Marriage Equality Thread

[Applejack]

I see you as a city type (not suburbs). How many inner-city wards are there in San Fran?

Four in the city that are English speaking (including one YSA ward). There is also a Tongan-speaking ward and (I think) a Fijian speaking ward. The boundaries of the wards are bizarre (they are not even in the same stake), so I don't have great info on the others - just anecdotes from friends.

[Scratch]

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.

Interesting. I think Prop 8 really strengthened our ward and stake. I'm sure there were people who were upset by it, but the response was almost universally very positive and while everyone would say it was trying and difficult, I think it really brought us together.

[concerned]

Interesting. I think Prop 8 really strengthened our ward and stake. I'm sure there were people who were upset by it, but the response was almost universally very positive and while everyone would say it was trying and difficult, I think it really brought us together.

We have close friends in the Carlsbad area, and it sounds like it was pretty gut-wrenching and divisive there.

[LA Ute]

I think it varied from ward to ward. I have heard that some in the Bay Area had a difficult time -- the more urban the ward, the more difficulty there was. I didn't hear anything about big problems in SoCal, but I wouldn't necessarily have been told about such things. All my info is anecdotal.

The family I home teach had both a Yes On 8 and a No On 8 lawn sign in front of their house. Our own neighborhood was sprinkled with both. Going in, I really don't think anyone had any idea how nasty that campaign would get.

[concerned]

I guess I should add that the wife's sibling is gay and has had a difficult struggle with his faith, so it might have been more gut wrenching for them than for the ward as a whole.

[Scratch]

That seems very strange to me. What city is your ward in? I live in Cottonwood Heights in Salt Lake County, and even there, in a largely Republican ward, most were at least reluctant to support Prop 8 and some refused to support it.

Irvine. I know there were some who wouldn't actively support it, but I am unaware of anyone actively speaking out about it, and I am unaware of anyone in the stake going inactive or less active due to Prop 8.

[LA Ute]

That seems very strange to me. What city is your ward in? I live in Cottonwood Heights in Salt Lake County, and even there, in a largely Republican ward, most were at least reluctant to support Prop 8 and some refused to support it.

In CA there was pretty much a call to action. My impression was that those who didn't want to participate just stayed silent for the most part. No one was assigned to do anything and none of the training meetings for volunteers were held on church property. (At least those were the instructions.) It was an interesting time. But by and large our ward and stake's experience was like Scratch's.

[Applejack]

In CA there was pretty much a call to action. My impression was that those who didn't want to participate just stayed silent for the most part. No one was assigned to do anything and none of the training meetings for volunteers were held on church property. (At least those were the instructions.) It was an interesting time. But by and large our ward and stake's experience was like Scratch's.

I think mileage varied based on a host of factors - general political climate of the area (Orange County is MUCH more conservative than San Francisco; downtown L.A. is much more liberal than San Diego, etc), concentration of mormons (southern California has more mormons than Northern), and most importantly the local practices. Some wards talked about prop 8/gay marriage incessantly, some didn't. Some wards had subtle forms of shaming for people that didn't contribute time or money (I heard numerous testimonies/talks about "law of consecration" and gay marriage). It was definitely a feeling of us (mormons) against the world - it was a hard time to be a worldly mormon.

[LA Ute]

I think mileage varied based on a host of factors - general political climate of the area (Orange County is MUCH more conservative than San Francisco; downtown L.A. is much more liberal than San Diego, etc), concentration of mormons (southern California has more mormons than Northern), and most importantly the local practices. Some wards talked about prop 8/gay marriage incessantly, some didn't. Some wards had subtle forms of shaming for people that didn't contribute time or money (I heard numerous testimonies/talks about "law of consecration" and gay marriage). It was definitely a feeling of us (mormons) against the world - it was a hard time to be a worldly mormon.

Yep. I heard reports like that too. Not a fun time, really.

[UTEopia]

I think mileage varied based on a host of factors - general political climate of the area (Orange County is MUCH more conservative than San Francisco; downtown L.A. is much more liberal than San Diego, etc), concentration of mormons (southern California has more mormons than Northern), and most importantly the local practices. Some wards talked about prop 8/gay marriage incessantly, some didn't. Some wards had subtle forms of shaming for people that didn't contribute time or money (I heard numerous testimonies/talks about "law of consecration" and gay marriage). It was definitely a feeling of us (mormons) against the world - it was a hard time to be a worldly mormon.
My daughter lived in San Diego at the time and while I would not say it was the only factor in her leaving the church for a few years it was a divisive issue that fostered division and lack of trust amongst members in her ward and caused her to face hostile co workers at the hospital where she was employed.

[LA Ute]

My daughter lived in San Diego at the time and while I would not say it was the only factor in her leaving the church for a few years it was a divisive issue that fostered division and lack of trust amongst members in her ward and caused her to face hostile co workers at the hospital where she was employed.

Back in 2000 Prop 22 passed without much hubbub. That was the statute that the Cal Supreme Court overturned (by a 4-3 vote). Prop 8 elevated the statutory language to the State Constitution, without changing it. At the beginning of the election campaign an awful lot of people thought that Prop 8 would sail through like 22 did. I kept thinking, "No, it won't, it's the Constitution this time, and this is going to be ugly." It was many times worse than I imagined. I'm sorry your daughter got hurt by it all. There was a lot of effort put into training people not to beat up on others, get into fights, etc., but it was inevitable that such things would happen.

FWIW, the Yes On 8 leadership had no idea if they would win. The night before the election, the internal polls showed a 48-48 tie.

[Applejack]

OK, lawnerds, the 10th Circuit has heard arguments in Utah's gay marriage case. I haven't read the transcripts and Concerned didn't respond to my request for more info on the 10th Circuit judges, so I have to fill the void. Two things I found interesting:

1. Apparently Utah's Attorney General sent a letter to the court the day before oral argument disavowing the research on kids raised by gay couples. They did so for two reasons; first, they said that it is irrelevant to their argument-even if children raised by gay couples have worse outcomes relative to children raised by biological parents, that is the wrong comparison because gay couples are not going to raise kids that would otherwise have been raised by biological parents. This is the point I have made against the "parenting outcome" arguments. Second, they cast doubt on the reliability of that research, a criticism that I have heard elsewhere.

2. The judges for the case:

1096
Carlos Lucero. A Clinton appointee, a native Coloradan, first hispanic on the 10th Circuit, graduate of GW Law School and Adams St. College (in Alamosa, CO). From what I've read, he seems like a pretty firm vote for striking down Utah's ban.

1097

Paul Kelly. A George Bush the First appointee, a graduate of Fordham Law School and Notre Dame University, practiced law in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He is a solid conservative, and based on his choice of undergrad and law school it appears he is catholic (anyone know this?). He looks like a strong vote for upholding the Utah law.

1095

Jerome Holmes. A G.W. Bush appointee, a D.C. native who practiced mostly in Oklahoma, first African American on the 10th Circuit, and a graduate of Georgetown Law School and Wake Forest. He is generally considered a conservative judge, but he is the hardest vote to predict. He's the swing vote here, I think.

The 10th and the 5th Circuit are the first two circuits to hear the gay marriage appeals. They are also two of the more conservative circuits. It will be interesting to see how the cases play out - if the bans are struck down in the 10th and 5th, I think the Supreme Court might just let things work themselves out. If the 5th or the 10th upholds the bans, I think we'll see a Supreme Court case in the near future.

[LA Ute]

1. Apparently Utah's Attorney General sent a letter to the court the day before oral argument disavowing the research on kids raised by gay couples. They did so for two reasons; first, they said that it is irrelevant to their argument-even if children raised by gay couples have worse outcomes relative to children raised by biological parents, that is the wrong comparison because gay couples are not going to raise kids that would otherwise have been raised by biological parents. This is the point I have made against the "parenting outcome" arguments. Second, they cast doubt on the reliability of that research, a criticism that I have heard elsewhere.

I've always been very skeptical of "studies" on either side of that issue because I think longitudinal studies are necessary before we really know anything concrete about this. That's going to take years.

[UTEopia]

In CA there was pretty much a call to action. My impression was that those who didn't want to participate just stayed silent for the most part. No one was assigned to do anything and none of the training meetings for volunteers were held on church property. (At least those were the instructions.) It was an interesting time. But by and large our ward and stake's experience was like Scratch's.

I know those instructions were not followed in San Diego and that there were multiple calls to action from the pulpit and assignments made by leaders.

[LA Ute]

I know those instructions were not followed in San Diego and that there were multiple calls to action from the pulpit and assignments made by leaders.

Sigh. Yeah, I heard about a lot of that. Looking back, I think that kind of excess was inevitable. When the Brethren sneeze, many members get pneumonia. (I.e., they go overboard.) I have mixed emotions about what happened.

[concerned]

I know those instructions were not followed in San Diego and that there were multiple calls to action from the pulpit and assignments made by leaders.

from my friends, I am sure that happened in Carlsbad too.

[Applejack]

I've always been very skeptical of "studies" on either side of that issue because I think longitudinal studies are necessary before we really know anything concrete about this. That's going to take years.

I actually think the first point is the more salient: even if the studies are valid, they are irrelevant because gay parents raising children has zero impact on straight families raising children. I am not surprised that Utah has admitted as much, but the timing is certainly interesting (the day before arguments).

[LA Ute]

I actually think the first point is the more salient: even if the studies are valid, they are irrelevant because gay parents raising children has zero impact on straight families raising children. I am not surprised that Utah has admitted as much, but the timing is certainly interesting (the day before arguments).

Yep, as a Constitutional argument studies like that are pretty useless. (Somewhere William O. Douglas is protesting, however.)

[LA Ute]

Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both

A "public statement" signed by about 50 "distinguished advocates of both gay marriage and freedom—including University of Minnesota Law School professor Dale Carpenter, American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Charles Murray, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Jonathan Rauch, and star blogger Andrew Sullivan."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_ha ve_both_122376.html

A very balanced analysis of the above statement:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/23/gay-marriage_backers_admirably_open_to_dissent_122355. html

[Viking]

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.

Prop 8 was what did it for me. No offense to you older folk here but I always looked down on my Dad as being complicit with the institutionalization of racism as a result of being a missionary who preached to a bunch of Koreans that God cursed anyone with "black skin" (my father is a great man and I forgive him for that).

I viewed prop 8 as being my moment to stand up against blatant bigotry against a class of people whose rights were abrogated unjustly by a collective of dogmatic religious fanatics. OK that last statement is hyperbole, but you get my drift.

So I protested by having my name removed, specifically citing Prop 8. I hadn't been an active Mormon since BYU but I still thought it was more intellectually honest to leave.

I do regret it. I'd rather fight within than be on the outside even though I don't even consider myself a christian and think most religions are absurd. But they are social entities and try as I may, I can't deny my continued affinity for the values of the church and people of my upbringing.

