely with a large severance package) with McCarthyism is an insult to Joe McCarthy and how hard he worked to undermine the American political system.

Was it McCarthyism when don't act don't tell was law? What about when Arizona tried (last month) to enshrine the right to fire someone for saying they are gay into law? What about when an employer fires an employee for any statement? The answer is no - none of those things is anything like what McCarthy did.

The only debate here is about the scope of the problem. Everyone agrees Mozilla screwed up. Some of you on here are against gay marriage or supported prop 8, is it's personal. I understand that. But eichs firing is a small deal.

[SeattleUte]

What you're saying here is that you're completely clueless about what hate is and what hate means. Just thought I'd keep the ball rolling with over the top insults.

Actually, McCarthyism can be used as a comparison just fine. No comparison is perfect, but we all know the point that is being made. Actually, that is what makes for a good comparison - if it helps the audience understand your point. Who cares if it's the government or a corporation? It's the people that drive these things to happen. Of course, there are a million differences. One big difference is that there are no celebrities like Pete Seeger or Bertold Brecht involved to hilariously insult their accusers.

Since we're posting articles about this, here's Frank Bruni's. He's my favorite NYT columnist. I think he and Maureen Dowd are the best writers they have. George Will is the best writer in the news business, though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-new-gay-orthodoxy.html?ref=frankbruni&_r=0

I think it's a solid response. He is apparently good with equating this guy to a racist. I am not.

That's a very good column. He's right in every respect. Ironically, Proposition 8 was the catalyst.

As Bruni notes in his last paragraph, Sullivan is not arguing from principle. Rather, he's concerned about political backlash from a perceived "public flogging," regardless of whether Eich deserved to be flogged. That's an understandable concern.

Now, with respect to this cliched McCarthyism, analogy, as AJ notes, it could not be more offbase. The point about government is not a mere technicality. As Bruni notes, Eich "resigned, clearly under duress and solely because his opposition to gay marriage diverged from the views of too many employees and customers." I'm sure you know that a CEO's job security depends on the goodwill of customers, shareholders, and employees (he does not mention shareholders, but they had something to do with it; in a way it's a credit to Eich that he cared about employees' loss of confidence in him).

The other reason McCarthyism does not apply as an analogy is that nobody is misrepresenting Eich's views. True, he donated to Propositio 8 as a matter of conscience, but that more begs the question. It was conscience that prompted Robert E. Lee to reject Lincoln's appointment as Supreme Commander of the Union forces and defect to the confederacy to take a similar position. It was still a severe lapse of moral judgment.

It's no more McCarthyism than the outcome of an election where the votes are fairly counted.

[LA Ute]

SU, what part of Sullivan's statement here lacks principle?


As I said last night, of course Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I’d fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I’m concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.


C'mon, resist the temptation to attack his argument by being so reductive. You're much better when you recognize the merit in the opposing argument. He makes a serious point on which reasonable, smart people strongly disagree. And AJ, you're perilously close to the same kind of reductivism. Those with a differing view on this are simply taking it personally? Next you'll be telling us to calm down or stop being so emotional. ;)

[jrj84105]

Fair enough. I still believe this is not about Eich and is more about the future and how we move on as this extraordinarily difficult debate is resolved.
I think the debate is over, and has been for a little while now. The resolution going forward seems pretty clear. Public opposition to gay marriage will have the same public backlash as public opposition to interracial marriage. Views against the social norm (acceptance) will still be shared in close circles, but won't have a place in general public dialogue. It's the same process as the civil rights process of the sixties except it's happening faster because gay people are in every family at every social strata, not in a separate part of town living in poverty.

[LA Ute]

I think the debate is over, and has been for a little while now. The resolution going forward seems pretty clear. Public opposition to gay marriage will have the same public backlash as public opposition to interracial marriage. Views against the social norm (acceptance) will still be shared in close circles, but won't have a place in general public dialogue. It's the same process as the civil rights process of the sixties except it's happening faster because gay people are in every family at every social strata, not in a separate part of town living in poverty.

You've framed my concern for the future and the debate that is still going on. (I'm always wary, BTW, when people say a great debate is "over.") Is disapproval of same-sex marriage equivalent to disapproval of interracial marriage? That comparison is often made but is is by no means widely accepted -- yet. It is a flawed comparison, IMO, and if it is widely adopted it will grant "permission" to regard people who believe traditional marriage is an ideal that society should encourage the same way we regard people who disapprove of interracial marriage -- like bigots.