I'd have to lie through my teeth to be Mormon again and I'm not willing to do that but I do hope the church figures thisbstuff out. The German guy gives me hope but that is quickly eroded by the Bednar guy.

The culture of collective adherence and belief has always bothered me about Mormonism, even as a child. Judaism is 180 degrees from this in the sense that it is expected of a youth to question and challenge the Torah. Can you imagine the Mormon church encouraging teenagers to question the book of Mormon???!! No chance. Prop 8 was an exercise in the incorrect collective forcing its ideals on a beliving mass of adherents in yet another example of institutionalization of bigotry committed by the Mormon church. To me, that is evil.

[Viking]

I do have to mention how deeply I respect those of you who believe. I disagree but I empathize with you. I believe devoutly in god but have found myself incapable of believing in a religion.

[LA Ute]

I don't see any infringement upon freedom in the Brendan Eich resignation. I see actions and consequences. If the government had stepped in and forced him to resign, then I would feel freedom had been infringed upon. But employees and stockholders have a right to judge for themselves what they see as inappropriate or immoral behavior that may be bad for business and react accordingly.

Many supporters of gay marriage see Prop 8 as an immoral cause. A legal action that invalidated marriages, and demeaned people. Essentially it could be argued that Prop 8 inflicted much of the same pain on gay parents as an adulterer does to a family. Invalidates the marriage, demeans and embarrasses a partner. For supporters of gay marriage, support for Prop 8 isn't just rationally wrong, it is morally wrong.

I had an office manager who eventually left the company under pressure after he had committed adultery. He didn't violate any company rules or procedures. Pressure for him to leave was a natural consequence of his actions. I don't think there was an infringement upon freedom. He showed up to dinners with long-time clients with a wife 20 years younger than him and clients eventually heard how he cheated on his wife. A major client became suspect of his integrity and honesty and decided to take his business elsewhere, as many people would. His personal conduct clearly was hurting business so he was pressured to leave.

I see the same thing in the Brendan Eisen situation. His conduct offended customers. There were enough customers offended to hurt business. If I were an employee working hard for that company, I'd want someone at the top who didn't hurt the business. Eisen had every right to support Prop 8. Customers reaction to his support did not infringe upon freedom, it was simply a consequence. You can't blame people for not wanting to give their hard earned money to a business run by a guy who supports causes they find immoral.

It'd be interesting to research how many gay CEOs there are in the US. I suspect many qualified openly gay people have been overlooked for CEO positions out of fear of offending religious customers. It's not right, but I wouldn't say that freedom is at risk because some people are afraid of gay CEOs.

You've made a very good statement of one side of the argument, which many people share. I think the two links I posted are excellent discussions of how the two sides can and should interact.

[Diehard Ute]

Along the lines Eich a nurse at the University of Utah made a comment on a story about the Tongan Crip Gangster who was shot here in Federal Court this week. His comment was basically that all Tongans should be killed. It came to the attention of the hopsital who put him on leave. He apologized but was found to have made many other racial statements on social media. He resigned this afternoon. What you day on "your time" will come back to haunt you.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57855398-78/shrum-comment-angilau-hospital.html.csp

[LA Ute]

Along the lines Eich a nurse at the University of Utah made a comment on a story about the Tongan Crip Gangster who was shot here in Federal Court this week. His comment was basically that all Tongans should be killed. It came to the attention of the hopsital who put him on leave. He apologized but was found to have made many other racial statements on social media. He resigned this afternoon. What you day on "your time" will come back to haunt you.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57855398-78/shrum-comment-angilau-hospital.html.csp

Correct, but you are not comparing that behavior with the Eich situation, are you?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Correct, but you are not comparing that behavior with the Eich situation, are you?

Those are not at all comparable. Eich would still have his job if he was a nurse who happened to donate $1000 to Prop 8.

[LA Ute]

Those are not at all comparable. Eich would still have his job if he was a nurse who happened to donate $1000 to Prop 8.

He also did not wish death on anyone.

[NorthwestUteFan]

He also did not wish death on anyone.

Truth be told he probably didn't even care all that much about the issue, and just wrote a $1000 check to the smiling fundraiser.

And in doing so the company feared that he poisoned future sales, because most polls show that well over half of the people in the target demographic actually support marriage equality.

[Diehard Ute]

Correct, but you are not comparing that behavior with the Eich situation, are you?

Not at all, merely a far more drastic example that your personal and professional lives are never separate, as some people have suggested they should be.


(Many people have suggested this guys personal comments have nothing to do with his job, and have tried to falsely use freedom of speech to defend him)

[USS Utah]

Freedom of speech helps us identify the stupid people. This does not mean stupid people should face no consquences -- only not from the government

Just because you can, that doesn't mean you should.

People would do well to learn about the H.A.L.T. principle. Never make a decision when you are Hungry, Angry, Lonely or Tired.

[Diehard Ute]

All political issues are moral. I voted against legalization of pot for moral reasons. I would love to see tax reform or congress term limits for moral reasons. The important thing is to not pretend that those with different opinions are amoral.

Impossible to do in Utah given the way the legislature treats issues such as alcohol etc don't you think?

[LA Ute]

Married Lesbian Threesome Expects Baby In July (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611020/Meet-worlds-married-lesbian-threesome-baby-make-four-July.html)

They plan to have three kids -- one for each of them -- and to homeschool them.

[USS Utah]

Smoking pot doesn't hurt anyone but the person who does it.

Only if said person is not responsible for the care and well being of another person who might suffer due to neglect.

See this old Dragnet episode:

http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2424438809/?ref_=tt_ov_vi

[USS Utah]

Married Lesbian Threesome Expects Baby In July (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611020/Meet-worlds-married-lesbian-threesome-baby-make-four-July.html)

They plan to have three kids -- one for each of them -- and to homeschool them.

Isn't that bigamy or polygamy, or whatever?

[Rocker Ute]

Married Lesbian Threesome Expects Baby In July (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611020/Meet-worlds-married-lesbian-threesome-baby-make-four-July.html)

They plan to have three kids -- one for each of them -- and to homeschool them.

Homeschooling?! See, that is why these people shouldn't get married and have babies.

[LA Ute]

Homeschooling?! See, that is why these people shouldn't get married and have babies.

Right. Next thing you know they'll become Republicans.

[LA Ute]

The title of the first article, Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent is not a fair or reasonable title. The title implies some need for a trade-off, gays should get to marry but opponents should be free to disagree. Everyone is already free to disagree, and nobody is threatening to take that freedom away. Not everyone is free to marry. There's not a middle ground to discuss here, one side is simply asking the other side for respect and equality. Gays don't owe the other side anything. If someone was being sentenced to jail or fined for expressing their beliefs against homosexuality, then the articles would be correct in denouncing punishment. But there is no punishment going on. There are people who have lost support or who have been re-buffed or lectured for voicing their disapproval of gay marriage. That's not punishment. That's simply losing support, or getting lectured. The pro-gay marriage crowd should not be expected to support people who actively fight against gay marriage or not raise their voice when someone speaks against gay marriage. That's a ridiculous thing to expect.

If you are saying that no one has suffered repercussions, post-election, for supporting Prop 8; or that prominent voices in the No on Prop 8 community have not called for retribution against supporters, you have a very weak case. Anyway, I think the goal of the statement I linked to is laudable. In the political arena this is not a battle between good and evil; it's a huge disagreement over an issue of great importance to both sides.


The idea that gays marrying would somehow have an adverse effect on someone else's marriage or pursuit of happiness is non sequitur and needs to just go away.

I agree that is a very weak argument and I don't think anyone here is making it. I'm not.

[wuapinmon]

Just thought I'd point out that I am not affiliated in any way with the username Mac.

[LA Ute]

Just thought I'd point out that I am not affiliated in any way with the username Mac.

That never occurred to me, but now that you mention it I am suspicious. Mainly because I know how sneaky you can be.

[jrj84105]

The argument goes like this: legitimization of a behavior increases the frequency of that behavior. If I think that an increase in the number of gay marriages would be a net negative to the world's happiness, I should oppose it, even if I think it would be a big happiness positive for some individuals.

Just for clarification, this increase in the number of married gay people would come at the expense of what demographic?
A) Single gay people
B) Single asexual people
C) Married asexual people
D) Single straight people
E) Married straight people

Also, for the demographic(s) which will decline, how do you quantify their current contribution (or lack thereof) to the world's happiness?

[LA Ute]

I'm saying nobody has been punished for supporting Prop 8, as the articles you linked suggest. Punishment implies that a fine has been levied or someone has been dealt with harshly or injured, or formally penalized. Are you really saying you think people have been punished for supporting Prop 8? I'd like a specific example. The Brendan Ein example the articles gave does not fit the definition of punishment. People didn't support him, he resigned on his own accord. Nobody was obligated to support him as CEO. Yes, people have 'suffered' repercussions for supporting Prop 8. I wouldn't really say 'suffer', but they certainly have had repurcussions. That's far different from being punished.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I meant "punished" as a political term, in the sense that people exact some kind of retribution on their opponents whom they have defeated in a political battle. That has happened in the context of Prop 8, and many people have publicly cheered such actions and characterized them as just retribution. It's all over the Internet. I'm also aware of plenty of anecdotal examples. The point is that such acts, although not as serious as fines or imprisonment, etc., do chill civil dialogue and are illiberal. That's the point made in the statement I linked to earlier. I encourage you to read it. the authors are all gay marriage supporters, I think.

[USS Utah]

Ostracism is not punishment?

[USS Utah]

There was once a member at my history group who took on the self-appointed role of being the arbiter of what he called the "rules of logic." He did not bring civility to the group but, rather, the opposite.

[jrj84105]

This is a time tested law of economics. Making something easier to do leads to an increase in the number of people who do it.
That is only true if there is a population of people who want to do something but are prevented from doing it due to the difficulty. Do you really believe that there is a large population of people who want to be gay but aren't because saving themselves from marriage is more important than having sex with someone they find attractive?

Has this conversation ever happened:
Joe: "Hey Steve, you're hot"
Steve: "Thanks Joe, you're pretty smokin yourself. Want to go back to my place?"
Joe: "I so do, but I'm saving myself for marriage. Once the law changes and we can get married, I'd love to get it on. Until then, I might as well just settle down with a female, please her sexually despite my distaste, and raise a family of well adjusted children who never catch on that I'm denying myself true happiness because a ballot referendum was upheld."
Steve: "Why are the good ones always gays living happy lives as straights in sham marriages?"



Far more people self-identify as gay now than 20 years ago partially because the behavior is more legitimate now.
First of all, gay is not a behavior. It's a phenomenon of attraction not action. More people who used to be called "confirmed bachelors", "spinsters", "old maids" or "special friends" are now openly gay. That doesn't mean there are more gay people. It's not like the lady you carpool with who lives with her "special friend" was living a hetero life of celibacy until gay marriage was legalized.