[Scratch]

if it is widely adopted it will grant "permission" to regard people who believe traditional marriage is an ideal that society should encourage the same way we regard people who disapprove of interracial marriage -- like bigots.

Do you really think we're not already there?

[LA Ute]

Do you really think we're not already there?

We're close. I plan to go down kicking and screaming.

[concerned]

We're close. I plan to go down kicking and screaming.


well there goes your chance to do legal work for Mozilla anytime soon. Koch bros still in play however.

[LA Ute]

well there goes your chance to do legal work for Mozilla anytime soon. Koch bros still in play however.

I still use Firefox.

[SeattleUte]

You've framed my concern for the future and the debate that is still going on. (I'm always wary, BTW, when people say a great debate is "over.") Is disapproval of same-sex marriage equivalent to disapproval of interracial marriage? That comparison is often made but is is by no means widely accepted -- yet. It is a flawed comparison, IMO, and if it is widely adopted it will grant "permission" to regard people who believe traditional marriage is an ideal that society should encourage the same way we regard people who disapprove of interracial marriage -- like bigots.

Opposing same sex marriage is the same thing as opposing interracial marriage. Haven't you read the Utah federal court opinion? People who want same sex marriage are the way they are because they can only form the bonds that lead to marriage with others of the same gender. It's not a choice. You can't "encourage" "traditional marriage" or discourage same sex marriage. (Not so long ago LDS GAs were dicouraging interracial marriage. Surely you see a pattern here.)

[LA Ute]

What Monster Mormon Chauncy Childs Said

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/portlandia-sharia-monster-mormon-what-chauncy-childs-said/

[LA Ute]

Opposing same sex marriage is the same thing as opposing interracial marriage. Haven't you read the Utah federal court opinion? People who want same sex marriage are the way they are because they can only form the bonds that lead to marriage with others of the same gender. It's not a choice. You can't "encourage" "traditional marriage" or discourage same sex marriage. (Not so long ago LDS GAs were dicouraging interracial marriage. Surely you see a pattern here.)

Here are a few statements of religious belief:


The word “marriage” isn’t simply a label that can be attached to different types of relationships. Instead, “marriage” reflects a deep reality – the reality of the unique, fruitful, lifelong union that is only possible between a man and a woman. Just as oxygen and hydrogen are essential to water, sexual difference is essential to marriage. The attempt to “redefine” marriage to include two persons of the same sex denies the reality of what marriage is. It is as impossible as trying to “redefine” water to include oxygen and nitrogen.

Isn’t marriage just about love and commitment between two people?

Of course love and commitment are important for marriage – as they are for many relationships. But marriage is unique because the commitment it calls for is better described as communion, where “the two become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Only a man and a woman in marriage can become a “one flesh” communion. The unity of husband and wife is so intimate that from it can come a “third,” the child – a new life to be welcomed and raised in love. No other relationship, no matter how loving or committed, can have this unique form of commitment – communion – that exists in marriage, between a husband and a wife.


Why does a person’s gender matter for marriage?

Gender matters for marriage because the body matters for love. My body is not simply “the shape of my skin.” Instead, my identity as a person (my “I”) is inseparable from the reality of my body – I am a body-person. As John Paul II said, the body reveals the person. It is a deeply personal reality, not just a biological fact (see TOB, sec. 9.4). The body is “taken up” into every human action, including the most important task of all: loving. Loving as a human person means loving as a man or as a woman. Marriage, the “primary form” of human love (GS, no. 12), necessarily involves the reality of men and women as body-persons. Marriage is intrinsically opposite-sex. To “write off” the body, and gender, as unimportant to marriage means treating the body as inconsequential or, at best, as an object or tool to be used according to one’s pleasure, instead of as an essential – and beautiful – aspect of being human and loving as a human person. Such a write-off would ignore the very essence of what marriage is.

That is the Catholic view (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm#m4).


THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

That's the Mormon view, as you probably know.

There are people in the world -- and you appear to be sympathetic to them -- who want to marginalize these views and cause those who hold them to be considered bigots. If that occurs I think it would be a shame. It will also put great pressure on my own religious beliefs and my aspirations for what my children will be able to believe and practice. We will continue to believe what we believe, but we have the right to speak up and defend our right to those beliefs.

Do you agree with Marcuse? Back in 1965 he wrote an essay called “Repressive Tolerance (http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm),” which basically holds that social justice demands curbs on freedom of expression:


“[I]t is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation,” he wrote. “Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.”

It sounds like you accept this position. Am I wrong?

[SeattleUte]

I never attack a sincere expression of belief.

Indeed, nobody is asking Mormons or Catholics or any other religion to change their definition of marriage. It is the other way around. The only people trying to induce anyone to change their definition of marriage is religious people. There is nothing new here. Religious institutions are, at a cellular level, inclined toward authoritarianism; they are reflexively repressive know-it-alls. Today there would be no representative government, no free speech rights, no science, indeed, no right to worship as you please, had not courageous individuals at various points in the past stood up to, rebelled against, and separated themselves from religious authority.

What is happening now is just a continuation of that process, and it's a beautiful thing. Meanwhile, those who want liberty for people who want same sex marriage are not trying to impose their definition of marriage on religious people. I really don't think anyone responsible would call a sincere expression of belief that marriage is a union of man and woman bigotry if religions would just stop imposing their definition of marriage on those of us who don't believe their creeds.

[SeattleUte]

By the way, the Catholic version is a lot better. It's actually somewhat of a pleasure to read.

[Jarid in Cedar]

So it's payback, NWUF? That's the justification for suppressing political speech, the most important kind of speech?


All have the freedom to speak freely, but are not free of any ramifications of that speech. He was not jailed for his viewpoint, which is the only guarantee that the Bill of Rights gives(even that is tempered to exclude speech that can lead to direct harm of others)

[Applejack]

LA, I feel like you are engaging in a full frontal attack in this thread; I'm just not sure who you are attacking. No one on this thread, including SU, has sustained what Mozilla did. Everyone agrees it was a hasty, ill-formed decision. So, what are you looking for? Do you want to make it illegal for private companies to lay people off for making political contributions? I doubt you do (if I'm wrong please correct me). Do you want to foster general agreement among society that political/religious views should not be used to fire someone? Well, we already have that. There were thousands of people who donated to Prop 8 and other causes who still have their jobs. Indeed, you cited to Nate Silver's blog which highlights the large numbers of people who donated to Prop 8 - how many of these people have been fired for their contributions? One, two?

Calling Eich's case "McCarthyism" is just rhetoric. The case has nothing to do with the invidious power of the state nor with vague charges meant to discredit. It was a poor decision by a private individual (a company). Calling Eich's case "totalitarianism," is, to be frank, laughable: firing an individual for a meager political donation bears absolutely no resemblance to a form of government that led to the holocaust, Stalin's death camps, and Mao.

[SeattleUte]

LA, I feel like you are engaging in a full frontal attack in this thread; I'm just not sure who you are attacking. No one on this thread, including SU, has sustained what Mozilla did. Everyone agrees it was a hasty, ill-formed decision. So, what are you looking for? Do you want to make it illegal for private companies to lay people off for making political contributions? I doubt you do (if I'm wrong please correct me). Do you want to foster general agreement among society that political/religious views should not be used to fire someone? Well, we already have that. There were thousands of people who donated to Prop 8 and other causes who still have their jobs. Indeed, you cited to Nate Silver's blog which highlights the large numbers of people who donated to Prop 8 - how many of these people have been fired for their contributions? One, two?

Calling Eich's case "McCarthyism" is just rhetoric. The case has nothing to do with the invidious power of the state nor with vague charges meant to discredit. It was a poor decision by a private individual (a company). Calling Eich's case "totalitarianism," is, to be frank, laughable: firing an individual for a meager political donation bears absolutely no resemblance to a form of government that led to the holocaust, Stalin's death camps, and Mao.

I think he wants us to agree that it was a bad thing to do for the employees, shareholers and customers of Mozilla to push out the company's CEO on the basis that they did. For me it's not a lot unlike when Microsoft shareholders and directors pushed out Balmer. I'm not wholly fit to judge because I wasn't involved, and I have no economic interest in Mozilla, even as a customer. Again, I probably would not have wanted to push him out if he's the best person for the job. But even were I to second guess these stakeholders' decision, it's their decision to make nonetheless, and I get why they did what they did.