[wuapinmon]

Bob Dylan's "With God on their side" is about how dangerous religion can be when it is only half-understood. I think logic is similar. We all have just enough logical reasoning skills to be dangerous.

JohnnyLingo isn't here. We'll probably be ok.

[jrj84105]

I said partially. There are many reasons why there are more gay people today than in the past. Like you said, many who would have been closeted gays can now come out with less fear. Others discover/develop attraction to the same sex through exposure or experimentation. Some believe that being gay is 100% hardwired into a person's genotype, which is a convenient but ridiculous belief. Nature/nurture combine to create the attraction. As homosexuality has gained legitimacy, there have been more conditions favorable to the particular nature/nurture combinations that result in same sex attraction.

Bullshit. The more we learn about "hardwiring", the more we learn that genotype/environment interactions produce ingrained traits such as temperment, gender identification, and sexual orientation very early in development.

The worst part of your position is that you repeatedly use the term legitimacy or some variant. Your entire stance is based not on marriage rights but specifically on deligitimizing a group of people. Does delegitimizing any group of people, making their lives worse for nothing more than some vague concept of increased goodness in the world defined by your limited code of morality with no basis in observation or demonstrable events, make you a good person or even a good Christian?

[wuapinmon]

I said partially. There are many reasons why there are more gay people today than in the past. Like you said, many who would have been closeted gays can now come out with less fear. Others discover/develop attraction to the same sex through exposure or experimentation. Some believe that being gay is 100% hardwired into a person's genotype, which is a convenient but ridiculous belief. Nature/nurture combine to create the attraction. As homosexuality has gained legitimacy, there have been more conditions favorable to the particular nature/nurture combinations that result in same sex attraction.

I think time and science will prove most of your beliefs incorrect.

The average gay person was born that way, I believe, a belief that I do not find ridiculous. I never chose to be straight. I just remember Susan Granger's hands were really super soft one day in 5th grade, and that was that. No one nurtured my heterosexuality. I don't believe that you could've taken the gay men I know, have shown them lots of glamour porn in their pubescence and made them straight. How exactly does one nurture heterosexuality?

I also don't accept that there are 'more gay people today than in the past.' People are willing to come out now since the former stigma is diminishing. Much like extramarital sex, it was always there, but it used to be more hidden.

There are certainly some nurture situations. Prisoners certainly are example.....but, they don't consider themselves gay, usually. Perhaps some Svengalis have nurtured naive boys into homosexual relationships. But, by and large, I believe that gay people are gay due to innate things in their bodies, things beyond their control. Denying them the right to marry and find lasting happiness in their sexual attraction is to deny them the ability to find gratification in one of the absolutely fundamental parts of humanity.

[LA Ute]

:snack:

[USS Utah]

In the age old nature vs nurture debate, generally speaking, I have found that it is usually a mixture of both. That's certainly the case in my own life.

[USS Utah]

I just remember Susan Granger's hands were really super soft one day in 5th grade, and that was that.

I had my first crush in the first grade, because the girl I liked had long brown hair.

[wally]

I am more skeptical of the power of social science than you are. These questions cannot be tested well.

I don't think that social science will show this as much as genetic research will (like jrj84105 mentioned). I do however think that there will always be a nature vs nurture debate about human behavior. But really, should it even matter whether people are gay because of nature or nurture? It is the way they are.

The genetic angle is really interesting to me, though. I have a sibling with down syndrome. With the sophistication of in utero indicators, the down syndrome population is shrinking. Can you imagine if there was a way to genetically determine the likelyhood that a fetus would be born gay? It makes me cringe to think of the implications.

Morality/ethics of society is an ever-changing landscape and that change is being accelerated by technology. I worry whether mankind can keep up.

[LA Ute]

But really, should it even matter whether people are gay because of nature or nurture? It is the way they are.

I think you are right. Many people think the genetic explanation is important because of the immutability argument, i.e., being gay is like being of a particular race.

This subject makes me sad and frustrated.

[Sullyute]

The genetic angle is really interesting to me, though. I have a sibling with down syndrome. With the sophistication of in utero indicators, the down syndrome population is shrinking. Can you imagine if there was a way to genetically determine the likelyhood that a fetus would be born gay? It makes me cringe to think of the implications.

Morality/ethics of society is an ever-changing landscape and that change is being accelerated by technology. I worry whether mankind can keep up.

Reminds me of the movie Gattaca.

[jrj84105]

It started as one of two examples to argue that all issues are moral issues. That was the case I actually cared more about. I always get bothered when people say you can't/shouldn't legislate morality. All the laws/legislation are reflections of people's moral values.

There are some smart philosophers here who know these things, but distinctions between morality, ethics, and ideology are pretty tenuous. I still think morality more strongly connotes a value judgement of goodness versus evil within a specific belief system. When all policy is derived from morality, and therefore derived from specific belief systems, it turns a policy debate into a debate about whose belief system is more correct. If a person frames a policy debate strictly in terms of morality, then that person opens up his her morality and belief system to criticism, or more correctly being shit upon. That's not generally productive and is why one might try, when considering policies that apply to people both inside and outside his/her belief system, to form opinions that are not exclusively defined by his/her personal moral code.

[jrj84105]

I don't think that social science will show this as much as genetic research will (like jrj84105 mentioned). I do however think that there will always be a nature vs nurture debate about human behavior. But really, should it even matter whether people are gay because of nature or nurture? It is the way they are.

The genetic angle is really interesting to me, though. I have a sibling with down syndrome. With the sophistication of in utero indicators, the down syndrome population is shrinking. Can you imagine if there was a way to genetically determine the likelyhood that a fetus would be born gay? It makes me cringe to think of the implications.

Morality/ethics of society is an ever-changing landscape and that change is being accelerated by technology. I worry whether mankind can keep up.

The impact of hearing restoration on the deaf community is striking in this sense.

[Sullyute]

I would argue that the Mozilla CEO's support for Prop 8 is every bit as offensive as Sterling's private phone call to his girlfriend.

This journalist disagrees with you: Sterling vs. Eich (http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/29/donald_sterling_vs_brendan_eich_opposing_gay_marri age_is_different_from.html)

[concerned]

sounds like the 4th Circuit arguments went about like the 10th. From the questioning, one judge on each side, and the third mostly silent and inscrutable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-to-hear-arguments-on-virginia-ban-on-gay-marriage/2014/05/12/38b64ada-da13-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html?hpid=z1

[Applejack]

sounds like the 4th Circuit arguments went about like the 10th. From the questioning, one judge on each side, and the third mostly silent and inscrutable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-to-hear-arguments-on-virginia-ban-on-gay-marriage/2014/05/12/38b64ada-da13-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html?hpid=z1

Thanks for the update. Judge Niemeyer is a solidly conservative judge, I don't know much about the other two. I presume the 10th will issue their opinion first, but the fourth has a better reputation, so it's opinion might carry more weight.

who is next? Fifth?

[concerned]

Thanks for the update. Judge Niemeyer is a solidly conservative judge, I don't know much about the other two. I presume the 10th will issue their opinion first, but the fourth has a better reputation, so it's opinion might carry more weight.

who is next? Fifth?

I clerked in the Fourth Circuit years and years ago. It was really conservative then (although my judge wasn't.) Dont know any of the current judges, excdpt JHWIII by reputation. Sounds like the Circuit has become more moderate than it was then.

Fifth Sixth or Ninth could be next; not sure.

[Applejack]

I clerked in the Fourth Circuit years and years ago. It was really conservative then (although my judge wasn't.) Dont know any of the current judges, excdpt JHWIII by reputation. Sounds like the Circuit has become more moderate than it was then.

Fifth Sixth or Ninth could be next; not sure.

Who did you clerk for, if you don't mind me asking?

Idaho now has gay marriage! Surprisingly, the decision came from a magistrate judge. :blink:

[concerned]

Who did you clerk for, if you don't mind me asking?

Idaho now has gay marriage! Surprisingly, the decision came from a magistrate judge. :blink:

Frank Murnaghan, in Baltimore. I just looked on the website and realized Andre Davis is now a fourth circuit judge. He clerked for Murnaghan the year ahead of me.

[NorthwestUteFan]

This is a beautiful marriage proposal. The main dancer, Tony, is the son of a friend. It is very moving and emotional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6WWM5_J248

[LA Ute]

Interesting article:

Gay Mormon shares his journey back to faith, awaits conference (http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57994467-219/christofferson-lds-family-gay.html.csp)

[Applejack]

Interesting article:

Gay Mormon shares his journey back to faith, awaits conference (http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57994467-219/christofferson-lds-family-gay.html.csp)



Mods, please move this to the "D Todd is Awesome" thread: http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?1479-D-Todd-is-Awesome&p=36293#post36293

[LA Ute]

This is pretty good.

http://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-view-vs-the-revisionist-view.php#.U5JpI3KwJcQ

[LA Ute]

Another Tom Christofferson story, in his own words:

http://voicesoflove.org/2014/06/05/tom-and-clarke/

The next 5-10 years will be fascinating as we all try to figure this out. I know I am trying.

[Diehard Ute]

Ruling is in. 10th Court says Utah cannot ban same sex marriage.

[url]http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-4178.pdf[/url

Stayed pending appeal to SCOTUS

[Applejack]

Ruling is in. 10th Court says Utah cannot ban same sex marriage.

[url]http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-4178.pdf[/url

Stayed pending appeal to SCOTUS

One down, a lot to go. The Fourth Circuit has heard oral arguments. Are we still waiting on arguments in all of the other circuits that have pending appeals?

[Diehard Ute]

One down, a lot to go. The Fourth Circuit has heard oral arguments. Are we still waiting on arguments in all of the other circuits that have pending appeals?

A lot to go, but given the 10th isn't exactly the most liberal court in the land, and given all the lower court rulings, it's pretty clear the direction this is going.

[Applejack]

A lot to go, but given the 10th isn't exactly the most liberal court in the land, and given all the lower court rulings, it's pretty clear the direction this is going.

Agreed. There are only two interesting decisions left: (a) will all of the circuits agree or will there be an outlier (5th?) and (b) if the Supreme Court adopts strict scrutiny or not (I'm guessing not).

[LA Ute]

Let's just get this thing over with so we can all move on, I say.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

I think you are right. Many people think the genetic explanation is important because of the immutability argument, i.e., being gay is like being of a particular race.

This subject makes me sad and frustrated.

The subject does the same to me.

Why are these people the way they are?

If God exists, why do some of these people come this way? Why are there hermaphrodites, etc.?

This is a very difficult way to live.