There is kind of an interesting irony here. What's more hurtful, to strip a person of his marriage, or force him to resign as CEO of a major corporation? I think that if we're going to compare which expression of First Amendment rights is worse I'd say the supporters of Proposition 8 were worse than the Mozilla constituents who forced out Eich, because many courts have held that what they did violated the Bill of Rights.

[Scratch]

What's more hurtful, to strip a person of his marriage, or force him to resign as CEO of a major corporation? I think that if we're going to compare which expression of First Amendment rights is worse I'd say the supporters of Proposition 8 were worse than the Mozilla constituents who forced out Eich, because many courts have held that what they did violated the Bill of Rights.

If you're going to (accurately) split hairs regarding the First Amendment (private actors punishing someone for their political speech does not violate the First Amendment) then I'm going to have to split hairs that supporters of Prop 8 didn't violate the 14th Amendment because the due process clause doesn't apply to someone supporting legislation that is ultimately deemed to be a due process violation.

I'll also split another hair; the the 14th Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights.

[LA Ute]

AJ, no attack intended here. I'm arguing in favor of "live and let live" at this point in the discussion. The Brendan Eich episode, to me, is not about Eich. What I find disturbing about it is that a high-profile person is being made to pay for his private exercise of political speech. I know you and SU think Eich's fate was a small matter, but I disagree. What worries me:

1. The chilling effect of the episode. I think it is undeniable that there will be such an effect. To me that is a bad thing.

2. The ongoing marginalization -- and possible persecution -- of people of good will because of their deeply-held religious beliefs. (Yes, this part of it is personal, at least to a certain extent.) We can say, "No, that'll never happen," but to me the defense of religious freedom requires vigilance, just as any other First Amendment right does. No, there's no state action, but the values matter. We can talk all we want about how there have been only isolated occurrences of "Prop 8 retaliation," but I am aware of plenty of anecdotal cases that are quite worrisome. In the end, believers will soldier on regardless of opposition, but (a) I think it will be sad if such marginalization occurs, and (b) I believe I have the right and obligation to stand up for my faith's beliefs -- and those of millions of others in different churches.

In my perfect world the same-sex marriage debate will become like the ongoing abortion debate, with society recognizing that people on each side feel very strongly about the issue, and lots of colorful rhetoric, but with no witch hunts, purges or public shaming. There are many who seem to want a world where "thought crimes" exist, i.e., where certain beliefs are not permissible -- or that if you hold them, you'd better be quiet about them. That's where my references to banana republics (think Venezuela and Cuba) and to Maoism come from.

On a personal level, my closest friend in the world posted this on Facebook yesterday. I feel the same way he does and have similar relationships (that's one reason we are close friends):


To my friends who are different:

Thank you.

I am a practicing Mormon, a believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and a father in a traditional family. Yet my Facebook contains a beautiful rainbow of friends who are different from me.

Thank you for respecting my beliefs and gracing our friendship with tolerance.

A few months ago a colleague of a different religion teased me about some aspect of my religion. While I was not offended, later that day she emailed me and apologized, saying she never wanted to lose a friendship over a difference in beliefs. I was so moved by her sincere kindness.

I have seen the other side of this coin. When I was a graduate student 30 years ago I sat briefly in a faculty meeting where accomplished scholars in the name of tolerance planned passive strategies to exclude people in my religion from consideration for a job. Only one person, who was not a Mormon, stood up and said he would not be a part of Mormon bashing.

I first saw this tolerance in my "best friend" Rob ******, who I have known since I can remember. My parents tell the story of me coming home from play and saying that Rob was Episcopalian as if it were a disease. Rob and I grew up together in two Salt Lake neighborhoods, and 60 years later still stay in touch. While Rob endured the frustration of exclusion at times, and while he had heated discussions about politics, girls, religion and what to have for lunch, I never once felt that being "right" about religion or politics was more important than our friendship.

There are still great examples of tolerance in my life. My neighbor Paul ******* who is a quadriplegic and a Catholic by birth willingly attends the baptisms and religious milestones of my children. Thank you Paul.

My friend Dennis ******* and his gay partner routinely "like" my posts involving my children in their traditional marriage. Thank you Dennis.

My friend Eddie, who has my deepest affection, is a practicing atheist. Yet we have worked side by side and spent time in each other's homes. He is an example of kindness and service. Thank you Eddie.