If people come in these strange packages, why is God so hard on them through his churches and scriptures?

From 50K feet above, my head tells me that it doesn't matter. People should be able to love and be loved by whomever they want. Love is love.

From 2 feet away, I gaze at my son and I have to fully admit that I'd be a bit heartbroken if he were gay.

It makes no sense. It causes me a lot of internal inquietude.

I don't understand. Believing there is a God, I don't understand this kind of "test". If there isn't a God, I suppose it's a lot more easily explained.

From a personal standpoint, the idea of romantic and sexual love with another person of my same sex grosses me out. However, I go to, say, Lagoon and the idea of romantic or sexual love with a lot of the females there also grosses me out.

Being personally grossed out doesn't equate to something being wrong.

Who knows....

I am frustrated that so much mental and emotional energy is spent on this topic. I am frustrated that so many families and, more importantly, individuals suffer because of outcomes related homosexuality, its acceptance or lack thereof.

[LA Ute]

The subject does the same to me.

Why are these people the way they are?

If God exists, why do some of these people come this way? Why are there hermaphrodites, etc.?

This is a very difficult way to live.

If people come in these strange packages, why is God so hard on them through his churches and scriptures?

From 50K feet above, my head tells me that it doesn't matter. People should be able to love and be loved by whomever they want. Love is love.

From 2 feet away, I gaze at my son and I have to fully admit that I'd be a bit heartbroken if he were gay.

It makes no sense. It causes me a lot of internal inquietude.

I don't understand. Believing there is a God, I don't understand this kind of "test". If there isn't a God, I suppose it's a lot more easily explained.

From a personal standpoint, the idea of romantic and sexual love with another person of my same sex grosses me out. However, I go to, say, Lagoon and the idea of romantic or sexual love with a lot of the females there also grosses me out.

Being personally grossed out doesn't equate to something being wrong.

Who knows....

I am frustrated that so much mental and emotional energy is spent on this topic. I am frustrated that so many families and, more importantly, individuals suffer because of outcomes related homosexuality, its acceptance or lack thereof.

I think you have a lot of company, Port.

[concerned]

The subject does the same to me.

From 2 feet away, I gaze at my son and I have to fully admit that I'd be a bit heartbroken if he were gay.



I used to feel the same way when my kids were young, but as they have gotten older and are developing their sexuality (16, 14 and 9), I realize there many many things that are far worse. I only want them to be happy, loved, and fulfilled. I am pretty sure none of them is gay, but I dont think it would matter if they were. You would feel the same way.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I think of my dear cousin. She was an honor student at the U, planning to go to Med school. She (19) met an older guy (~30) who is 'Mormon Royalty', he proposed, she turned him down several times, then finally gave in to pressure from family and from her student ward, and ended up marrying him. He was incredibly controlling of her.

He convinced her to not use birth control because we are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. She was pregnant within a year and dropped out of school.

About ~12 years and 4 kids later her marriage fell apart. She worked a menial job while to put herself through school while family members helped watch the kids during the day. She eventually earned a Masters degree.

Sexual attraction is not black and white like a light switch but rather is a broad and variable scale, especially for women. She always knew she preferred women but married a man because that is what good Mormon girls do.

After her divorce she went to church for a while for emotional support, but as a divorced woman found it very hard to find friends. Women wouldn't talk to her because they seemed to be afraid she would steal their husbands. Then Prop 8 happened and she knew she was not really wanted or welcome in the church.

Her parents donated money for Prop 8 through the person in their ward who was doing fundraising. They had a Support Prop 8 sign in their front yard. All the while the family thought that someday she will find a good man.

Eventually she stopped dating men and began to date women. She finally felt like she could be her real, true self.

She met a wonderful woman who is just a fabulous match for her, and the kids all adore her. She eventually told her patents that she is a lesbian and that she met somebody who is very special to her. Her parents were devastated. Her mom said, "you just need yo find the right man to take you back to the temple!". Her dad threatened to kill himself. Both were so worried about what their friends, the neighbors, and the people at church would think..."and don't you dare tell the family!".

Meanwhile my cousin has completed a second Masters degree and is finishing her PhD thesis. She has amazing children who are well adjusted, play sports, excellent academically, are in student government, etc. And yet in some way she is a failure in the eyes of her parents and her church community.

We must look at the good in our children and support it, especially if the only 'bad' is something we readily admit we don't understand.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I challenge every one of you to watch this video and not tear up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThzdsnXeE28

[LA Ute]

I used to feel the same way when my kids were young, but as they have gotten older and are developing their sexuality (16, 14 and 9), I realize there many many things that are far worse. I only want them to be happy and fulfilled. I am pretty sure none of them is gay, but I dont think it would matter if they were. You would feel the same way.

Right.

[jrj84105]

Right.
Seriously. I have a two year old. If she turns out to be gay, her parents won't care. Her aunts and uncles won't care. Her neighbors won't care (except to welcome her to the club). One set of grandparents won't care. The other set would, but they won't live that long. The people who would hold a person's sexual orientation against her are either dying off or segregating themselves away with like-minded folks who are increasingly powerless to do more than shame one another's children into abandoning their anachronistic belief system for a more accepting world. Kids being born now will never understand or accept anything else than tolerance. Even in Utah.

[Two Utes]

Right.

I actually agree with concerned analysis 100%

[DrumNFeather]

Back when we were arguing a few weeks ago, this is what I was trying unsuccessfully to say about legitimacy. What you just wrote would have been a very rare sentiment in, say, our parents' generation. Now it is commonplace, which is good.

Personally, there are lots of things I want and don't want for my kids. I hope they don't choose poetry or philosophy for a career. I hope my daughter in ballet does not feel the need to stick with it forever. I don't need that expense or those recitals. I hope that they don't get too caught up in politics. And I do hope that my kids are straight. But if my daughter is a lesbian activist dance/poetry double major, what will I do but love her all the same?

As long as it is still studied at the U...

[jrj84105]

Back when we were arguing a few weeks ago, this is what I was trying unsuccessfully to say about legitimacy. What you just wrote would have been a very rare sentiment in, say, our parents' generation. Now it is commonplace, which is good.

Personally, there are lots of things I want and don't want for my kids. I hope they don't choose poetry or philosophy for a career. I hope my daughter in ballet does not feel the need to stick with it forever. I don't need that expense or those recitals. I hope that they don't get too caught up in politics. And I do hope that my kids are straight. But if my daughter is a lesbian activist dance/poetry double major, what will I do but love her all the same?

I'm glad it's changing. When I see the dedication of families towards children who are chronically ill, neurologically devastated, or otherwise incapacitated, it makes me feel inadaequate as a parent because I don't know that I would have the strength in their situation. At the same time, it also makes it very difficult to sympathize with parents who shun their gay children.

There are days when I come home from work and just hug my kid and silently thank her for being alive. I hope that she winds up being a better person than me, and of all of the aspirations of kindness, generosity, humor, intelligence, etc that are entailed in that, sexual orientation is just not part of that equation. I think there are many more parents with this mentality than there are parents whose love and acceptance is conditional on their children's sexual orientation. And those kind of shitty parents have no authority to say who can and can't marry and raise children.

[LA Ute]

I actually agree with concerned analysis 100%

I hope it is clear that I do too. Sometimes "right " is a sarcastic answer. Not this time.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I hope it is clear that I do too. Sometimes "right " is a sarcastic answer. Not this time.

A sarcastic answer seemed out of character for you, so thanks for the clarification.

As you are somewhat of a bigwig in the local Republican party it would be wonderful for the future of the Party to evolve their national platform more toward acceptance. See what you can do about that.

Barring that I can see a very dramatic rejection of the R party by younger people (e.g. those who will vote in the Presidential for the first time in 2016 or 2020).

[LA Ute]

Just posting this because Clayton Christensen asked that it be disseminated, and it seems to fit here:

une 21, 2014
Dear Friends:

I am writing about an article by Michael Fitzgerald, titled “How the Mormons Conquered America: The success of the Mormon religion is a study in social adaptation.” It appeared a couple of days ago in a journal, Nautilus. I am misquoted in the piece. Fitzgerald interviewed me several months ago relative to this article. He wrote notes as we talked; he did not record our conversation.

In the article, Fitzgerald reviews the history of how the church has changed several practices, such as polygamy and ordaining blacks to the priesthood. He then refers to same-sex marriage; and in that same paragraph quoted me as saying, “… I think I’m farther along than the church is on this one.” It implies that I support same-sex marriage, and that I expect that the leaders of the church in the future will agree with that position.

This is not true. I did not say this. I support wholeheartedly every phrase in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” And I sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who penned that document.

I am grateful that I belong to a church in which we do not attempt to convince God or our leaders that certain opinions in our society are correct, and God’s are not. Society changes its mind quite frequently. I do not believe that God changes his mind, however. When society is telling me something new, even when it has assembled powerful reasons and powerful people on its side, I do not ask society whether it is correct. I ask God.

I understand that this mis-representation of my beliefs by Mr. Fitzgerald is being widely circulated through the church. I would be very grateful if you could forward this letter to anyone who you believe ought to see this – and by the fastest and most effective ways possible. Thanks for your help!

Clayton Christensen
Belmont, MA

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/clayton-christensen-and-same-sex-marriage.html#ixzz367fssjGp

[Solon]

Let's just get this thing over with so we can all move on, I say.

I've had a really hard time with this issue understanding why faithful LDS (and those of other religions, to be sure) are so reluctant to separate their beliefs from civic law.

Mormons don't drink & smoke, but they don't believe that such activities should be illegal (Utah's alcohol restrictions aside, which are less onerous than those of other states, btw).
Mormons are very strongly opposed to abortion, but most LDS don't think abortion should be completely illegal.

I realize that the "religious freedom" argument is out there, but why don't we just see what happens before we complain about the erosion of freedoms? I'm also going to dismiss the state of Utah's "it's about the kids" argument out of hand as being very, very poorly supported.

This is not an opening to bash faithful believers in the official LDS stance; rather, I think it's a chance for these believers to hold onto their values while allowing others to uphold theirs.

Like LA, I hope both sides can move on in peace.

[tooblue]

I've had a really hard time with this issue understanding why faithful LDS (and those of other religions, to be sure) are so reluctant to separate their beliefs from civic law.

Mormons don't drink & smoke, but they don't believe that such activities should be illegal (Utah's alcohol restrictions aside, which are less onerous than those of other states, btw).
Mormons are very strongly opposed to abortion, but most LDS don't think abortion should be completely illegal.

I realize that the "religious freedom" argument is out there, but why don't we just see what happens before we complain about the erosion of freedoms? I'm also going to dismiss the state of Utah's "it's about the kids" argument out of hand as being very, very poorly supported.

This is not an opening to bash faithful believers in the official LDS stance; rather, I think it's a chance for these believers to hold onto their values while allowing others to uphold theirs.

Like LA, I hope both sides can move on in peace.

It's innate to the culture of US: a type of Sergeant York moment for many that will require time to sort out ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W87k64HU9gE

[LA Ute]

Good article here:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865606977/Sexual-orientation-is-no-ones-fault-it-is-an-opportunity.html?pg=all

[Applejack]

The 4th Circuit has struck down Virginia's ban on same sex marriage: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/28/politics/same-sex-ban-virginia/index.html

So now we have two, right-leaning circuits that have knocked out gay marriage bans. The CNN article linked claims that the 6th Circuit is next, a circuit I know literally nothing about. I still think the best hope for gay marriage opponents is the 5th Circuit. Otherwise, we might not have a circuit split for the Supreme Court!

[concerned]

The 4th Circuit has struck down Virginia's ban on same sex marriage: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/28/politics/same-sex-ban-virginia/index.html

So now we have two, right-leaning circuits that have knocked out gay marriage bans. The CNN article linked claims that the 6th Circuit is next, a circuit I know literally nothing about. I still think the best hope for gay marriage opponents is the 5th Circuit. Otherwise, we might not have a circuit split for the Supreme Court!

Even if there is not a split, the Sup. Ct. will take cert. At least that is the conclusion I draw from the fact that they stayed the Utah District Court and 10th Cir. ruling. Plus i doubt Scalia can sit quietly while all these lower court opinions have been trolling him.

[LA Ute]

I thought this was an interesting dialogue and a pretty clear articulation of the "preserving traditional marriage" viewpoint. I really liked the cordiality of the exchange, perhaps because that is so rare when this subject comes up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs1K7Gi9Pg

Edit: Just to keep everyone calm, let me make it clear that I think the ship is already sailing on this issue and isn't coming back, and I accept that. I just liked the clarity and tone of this Q&A bit.

[Applejack]

I thought this was an interesting dialogue and a pretty clear articulation of the "preserving traditional marriage" viewpoint. I really liked the cordiality of the exchange, perhaps because that is so rare when this subject comes up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs1K7Gi9Pg

Edit: Just to keep everyone calm, let me make it clear that I think the ship is already sailing on this issue and isn't coming back, and I accept that. I just liked the clarity and tone of this Q&A bit.

I agree with you that this is a good articulation of the preserving traditional marriage argument. That argument, I think, is a very traditional conservative argument, i.e. "this is the way it has been and that is the way it must remain." (At the end of the video, the speaker says (paraphrasing) "You want to enter into a relationship with another man and that is not a marriage. That is why I think the government should not recognize your relationship as a marriage.") I think the "because that's not the way it is" argument is the most honest articulation of the argument against gay marriage, but I think that argument has lost because there are some clear benefits to changing the definition of marriage (spousal rights, child-rearing rights, etc).

[Diehard Ute]

I agree with you that this is a good articulation of the preserving traditional marriage argument. That argument, I think, is a very traditional conservative argument, i.e. "this is the way it has been and that is the way it must remain." (At the end of the video, the speaker says (paraphrasing) "You want to enter into a relationship with another man and that is not a marriage. That is why I think the government should not recognize your relationship as a marriage.") I think the "because that's not the way it is" argument is the most honest articulation of the argument against gay marriage, but I think that argument has lost because there are some clear benefits to changing the definition of marriage (spousal rights, child-rearing rights, etc).

Utah is one if the states who doomed this argument.

They went out of their way to include a ban on civil unions as well in amendment 3.

If they'd allowed civil unions with all the rights and benefits marriage provides it may not have come to this.

[NorthwestUteFan]

This is the way God really feels about the whole issue:

[LA Ute]

I agree with you that this is a good articulation of the preserving traditional marriage argument. That argument, I think, is a very traditional conservative argument, i.e. "this is the way it has been and that is the way it must remain." (At the end of the video, the speaker says (paraphrasing) "You want to enter into a relationship with another man and that is not a marriage. That is why I think the government should not recognize your relationship as a marriage.") I think the "because that's not the way it is" argument is the most honest articulation of the argument against gay marriage, but I think that argument has lost because there are some clear benefits to changing the definition of marriage (spousal rights, child-rearing rights, etc).

:) I don't know if you litigate, AJ, but it's good to be able to express your opponent's argument accurately, fully and fairly. Fail! (But I say this with love in my heart.)


If they'd allowed civil unions with all the rights and benefits marriage provides it may not have come to this.

That's what California had before Prop 8 (and still has). A civil union confers all the rights of marriage.

[Applejack]

:) I don't know if you litigate, AJ, but it's good to be able to express your opponent's argument accurately, fully and fairly. Fail! (But I say this with love in my heart.)

I don't litigate (anymore). I think mine is a pretty fair characterization. Of course there is more in a five minute clip than I can condense to one line (he also talked a lot about the slippery slope to polygamy, but I think that is less than a stellar argument), but his argument is essentially gay marriage is not what "marriage is." Do you disagree?




That's what California had before Prop 8 (and still has). A civil union confers all the rights of marriage.

Is this true? Civil unions don't confer any Federal benefits (taxation, etc), do they?

[LA Ute]

I don't litigate (anymore). I think mine is a pretty fair characterization. Of course there is more in a five minute clip than I can condense to one line (he also talked a lot about the slippery slope to polygamy, but I think that is less than a stellar argument), but his argument is essentially gay marriage is not what "marriage is." Do you disagree?

I think you were just too reductive.


Is this true? Civil unions don't confer any Federal benefits (taxation, etc), do they?

No. I meant under state law. But that was all a state could do at that time under DOMA.

[LA Ute]

A little more on Ryan Anderson's views. I think this exchange shows the nuances in the debate:


http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/29/exchange-two-new-york-times-writers-marriage-equality-civility/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[Applejack]

A little more on Ryan Anderson's views. I think this exchange shows the nuances in the debate:


http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/29/exchange-two-new-york-times-writers-marriage-equality-civility/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Natural law? So it is all about religion after all.

[Applejack]

I was gonna say something about that when you claimed "status quo" was the most honest argument. Seems to me that religion is the most honest argument. Without religious belief, I don't think there would be an argument at all.

Right. Religious belief is probably the most honest answer in the majority of cases actually. Obviously it's invoked infrequently because it's a pretty sandy foundation for a legal argument.

[LA Ute]

Natural law? So it is all about religion after all.

You're being reductive again. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

[Applejack]

You're being reductive again. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

I think you're just obfuscating (from your link):


To summarize: the paradigmatic natural law view holds that (1) the natural law is given by God;

[concerned]

that must mean that those who rely on the phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" in the Declaration of Independence as evidence of divine inspiration or religious devotion by the Founders are wrong.

[Applejack]

that must mean that those who rely on the phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" in the Declaration of Independence as evidence of divine inspiration or religious devotion by the Founders are wrong.

Not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is I never suggested that the Founders were not religious men (although I think there is some debate as to how "devout" some of them were). I also don't have any quibbles with people who have religious objections to gay marriage.

My only point is that religion/natural law/God's will is an argument that is unlikely to hold up in court. I don't think I'm making a strong statement here.

[concerned]

Not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is I never suggested that the Founders were not religious men (although I think there is some debate as to how "devout" some of them were). I also don't have any quibbles with people who have religious objections to gay marriage.

My only point is that religion/natural law/God's will is an argument that is unlikely to hold up in court. I don't think I'm making a strong statement here.

Not directed at you or LA ute at all--but a lot of people rely on that phrase as evidence of divine inspiration, and LA Ute appears to be drawing a distinction between religion and natural law, which arguably carries over.

[LA Ute]

The Declaration was based on natural law. Jefferson and the other Founders were not particularly religious -- mostly deists or heavily influenced by deism -- but (I think the evidence shows) wanted to toss in a reference to divinity. ("Nature's God" was a pretty clever way to do that.) The basic concept of natural law is that mankind simply has rights, they are not given to mankind by government. Religious pundits (notably conservative Catholics) like to refer to natural law because it accords nicely with their world view, but it is not a religious concept. Most of the men who have articulated natural law concepts would be offended by that notion. This is from Wikipedia but I think it's a good summary:


Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language): lex naturalis), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-IESS-1) Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature) — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law) of a given political community, society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society), or state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-2) In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice) or natural right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right) (Latin ius naturale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_naturale)),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-Shellens-3) while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-IESS-1)

Although natural law is often conflated with common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law), the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-Edlin-4) Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law) common law,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-Blackstone-5)[full citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_inclu de)] and have featured greatly in the philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) of Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas), Francisco Suárez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Su%C3%A1rez), Richard Hooker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hooker), Thomas Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes), Hugo Grotius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Grotius), Samuel von Pufendorf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_von_Pufendorf), John Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke), Francis Hutcheson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hutcheson_(philosopher)), Jean Jacques Burlamaqui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Jacques_Burlamaqui), and Emmerich de Vattel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmerich_de_Vattel). Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights), it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence) and the Constitution of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States), as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citize n). Declarationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism) states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

Anyway, AJ, I think it's too facile to relegate Ryan Anderson's argument to religion. (Not that there is anything wrong with basing a political position on religion.) Do you agree with the NY Times writer that when it comes to ideas opposing same-sex marriage, “we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly?”

[Applejack]

The Declaration was based on natural law. Jefferson and the other Founders were not particularly religious -- mostly deists or heavily influenced by deism -- but (I think the evidence shows) wanted to toss in a reference to divinity. ("Nature's God" was a pretty clever way to do that.) The basic concept of natural law is that mankind simply has rights, they are not given to mankind by government. Religious pundits (notably conservative Catholics) like to refer to natural law because it accords nicely with their world view, but it is not a religious concept. Most of the men who have articulated natural law concepts would be offended by that notion. This is from Wikipedia but I think it's a good summary:

I don't want to start a debate about what Natural Law is or is not because BORING, but mainstream natural rights theorists have God at the center of the discussion. I refer back to LA's first link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


To summarize: the paradigmatic natural law view holds that (1) the natural law is given by God; (2) it is naturally authoritative over all human beings; and (3) it is naturally knowable by all human beings.

There are some natural rights folks who deny #1 above, but they are in the minority (and of recent vintage):


Recently there have been nontheistic writers in the natural law tradition, who deny (1)

[LA Ute]

I don't want to start a debate about what Natural Law is or is not because BORING, but mainstream natural rights theorists have God at the center of the discussion. I refer back to LA's first link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

There are some natural rights folks who deny #1 above, but they are in the minority (and of recent vintage):

Like I said, lately religious commentators have relied on natural law, but it's just not historically accurate to say that an appeal to natural law is automatically an appeal to religion. But we are getting sidetracked. Do you agree with the NY Times writer that when it comes to ideas opposing same-sex marriage, “we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly?”