My friend Meg has just returned from three months in a Buddhist retreat center. Her ever-warm heart glowed even brighter with peace. Thank you Meg.

Recently I attended a conference in Napa, CA with colleagues from the Western Academy of Management. It was in the heart of wine country yet I did not sample. All of my friends and colleagues were kind, even protective, doing their best to make me feel comfortable as waiters bombarded me with offers two hundred times in two hours.

Thanks all for letting me be different. You are indeed my brothers and sisters.

That's all, folks.

[SeattleUte]

If you're going to (accurately) split hairs regarding the First Amendment (private actors punishing someone for their political speech does not violate the First Amendment) then I'm going to have to split hairs that supporters of Prop 8 didn't violate the 14th Amendment because the due process clause doesn't apply to someone supporting legislation that is ultimately deemed to be a due process violation.

I'll also split another hair; the the 14th Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights.

I don't think that distinguishing between government and private action particularly when you're talking about the Constitution is splitting hairs. Here in fact what happened was exercise of first amendment rights and a playing out of democracy in the corporate setting. You could say the American system worked.

With your first point you're not splitting hairs either. But here we're talking about not violations of laws, but who was more ignoble. Even before the courts ruled it was evident to many of us that seeking to amend a state constitution to diminish or eliminate liberty with respect to the right to marry was a bad thing to do to those millinons of affected people (usually civil rights amendments are passed to expand liberties not abridge them; the latter kind invariably wind up generating a great deal of real suffering; see, e.g., prohibition).

[Scratch]

I don't think that distinguishing between government and private action particularly when you're talking about the Constitution is splitting hairs. Here in fact what happened was exercise of first amendment rights and a playing out of democracy in the corporate setting. You could say the American system worked.

With your first point you're not splitting hairs either. But here we're talking about not violations of laws, but who was more ignoble. Even before the courts ruled it was evident to many of us that seeking to amend a state constitution to diminish or eliminate liberty with respect to the right to marry was a bad thing to do to those millinons of affected people (usually civil rights amendments are passed to expand liberties not abridge them; the latter kind invariably wind up generating a great deal of real suffering; see, e.g., prohibition).

That's all fine, and you're certainly welcome to believe that one is more ignoble than the other (and I'm not trying to argue one side or the other of the "ignobility" question); all I'm saying is that your reliance on a violation of the Bill of Rights as the ultimate arbiter is unsupportable, as Prop 8 supporters violated neither the Bill of Rights nor the 14th Amendment.

[SeattleUte]

That's all fine, and you're certainly welcome to believe that one is more ignoble than the other (and I'm not trying to argue one side or the other of the "ignobility" question); all I'm saying is that your reliance on a violation of the Bill of Rights as the ultimate arbiter is unsupportable, as Prop 8 supporters violated neither the Bill of Rights nor the 14th Amendment.

You're correct. What they did didn't violate the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment. Their handiwork did violate the 14th Amendment though (until the higher courts say otherwise). My point stands.

[LA Ute]

You're correct. What they did didn't violate the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment. Their handiwork did violate the 14th Amendment though (until the higher courts say otherwise). My point stands.

SU, my friend, a serious question: Why do you insist on vilifying those who supported Prop 8, or their motives? It's a remarkable aspect of your own handiwork in this area. In so doing, you demonstrate the attitude that worries me. At the time Prop 8 was on the ballot (and a couple of dozen states were passing similar initiatives) there was no judicial authority anywhere holding that the 14th amendment applied to sexual orientation. I could be wrong but don't think that even now there is an appellate court that has so held. I do think that's where the courts will end up, but that was not obvious at the time.

BTW, you can keep calling support for Prop 8 hateful, bigoted, ignorant, etc., but all you'll succeed at doing is to create a corollary to Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law): All discussions of same-sex marriage eventually devolve into accusations, not of Nazism, but of bigotry and hatred. I.e., reductio ad hitlerum becomes reductio ad bigotum.

[Scratch]

As a follow-up to LA's post, how do you feel about President Obama and Hillary Clinton and all of the other enlightened progressives who were not pro-gay-marriage as recently as a couple of years ago? If always being pro-gay-marriage is a reasonable test for corporate, governmental, or any other form of leadership, what percentage of the population qualifies?