[Applejack]

Anyway, AJ, I think it's too facile to relegate Ryan Anderson's argument to religion. (Not that there is anything wrong with basing a political position on religion.)

I agree that Ryan Anderson (whom I had never heard of before yesterday) is arguing more than religion. Like I said, he's making two principle arguments:

1. Gay Marriage "is not marriage," essentially a conservative position (not in the political sense, in the traditional sense).
2. If we allow gay marriage to constitute "marriage" then we can't justify excluding other unions.

I disagree with the second argument (there are ways to distinguish) and I don't think that the first carries enough weight (although others may disagree).


Do you agree with the NY Times writer that when it comes to ideas opposing same-sex marriage, “we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly?”

No.

[Applejack]

Let's try to stick with reputable sources.

I thought about you when I quoted that. I briefly scanned the Bay Area College of Nursing Philosophy page but couldn't find anything I could use.

[LA Ute]

I agree that Ryan Anderson (whom I had never heard of before yesterday) is arguing more than religion. Like I said, he's making two principle arguments:

1. Gay Marriage "is not marriage," essentially a conservative position (not in the political sense, in the traditional sense).
2. If we allow gay marriage to constitute "marriage" then we can't justify excluding other unions.

I disagree with the second argument (there are ways to distinguish) and I don't think that the first carries enough weight (although others may disagree).

I agree that the second argument is questionable. He expresses the first argument somewhat unskillfully. It's really just another way of saying that the debate is over redefinition of marriage.

I wonder: If humankind has a natural right to be married, why don't gays have that right? (I'm sure Anderson has an answer.)


No.

Good. Then I won't have to challenge you to a duel. (I wasn't sure sancho would agree to be my second, so I was sweating that one a little.)

[NorthwestUteFan]

Let's try to stick with reputable sources.

Great idea. Let's please keep the Bible and all other religious texts out of this discussion. That will immediately make the discussion easier.


I thought about you when I quoted that. I briefly scanned the Bay Area College of Nursing Philosophy page but couldn't find anything I could use.

Mmm, BACoN. :D


Here is the way I feel about the topic:

1. Marriage is a legal contract providing legal rights which are legally enforceable in a court of law. By law-talking guys.

2. Religions are welcome to influence and discuss marriages as much and as far as they want to, right out to the edge of their doorways. Beyond that they should hold no influence.

3. Religious people can discuss and work to influence the rules and laws as far as they want, so long as they recognize the difference between their beliefs and feelings that they believe fulfill their Higher Purposes and will be The Law in the world to come, and those legal ideas and philosophies that control the real world in the here-and-now.

4. Remember that we do not have a right to not be offended by something, particularly when that something merely exists outside of our own immediate environment (i.e. a married same-sex couple who live three states away and will never, ever cross our path). Because of this we should not take away the rights of another person simply because their right irrationally offends us. (Do not build a straw man against this. Doing so demeans us all).

[U-Ute]

It seems like there's still a long ways to go...

Blogger fired over homophonic commentary (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58236366-90/says-english-homophones-language.html.csp)

[Solon]

It seems like there's still a long ways to go...

Blogger fired over homophonic commentary (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58236366-90/says-english-homophones-language.html.csp)

That story is a head-scratcher.
Maybe that blogger's boss is just too niggardly to keep him on the payroll.

[Mormon Red Death]

That story is a head-scratcher.
Maybe that blogger's boss is just too niggardly to keep him on the payroll.

Whoa! I'm telling on you!

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[concerned]

Here is someone who thinks the Constitution or the bill of rights was based on divine law rather than natural law, or who equates the two.

The mother of four, who had the rare honor of clerking for two U.S. Supreme Court justices — Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — called religious freedom an "American miracle that was the creation of an all-powerful, all-knowing God."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865608441/LDS-attorney-lists-what-Mormons-need-to-know-about-religious-freedom-today.html

[U-Ute]

Here is someone who thinks the Constitution or the bill of rights was based on divine law rather than natural law, or who equates the two.

The mother of four, who had the rare honor of clerking for two U.S. Supreme Court justices — Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — called religious freedom an "American miracle that was the creation of an all-powerful, all-knowing God."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865608441/LDS-attorney-lists-what-Mormons-need-to-know-about-religious-freedom-today.html

The battle lines are drawn:


The effort to restrict the freedom of churches to organize and choose their own leaders free from government intrusion.

This is a new one for me. My Googling skills couldn't unearth any stories on this one. The goddless lamestream media must be ignoring this important story.


Discrimination against faiths that want to use private property or to access public property on equal terms with secular groups.

This is a head scratcher to me too. Did some revival tent get denied a permit or something?


Efforts to redefine anti-discrimination laws without sufficient corresponding protections for religious freedom.

I assume this means that they want to make it so that it is OK to discriminate against people on religious grounds - aka: gays. I assume that the only accepted religious grounds would be god fearing Christian ones. Discriminating against Christians by other religions would not be accepted. Especially against Mormons and their quirky 3-headed god.


Efforts to expunge religion from the public square, like trying to eliminate the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The fight on this one always cracks me up, but in a sad way. The lack of knowledge on the history of these things by these people who are fighting to "preserve" them is staggering.


Denial of religious rights to prisoners.

Another new one on me. The more interesting stories I Googled up had to do with the religious rights of Native Americans in prison with regards to tobacco products and Muslim prisoners and kosher diets. I'm not exactly sure this has to do with Christians or Mormons in particular, unless prisons are refusing to stock caffeine free Diet Coke.

[LA Ute]

Sigh. I haven't read that piece yet (I can't bring myself to do it) but it looks like she didn't learn how to phrase an argument carefully, despite all that gold-plated clerking experience.

[jrj84105]

This was amusing.
http://www.lonestarq.com/texas-values-president-jonathan-saenz-anti-gay-activism-become-personal/

[concerned]

I am really coming to the conclusion that the Supreme Court is going to reverse all the lower court gay marriage fundamental right equal protection cases,on state rights and will of the voters grounds. I think that is why they are issuing all the stays; I don't think it is just to preserve the status quo in the interim.

[Applejack]

I am really coming to the conclusion that the Supreme Court is going to reverse all the lower court gay marriage fundamental right equal protection cases,on state rights and will of the voters grounds. I think that is why they are issuing all the stays; I don't think it is just to preserve the status quo in the interim.

Interesting. A Supreme Court decision will certainly hinge on Kennedy (although I could see Roberts voting to shoot down Amendment 3). I doubt they will uphold the Amendment just because voters approved it, but I could certainly see them applying rationale-basis review and then saying that essentially anything passes such scrutiny.

But I'm still not convinced that the Court even takes the case unless there is a Circuit that comes out the other way. The 6th Circuit case hinges on the vote of a very conservative, but very unpredictable judge (he is considered the leading conservative jurist in the circuit, yet was on the first panel to uphold Obamacare). I recently saw a friend of mine who happens to be a gay constitutional law professor in Georgia and he told me that my theory is whack because no matter what else happens, the 11th Circuit is certain to shoot down gay marriage. So there's that.

[LA Ute]

I am really coming to the conclusion that the Supreme Court is going to reverse all the lower court gay marriage fundamental right equal protection cases,on state rights and will of the voters grounds. I think that is why they are issuing all the stays; I don't think it is just to preserve the status quo in the interim.

How do you think they'll deal with the "full faith and credit" issues that will result from such a holding? Just punt that to Congress? That's what the Constitution says is supposed to happen, but I am far from an expert on that provision:


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

So if it is a state matter, gay people who want to be married will simply come to CA to tie the knot. It seems to me that Congress can vote to require the states to recognize marriages performed in other states. That would effectively make gay marriage lawful and recognized throughout the USA, but I am OK with that result because it would be democratic, with accountability to the decision-makers.

[concerned]

I am really coming to the conclusion that the Supreme Court is going to reverse all the lower court gay marriage fundamental right equal protection cases,on state rights and will of the voters grounds. I think that is why they are issuing all the stays; I don't think it is just to preserve the status quo in the interim.

Well, they are definitely going to take the case, IMO. They might strike down the Utah provision that bans civil unions. You wouldn't issue all the stays if you weren't going to take it. As to full faith and credit, I havent thaought that many steps ahead.

[Applejack]

Here's some interesting gay marriage news from our friends in Provo: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58317715-78/byu-cards-bookstore-marriage.html.csp

Hallmark cards are against the honor code!

[Diehard Ute]

Well, they are definitely going to take the case, IMO. They might strike down the Utah provision that bans civil unions. You wouldn't issue all the stays if you weren't going to take it. As to full faith and credit, I havent thaought that many steps ahead.

Maybe maybe not.

In Utah's case, as I understand it, Sonia Sotomayor issued the stay without polling the rest of the justices. Isn't it possible they're issuing stays as a way to see if there is a dissenting opinion from those that are pending?

The other thing to keep in mind is circuit appeals affect the entire circuit, so perhaps waiting for other cases in the circuit to be handled is another reason.

[NorthwestUteFan]

So if it is a state matter, gay people who want to be married will simply come to CA to tie the knot. It seems to me that Congress can vote to require the states to recognize marriages performed in other states. That would effectively make gay marriage lawful and recognized throughout the USA, but I am OK with that result because it would be democratic, with accountability to the decision-makers.

Fine by me, too. The wedding industries I'm CA, WA, and a bunch of other states would welcome the boost that comes with a Gay Marriage Tourism cottage industry.

Fwiw, the wedding celebration for my grandmother's close friends a few years ago ended with a $55k fireworks display over Elliott Bay. (They got married in Canada after 32 years together, and afterward had a big party in Seattle to celebrate). Gay couples often have enough money to throw FABULOUS weddings...

[Applejack]

Gay marriage lost in federal court for the first time since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA last term: http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2014/09/03/federal-judge-upholds-la-same-sex-marriage-ban

It's a district court case from Louisiana. I still think that the Fifth Circuit (of which Louisiana is a part) is the best chance at getting an appellate court to uphold state gay marriage bans, with the Sixth Circuit a close second.

[Eddie]

Here's some interesting gay marriage news from our friends in Provo: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58317715-78/byu-cards-bookstore-marriage.html.csp

Hallmark cards are against the honor code!

In fairness - I suspect that if there were a "congrats for fornicating" or "congrats for picking up smoking" card, those would be booted from the BYU bookstore as well.

The son of the first counselor in my ward made a post on facebook yesterday comparing a religion fighting the legalization of gay marriage to Jews pushing for a law to outlaw the consumption of bacon. Now he's got my attention - don't mess with my bacon!

In all seriousness - I'm not sure it matters WHAT the courts do now. Even if they were to uphold these state's rights to define marriage as between a man and a woman, within the next 5-10 years (probably less, possibly MUCH less) there will have been enough of a shift in thought and enough youth reaching voting age that the states will be changing these laws anyway.