[SeattleUte]

SU, my friend, a serious question: Why do you insist on vilifying those who supported Prop 8, or their motives? It's a remarkable aspect of your own handiwork in this area. In so doing, you demonstrate the attitude that worries me. At the time Prop 8 was on the ballot (and a couple of dozen states were passing similar initiatives) there was no judicial authority anywhere holding that the 14th amendment applied to sexual orientation. I could be wrong but don't think even not that there is an appellate court that has so held. I do think that's where the courts will end up, but that was not obvious at the time.

BTW, you can keep calling support for Prop 8 hateful, bigoted, ignorant, etc., but all you'll succeed at doing is to create a corollary to Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law): All discussions of same-sex marriage eventually devolve into accusations, not of Nazism, but of bigotry and hatred. I.e., reductio ad hitlerum becomes reductio ad bigotum.

LA, I love you man. But here's my response to your two paragraphs, which I think are closely related.

First paragraph: I'm sorry I raised the 14th Amendment. It's a distraction. Many of us recognized that the impetus for Proposition 8 and the reasoning articulated in support of it were nonsense and morally bankrupt. You know I did; there's an extensive written record (I'm prepared to suffer the consequences for it). It's gratifying to see that a big majority of Americans now agree with us, so many of them that even federal judges appointed for life have to pay attention. What Proposition 8 did do is purport to eliminate a right under the California state constitution to same sex marriage.

In response to the second paragraph, I'll try not to use those hurtful adjectives from now on. But I can't help that I don't respect the religioius arguments. Richard Dawkins' the "God Delusion" is not a great book. But I can recommend an early part of the book where he articulates an argument that religious people should not be able immunize from critique positions or "beliefs" that are unreasonable and cause suffering. I think that's right. For example, expressed religious belief in opposition to vaccinations would not alter my critique of the anti-vaccination movement.

I am aware of the arguments against same sex marriage. I've read the amicus briefs; I've deconstructed them on the Internet. They all amount to expressions of belief. Or, they are disingenuous (as when the LDS brief to the Supreme Court quoted out of context the 18th century philosopher (and athiest) David Hume extolling marriage between a man and a woman). And here we get to the bottom line. Many of us who support same sex marriage simply don't respect the religious arguments that try to deny the secular right to same sex marriage. No amount of cajoling will get us to respect them. We can't help it but largely this is a problem arising from the religious arguments not really being arguments or reasoning at all.

And I think that's what bothers opponents of same sex marriage most of all. The lack of respect. Isn't this whole dispute a lot about that? Gays and lesbians want to marry because they want your respect. They care about the rights, but you've offered them that shorn of marriage, and they've turned it down. Our side isn't going to respect the religious argument its adherants claim because that's in a way what the dispute is all about, and this is easy because I really do believe the religious argument isn't an argument at all.

[SeattleUte]

As a follow-up to LA's post, how do you feel about President Obama and Hillary Clinton and all of the other enlightened progressives who were not pro-gay-marriage as recently as a couple of years ago? If always being pro-gay-marriage is a reasonable test for corporate, governmental, or any other form of leadership, what percentage of the population qualifies?

They are polititians and they were bullied into those shameful positions by social conservative voters the same way Eich was bullied into resigning by the other side. If they suffer politically because of this, so be it.

[SeattleUte]

LA, I also reject that same sex marriage and abortion are qualitatively similar disputes.

[LA Ute]

LA, I also reject that same sex marriage and abortion are qualitatively similar disputes.

OK.

[USS Utah]

Look, no one in this thread is supportive of what Mozilla did. But I do find it a little disingenuous that gay marriage opponents are suddenly up in arms about freedom of speech in employment when up until two years ago a gay person would be dishonorably discharged from the military for revealing their sexual orientation. I didn't hear the outrage over that.

I feel bad for Eich, but his situation is nothing compared to all the gay individuals who have lost their jobs and livelihood.


I wrote a college paper for an ethics class arguing that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be ended. Would you like to read it.

[LA Ute]

LA, I love you man. But here's my response to your two paragraphs, which I think are closely related.

First paragraph: I'm sorry I raised the 14th Amendment. It's a distraction. Many of us recognized that the impetus for Proposition 8 and the reasoning articulated in support of it were nonsense and morally bankrupt. You know I did; there's an extensive written record (I'm prepared to suffer the consequences for it). It's gratifying to see that a big majority of Americans now agree with us, so many of them that even federal judges appointed for life have to pay attention. What Proposition 8 did do is purport to eliminate a right under the California state constitution to same sex marriage.

In response to the second paragraph, I'll try not to use those hurtful adjectives from now on. But I can't help that I don't respect the religioius arguments. Richard Dawkins' the "God Delusion" is not a great book. But I can recommend an early part of the book where he articulates an argument that religious people should not be able immunize from critique positions or "beliefs" that are unreasonable and cause suffering. I think that's right. For example, expressed religious belief in opposition to vaccinations would not alter my critique of the anti-vaccination movement.

I am aware of the arguments against same sex marriage. I've read the amicus briefs; I've deconstructed them on the Internet. They all amount to expressions of belief. Or, they are disingenuous (as when the LDS brief to the Supreme Court quoted out of context the 18th century philosopher (and athiest) David Hume extolling marriage between a man and a woman). And here we get to the bottom line. Many of us who support same sex marriage simply don't respect the religious arguments that try to deny the secular right to same sex marriage. No amount of cajoling will get us to respect them. We can't help it but largely this is a problem arising from the religious arguments not really being arguments or reasoning at all.

And I think that's what bothers opponents of same sex marriage most of all. The lack of respect. Isn't this whole dispute a lot about that? Gays and lesbians want to marry because they want your respect. They care about the rights, but you've offered them that shorn of marriage, and they've turned it down. Our side isn't going to respect the religious argument its adherants claim because that's in a way what the dispute is all about, and this is easy because I really do believe the religious argument isn't an argument at all.

You're more fun to argue with when you're not lecturing me. http://www.cool-smileys.com/images/132.gif (http://cool-smileys.com//smiley-that-says-jk-just-kidding)

[LA Ute]

This is a delightful piece by a former Obama speechwriter (and how many of you thought you'd ever see me say that?). I disagree with him strongly on a couple of points, but I like what he is saying generally. This may be a point on which SU and I can agree.

The Culture of Shut Up (http://http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-culture-of-shut-up/360239/)

I've always opposed laws against flag-burning and similar regulatory efforts because I believe one great thing about free speech is this: It makes it easier to spot the idiots. Whether you're coming at debates from the left or right, I think that is true. Enjoy.

[jrj84105]

Mozilla spent a lot of money providing benefits to same sex couples in order to develop a gay friendly brand as an employer. A CEO can't go around making public statements that are in direct opposition to his/her company's branding efforts. Although there's a huge furor over this firing, from a business perspective, I don't see how this would be any different than Ford firing its CEO for publicly praising the reliability of his Honda. If people had the same religious fervor over the Chevy Malibu as they do about genital couplings, we'd have had a similar furor. This incident doesn't say anything about a person's right to speak on this issue. It just reaffirms that if you're the figurehead of an organization, your public speech had damn well better be in line with the brand you're putting forward.

[LA Ute]

Mozilla spent a lot of money providing benefits to same sex couples in order to develop a gay friendly brand as an employer. A CEO can't go around making public statements that are in direct opposition to his/her company's branding efforts. Although there's a huge furor over this firing, from a business perspective, I don't see how this would be any different than Ford firing its CEO for publicly praising the reliability of his Honda. If people had the same religious fervor over the Chevy Malibu as they do about genital couplings, we'd have had a similar furor. This incident doesn't say anything about a person's right to speak on this issue. It just reaffirms that if you're the figurehead of an organization, your public speech had damn well better be in line with the brand you're putting forward.

Those are fair points. Mozilla didn't say those were its reasons, though, and they've ticked off a great many people by doing what they did with Eich. Also, he never said a word about gay marriage in public, he just made a small donation 6 years ago. Anyway, your view is as valid as mine.

[Jarid in Cedar]

This question is directed at LA, but anyone else who participated in the Prop 8 campaign can answer:

Was Prop 8 an issue that you cared enough about that you would have donated time/money if your religious leaders hadn't admonished you to fight the fight?

[LA Ute]

This question is directed at LA, but anyone else who participated in the Prop 8 campaign can answer:

Was Prop 8 an issue that you cared enough about that you would have donated time/money if your religious leaders hadn't admonished you to fight the fight?