[Applejack]

Updates:

1. The Seventh Circuit (Posner) shoots down gay marriage bans. The oral argument drew a lot of publicity, as Posner was his typical bully self. The opinion is actually quite interesting - it is written for lay people, not the Supreme Court.
2. SCOTUS is going to review 5 gay marriage cases during its first meeting to decide which cases to hear (Sep 29). That would seem to indicate that Concerned is correct and that SCOTUS will decide the issue sooner rather than later.

[concerned]

Updates:

1. The Seventh Circuit (Posner) shoots down gay marriage bans. The oral argument drew a lot of publicity, as Posner was his typical bully self. The opinion is actually quite interesting - it is written for lay people, not the Supreme Court.
2. SCOTUS is going to review 5 gay marriage cases during its first meeting to decide which cases to hear (Sep 29). That would seem to indicate that Concerned is correct and that SCOTUS will decide the issue sooner rather than later.

Posner's opinion had some good lines in it; it is the kind of opinion you can write when you have been a highly respected judge and professor for 40 years. His discussion of the Indiana statute that allows first cousins over 55 to marry was hilarious in a way, as was his dicssuions of rewarding drunk hetero couples who get pregnant by allowing them to marry. I thought he took some shots at Scalia and Alito, sort of saying "I deserve to be on the Supreme Court, not you."

The Supreme Court is going to have to take more than one case, maybe a bunch. 10th Cir. I think was based on fundamental right; 7th Cir exclusively on equal protection. In some cases, animus is an issue, in others not; they cant decide one without the other.

[Applejack]

Posner's opinion had some good lines in it; it is the kind of opinion you can write when you have been a highly respected judge and professor for 40 years. His discussion of the Indiana statute that allows first cousins over 55 to marry was hilarious in a way, as was his dicssuions of rewarding drunk hetero couples who get pregnant by allowing them to marry. I thought he took some shots at Scalia and Alito, sort of saying "I deserve to be on the Supreme Court, not you."

The Supreme Court is going to have to take more than one case, maybe a bunch. 10th Cir. I think was based on fundamental right; 7th Cir exclusively on equal protection. In some cases, animus is an issue, in others not; they cant decide one without the other.

I also love how Posner's opinion issued about one week after oral argument. Nothing like a precanned opinion to tell appellate litigators "ORAL ARGUMENT DOES NOT MATTER!"

[LA Ute]

I also love how Posner's opinion issued about one week after oral argument. Nothing like a precanned opinion to tell appellate litigators "ORAL ARGUMENT DOES NOT MATTER!"

But we love to delude ourselves that it does. Maybe law schools should just stop doing moot court so students don't graduate with misconceptions about what really works.

Edit: I was involved in one case where it really did matter. So there's that.

[Applejack]

But we love to delude ourselves that it does. Maybe law schools should just stop doing moot court so students don't graduate with misconceptions about what really works.

Edit: I was involved in one case where it really did matter. So there's that.

No, I think it can matter in close cases. In this case, obviously, Posner didn't think it was close, or he wouldn't have PREWRITTEN the entire opinion. What an arrogant dude.

[concerned]

No, I think it can matter in close cases. In this case, obviously, Posner didn't think it was close, or he wouldn't have PREWRITTEN the entire opinion. What an arrogant dude.

It wasn't just Posner; the panel was 3-0. Agree that oral argument only matters when something is unclear from the briefs and clarification at oral argument confirms a decision one way or the other; it hardly ever changes anybody's mind or vote.

[LA Ute]

No, I think it can matter in close cases. In this case, obviously, Posner didn't think it was close, or he wouldn't have PREWRITTEN the entire opinion. What an arrogant dude.

Once I received the Calif. Court of Appeal's 20-page written decision the very day after oral argument. I suppose the clerk popped it in the mail the same afternoon. I've always wondered if the justices had already signed it before oral argument (during which the 3-judge panel asked not a single question). We won, so I didn't care.

[concerned]

Once I received the Calif. Court of Appeal's 20-page written decision the very day after oral argument. I suppose the clerk popped in the mail the same afternoon. I've always wondered if the justices had already signed it before oral argument (during which the 3-judge panel asked not a single question). We won, so I didn't care.

I have heard that the Utah Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals decide who is going to write the opinion before oral argument, and often an opinion has been drafted. You can usually tell who has been assigned to write it by who asks questions and gets engaged. Sometimes the other justices/judges don't pay attention at all. That always struck me as a weird way to do it; it should be like the federal courts, where the panel or the justices meet after argument and vote, and then assign the opinion to someone in the majority.

[Scratch]

I have heard that the Utah Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals decide who is going to write the opinion before oral argument, and often an opinion has been drafted. You can usually tell who has been assigned to write it by who asks questions and gets engaged. Sometimes the other justices/judges don't pay attention at all. That always struck me as a weird way to do it; it should be like the federal courts, where the panel or the justices meet after argument and vote, and then assign the opinion to someone in the majority.

That's pretty much correct (at least for the Supreme Court, I assume the COA is similar but not certain). I would change "often an opinion has been drafted" to "virtually always." There's a bit more to the whole process than what you're suggesting, but you're generally correct.

[Applejack]

I have heard that the Utah Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals decide who is going to write the opinion before oral argument, and often an opinion has been drafted. You can usually tell who has been assigned to write it by who asks questions and gets engaged. Sometimes the other justices/judges don't pay attention at all. That always struck me as a weird way to do it; it should be like the federal courts, where the panel or the justices meet after argument and vote, and then assign the opinion to someone in the majority.

That's really interesting. I follow Federal courts much more closely than state ones. I haven't noticed such a practice at the Federal level, but I'm sure it must happen some.

[concerned]

That's really interesting. I follow Federal courts much more closely than state ones. I haven't noticed such a practice at the Federal level, but I'm sure it must happen some.


this could be the nastiest, most brutal battle coming out of the marriage equality cases. I will be impressed if Peggy Tomsic survives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/us/at-supreme-court-kicking-the-tires-on-a-same-sex-marriage-case-fit-for-history.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Applejack]

this could be the nastiest, most brutal battle coming out of the marriage equality cases. I will be impressed if Peggy Tomsic survives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/us/at-supreme-court-kicking-the-tires-on-a-same-sex-marriage-case-fit-for-history.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

A patent attorney!!!!??!?!?

[LA Ute]

this could be the nastiest, most brutal battle coming out of the marriage equality cases. I will be impressed if Peggy Tomsic survives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/us/at-supreme-court-kicking-the-tires-on-a-same-sex-marriage-case-fit-for-history.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

She's one of my best buddies from law school.

[Two Utes]

She's one of my best buddies from law school.

Lie

[LA Ute]

Lie

Ask her the next time you see her.

[concerned]

She's one of my best buddies from law school.


If that friendship survived Prop 8, I will be impressed too. Hope so.

[LA Ute]

If that friendship survived Prop 8, I will be impressed too. Hope so.

So do I. I haven't seen her for years so I don't know. But we were buds in law school. She was one of my favorite people.

[Two Utes]

Ask her the next time you see her.

I will. Bet she doesn't remember your name. She's not good at names.

[LA Ute]

I will. Bet she doesn't remember your name. She's not good at names.

She'll remember me.

[LA Ute]

This is an interesting piece that asks questions that deserve answers:

http://theweek.com/article/index/268985/how-liberals-are-unwittingly-paving-the-way-for-the-legalization-of-adult-incest

The author, Damon Linker, is by no measure a conservative. I don't know about this religious beliefs (he's not LDS, I know that much).

[Diehard Ute]

SCOTUS declines to consider appeals from Utah, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Virginia.

[concerned]

I misread that completely. I never in a million years would have thought they would decline to hear those appeals, especially after they stayed the Utah case and several others. The debate is effectively over, because I cant imagine they could go back later and unwind the marriages that have occurred.

The four conservatives justices could have voted to take the cases on cert. I wonder if Kennedy signaled to them he would come down on the side of individual rights rather than states rights, so they decided not to force the issue. Maybe they didnt want to have a divisive 5-4 vote one way or the other.

[Applejack]

I misread that completely. I never in a million years would have thought they would decline to hear those appeals, especially after they stayed the Utah case and several others. The debate is effectively over, because I cant imagine they could go back later and unwind the marriages that have occurred.

The four conservatives justices could have voted to take the cases on cert. I wonder if Kennedy signaled to them he would come down on the side of individual rights rather than states rights, so they decided not to force the issue. Maybe they didnt want to have a divisive 5-4 vote one way or the other.

Swish!

I think you are right in your imaginings about the cert decision. I think Roberts-who as Chief Justice is very aware of the court's legacy-may also have voted against cert-he saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to let Scalia write a scathing dissent that would look bad, historically.

I still think there is a chance that the Supremes take a case in the future: the Sixth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits could quite possibly come out the other way. The 6th and 11th especially have not been shy about making waves with other courts of appeal.

[concerned]

Swish!

I think you are right in your imaginings about the cert decision. I think Roberts-who as Chief Justice is very aware of the court's legacy-may also have voted against cert-he saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to let Scalia write a scathing dissent that would look bad, historically.

I still think there is a chance that the Supremes take a case in the future: the Sixth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits could quite possibly come out the other way. The 6th and 11th especially have not been shy about making waves with other courts of appeal.

My partner also though it might have been Roberts for just the reasons you mentioned; to protect the institutional integrity of the court. He basically did that in the Obamacare case.

[Solon]

SCOTUS declines to consider appeals from Utah, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Virginia.
So, in the words of MRD's first girlfriend, "You mean that's it?"
Gay Marriage is legal in Utah again, right?

[Diehard Ute]

So, in the words of MRD's first girlfriend, "You mean that's it?"
Gay Marriage is legal in Utah again, right?

Yes. 10th circuit removed the hold about 10am Utah time and the governor and AG have instructed utah to comply.

[LA Ute]

I was hoping to get the issue resolved cleanly, one way or the other.

[Mormon Red Death]

So, in the words of MRD's first girlfriend, "You mean that's it?"
Gay Marriage is legal in Utah again, right?

As long as I got mine what does it matter?

[LA Ute]

I misread that completely. I never in a million years would have thought they would decline to hear those appeals, especially after they stayed the Utah case and several others. The debate is effectively over, because I cant imagine they could go back later and unwind the marriages that have occurred.

The four conservatives justices could have voted to take the cases on cert. I wonder if Kennedy signaled to them he would come down on the side of individual rights rather than states rights, so they decided not to force the issue. Maybe they didnt want to have a divisive 5-4 vote one way or the other.

I'm not persuaded by AJ's suggestion that Roberts would do this just to protect Scalia from an embarrassing dissent. I do think this approach is consistent with the CJ's belief in "judicial modesty," which seems to be his way of expressing the opposite of judicial activism, a worn-out term.