Short question, requires a long answer to fully understand. I provided a long one several years ago on TMBFKACUF. Someday I'll tell you the whole story in person. Condensed version: We did what we were asked to do because we felt it was our duty. It wasn't fun and we would have much preferred not to do it, but we are at peace with what happened. We would strongly prefer never to have to repeat the experience. How's that?

[SeattleUte]

Short question, requires a long answer to fully understand. I provided a long one several years ago on TMBFKACUF. Someday I'll tell you the whole story in person. Condensed version: We did what we were asked to do because we felt it was our duty.It wasn't fun and we would have much preferred not to do it, but we are at peace with what happened. We would strongly prefer never to have to repeat the experience. How's that?

I'll give you this, LA. When Prop 8 passed it was an upset. It was unexpected. But I remember you didn't gloat or celebrate. You were very low key, while some of us were raging. You get credit for that. I have wondered if you all felt deep inside a sort of knawing what the hell have we done? feeling.

[LA Ute]

I have wondered if you all felt deep inside a sort of gnawing what the hell have we done? feeling.

We did not. But it was a sobering experience. A little bit, I imagine, like winning a battle in war -- you know you prevailed and you are relieved, but you know lots of blood was shed, and that the outcome hurt lots of people. That Prop 8 campaign had ugliness on both sides. All initiative campaigns in California do, but I think that one was an outlier.

[Scratch]

I'll give you this, LA. When Prop 8 passed it was an upset. It was unexpected. But I remember you didn't gloat or celebrate. You were very low key, while some of us were raging. You get credit for that. I have wondered if you all felt deep inside a sort of knawing what the hell have we done? feeling.

As an LDS Californian there was a very mixed feeling when it passed. There was relief and satisfaction that it had passed after so much time, effort, and money had been poured into it, but that was mixed with concern over the impact it would take on the church, as well as the dread that I would have to go through it again (knowing that legalization of gay marriage was only a matter of time). My wife is a fantastic person, a much better and more faithful person than me, and I think Prop 8 was one of the toughest things she ever went through.

JIC, to answer your question, I doubt I would have given time and money but for the church's requests. I would have voted for it because I'm generally very Burkean when it comes to significant social change (I wanted to see the impact it would ultimately have elsewhere, and the effects obviously can't be measured in a very short timeframe, and once the right is given there is zero chance to go back, even if the ramifications prove to be negative), but I'm busy and cheap, and I didn't care enough about it to get directly involved without the church's request.

[Applejack]

As an LDS Californian there was a very mixed feeling when it passed. There was relief and satisfaction that it had passed after so much time, effort, and money had been poured into it, but that was mixed with concern over the impact it would take on the church, as well as the dread that I would have to go through it again (knowing that legalization of gay marriage was only a matter of time). My wife is a fantastic person, a much better and more faithful person than me, and I think Prop 8 was one of the toughest things she ever went through.

JIC, to answer your question, I doubt I would have given time and money but for the church's requests. I would have voted for it because I'm generally very Burkean when it comes to significant social change (I wanted to see the impact it would ultimately have elsewhere, and the effects obviously can't be measured in a very short timeframe, and once the right is given there is zero chance to go back, even if the ramifications prove to be negative), but I'm busy and cheap, and I didn't care enough about it to get directly involved without the church's request.

I was also an LDS Californian at the time. The whole process absolutely devastated our ward. We probably lost half of the active families (not counting students) during the Prop 8 battle or immediately afterwards. We lost another good chunk of families in the following years due to the bitterness that remained. I can unequivocally state that Prop 8 was a bad idea for the church, regardless of your position on gay marriage.

[Applejack]

Ok, enough talk about dudes getting fired from companies that make second-rate web browsers. The 10th Circuit is hearing Utah's appeal on Thursday! Concerned sounds like he has inside scoop on the 3 judges hearing the appeal - I only know that there are two Bush appointees (one for each Bush) and a Clinton appointee. And, like all federal judges, they are old.

Is there a website that follows 10th circuit cases? Anyone liveblogging the arguments?

[Applejack]

Now I want to know if other CA wards had 50% losses over this or if AJ's ward was an anomaly. It really is tragic to lose so much over something like this.

We didn't lose 50% of the members - rather, 50% of the active, non-student families (at least partially - either a wife or a husband). I was in San Francisco - from what I can gather from the other San Francisco wards, it was pretty bad.