I.e, I think you're right.

[Applejack]

I'm not persuaded by AJ's suggestion that Roberts would do this just to protect Scalia from an embarrassing dissent. I do think this approach is consistent with the CJ's belief in "judicial modesty," which seems to be his way of expressing TN with opposite of judicial activism, a worn-out term.

I.e, I think you're right.

I'm not sure Concerned and I disagree. I think its possible that Roberts' judicial modesty is very pragmatic - he knew that (a) the Court was likely to side with gay marriage (b) there was no circuit split in need of resolution and (c) issuing a 5-4 opinion would have been divisive for an issue that is (largely) fixing itself. I also don't think it unreasonable that Roberts' calculation may have included a desire to avoid a Lawrence v. Texas style dissent from Scalia.

[concerned]

I read several commentaries yesterday comparing this to Loving v. Virginia. The court turned down several opportunities to get out front and address bans on interracial marriage, and waited waited waited until the lower courts had as a practical matter resolved the issue in many or most states (even though the polls showed that many more people then were against interracial marriage then than are against gay marriage now), then weighed in to validate an important social change. That probably is what is happening here; if you were going to reverse the trend, you would do it now.

[Applejack]

I read several commentaries yesterday comparing this to Loving v. Virginia. The court turned down several opportunities to get out front and address bans on interracial marriage, and waited waited waited until the lower courts had as a practical matter resolved the issue in many or most states (even though the polls showed that many more people then were against interracial marriage then than are against gay marriage now), then weighed in to validate an important social change. That probably is what is happening here; if you were going to reverse the trend, you would do it now.

Right. The Court may have to take up the issue eventually simply to unify the law.

I did read one commentary which suggested the conservative justices passed in the hopes that a Republican wins the White House and then gets to fill one of the liberal justicies slots. Even I thought that was a bit too cynical.

[LA Ute]

FWIW.

Jimmy Carter: States Should Decide Same-Sex Marriage Issue
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/26/jimmy-carter-same-sex-marriage/17963533/)

[Applejack]

CIRCUIT SPLIT!!! (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/06/gay-marriage-appeals-court-ohio-michigan-kentucky-tennessee/15712319/)

The Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) upholds gay marriage ban. Now, it looks very likely that SCOTUS will take this case.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Check out this article. The dissenting opinion in this case seemed to give a blistering rebuttal to the Majority opinion. It seems she believes the Majority opinion presents a weak argument.

It will be interesting to see what Supreme Court does with this now, and how Congress and pundits will spin it. Let the politicking begin!


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/11/07/the_sixth_circuit_gay_marriage_case_dissent_is_hil arious_and_humane.html

[LA Ute]

This blog post from a Sixth Circuit watcher has a nice summary of the decision. The heart of Judge Sutton' argument seems to be this:


Judge Sutton’s majority opinion is a very philosophical one that explores the role of the judiciary in a democracy. Much of it reflects Judge Sutton’s reasoning that bans on same-sex marriage pass muster under rational basis review and that the battle over gay marriage—one of the most highly contentious cultural issues of our time—should be decided by the people, not by a judiciary acting as some sort of superlegislature. As Judge Sutton wrote:

“A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States. Hesitant, yes; but still a rational basis, some rational basis, must exist for the definition.”

http://www.sixthcircuitappellateblog.com/news-and-analysis/breaking-news-sixth-circuit-upholds-same-sex-marriage-bans-in-ohio-michigan-kentucky-and-tennessee/

He thinks the issue should be left up to the states:


“There are many ways, as [the] lower court decisions confirm, to look at this question: originalism; rational basis review; animus; fundamental rights; suspect classifications; evolving meaning. The parties in one way or another have invoked them all. Not one of the plaintiffs’ theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.”

That's a widely shared view, even if someone disagrees with it enough to "blister" it! :)

[Applejack]

[QUOTE=NorthwestUteFan;43904]

It will be interesting to see what Supreme Court does with this now, and how Congress and pundits will spin it. Let the politicking begin!


Ugh. Why couldn't they just let this dead issue rest? Now we have to go through a new round of name calling just to delay the inevitable.

I don't know anything about the law. Does the supreme court have to deal with this now, or can they pass? A pass would be wonderful.

They can pass. But if they do, they leave the somewhat awkward situation in which gay marriage is permitted in much of the country and forbidden in a sizable minority of the country. When a constitutional issue (or alleged constitutional issue) is at stake, the Court doesn't usually like to leave the law fragmented like that.

As a practical matter, they are now almost forced to take the 5th Circuit case (and at least one from one of the "pro-gay marriage" circuits).

[concerned]

very interesting how the majority and dissent in the Sixth Circuit opinion each have an audience of one. Each is designed to appeal to the two sides of Kennedy's opinion in Windsor. The majority appeals to Kennedys interest in deciding who decides, and the dissent appeals to Kennedy's interest in protecting the children of gay couples.

[Diehard Ute]

Frankly there are a lot of things that shouldn't be left to the hands of state voters.

Sadly I would say the majority of Americans have little accurate knowledge of the constitution and law.

[LA Ute]

Frankly there are a lot of things that shouldn't be left to the hands of state voters.

Exactly the issue. Is this one of those things or not? We need a decision.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Exactly the issue. Is this one of those things or not? We need a decision.

The way the polls look, most voters on most states will already vote to allow it. But that rings hollow until it counts for all states. Right now my brother-in-law is married to his husband in 34 states and District of Columbia, but not in the other 16 states.

That Majority opinion beats the tar out of the straw man it establishes, and does so over the corpse of the XIV Amendment.

[LA Ute]

The way the polls look, most voters on most states will already vote to allow it. But that rings hollow until it counts for all states. Right now my brother-in-law is married to his husband in 34 states and District of Columbia, but not in the other 16 states.

That Majority opinion beats the tar out of the straw man it establishes, and does so over the corpse of the XIV Amendment.

Now, now. In almost every state where it's bee on the ballot same-sex marriage has lost. True, there might be a real shift in public opinion in those states, but you can't argue it both ways. Either this should be a matter for the voters -- either through ballot initiatives or their legislatures, or it's too important to be left to them. (Insert eyeroll smiley.) Seriously, as far as I am concerned if it's adopted democratically I'm at peace with gay marriage. I just don't like it being imposed by judicial fiat.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The study cited in the majority opinion was authored by a professor at LSU.

The author later stated the LDS directive "...for a couple to be married by God's authority in God's house, the holy temple, and then to have children per the teaching that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."

He earned his PhD at Delaware. Any guesses where the he did his undergraduate work?

B.S. (1997) and M.S. (1999) at BYU.

The study was roundly rejected as having deep methodological flaws. But this is the icing on the cake. We all know that nothing good cones from BYU. (Glad you saw the light after your freshman year, LA.)

[OrangeUte]

Here is an incredible article. http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2014/11/11/max-lenox-army-basketball

About a captain on the West Point basketball team. Born to a crack addicted mother, he is an African American kid raised by two white gay men. This is worth the time to read.

[LA Ute]

The Supremes are taking the case from the 6th Circuit.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-constitution-requires-states-to-recognize-same-sex-marriage-1421440632?mod=djemalertNEWS&autologin=y


I'm looking forward to seeing the Constitutional issue resolved at last.

[UTEopia]

The Supremes are taking the case from the 6th Circuit.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-constitution-requires-states-to-recognize-same-sex-marriage-1421440632?mod=djemalertNEWS&autologin=y


I'm looking forward to seeing the Constitutional issue resolved at last.

I have a hard time seeing the Supreme's trying to put this genie back in the bottle.

[Diehard Ute]

I have a hard time seeing the Supreme's trying to put this genie back in the bottle.

Especially without Diana Ross ;)

[concerned]

many many pages ago in this thread, Scratch said he doubted Kennedy would ever vote to extend Windsor to a national right to gay marriage. I guess we are about to find out. Some pundits speculating that Roberts may join a majority with Kennedy to extend the right and reverse the Sixth Cir., making the decision 6-3.

Sotomoyer is going to be speaking in SL in a couple of weeks. I will ask her what is going to happen and let you know what she says.

[Scratch]

many many pages ago in this thread, Scratch said he doubted Kennedy would ever vote to extend Windsor to a national right to gay marriage. I guess we are about to find out. Some pundits speculating that Roberts may join a majority with Kennedy to extend the right and reverse the Sixth Cir., making the decision 6-3.

Sotomoyer is going to be speaking in SL in a couple of weeks. I will ask her what is going to happen and let you know what she says.

I have reversed position. I fully expect the 6th to get shot down at this point.

[LA Ute]

I have a hard time seeing the Supreme's trying to put this genie back in the bottle.

I think it is possible, although not likely, that they'll make it a state issue.

[concerned]

I think it is possible, although not likely, that they'll make it a state issue.

I think so too (but then why wouldn't you have granted the temporary stays and taken cert in one of the earlier cases), but I think it is less likely that they will say that the FF&C clause does not require one state to recognize a marriage performed in another state. If states have to recognize marriages in another state, it is all over anyway.

[Solon]

I think it is possible, although not likely, that they'll make it a state issue.
This will probably work, so long as we keep the hetero-only marriage states south of 36°30'.

[LA Ute]

This will probably work, so long as we keep the hetero-only marriage states south of 36°30'.


Har-har.


I think so too (but then why wouldn't you have granted the temporary stays and taken cert in one of the earlier cases), but I think it is less likely that they will say that the FF&C clause does not require one state to recognize a marriage performed in another state. If states have to recognize marriages in another state, it is all over anyway.

IIRC, the Constitution says Congress has the power/authority to regulate how full faith and credit works. If the Court leaves it to the states, I would actually love to see the House and Senate deal with the issue. They are at least elected and accountable to the people. Having the Supreme Court decide the basic Constitutional rights issue and the Congress work out the details would be a civics lesson for the whole country and would also require Congress actually to do its job. It would be fun to watch and we might actually get a good system with fewer people infuriated over a huge change imposed on them by judicial fiat.

[concerned]

there is an interesting article in the New York Times about the phrasing the questions presented and the structure of the argument. Record broken into two arguments. The first is whether states are required to allow gay marriage. The second argument relates to full faith and credit. Each argument is 90 minutes. I am not in a place where I can link the article but it's great fodder for obsessive and compulsive tea leaf reading

[concerned]

Thomas's dissent (joined by Scalia) suggests the court's denial of a stay shows which way the wind is blowing on the merits.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/alabama-gay-marriage-courts-115013.html

[LA Ute]

This is an issue worth watching and discussing.


Should the Supreme Court rule in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, expect more of the same. During oral arguments on Tuesday, Justice Samuel Alito asked Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a religiously affiliated college that opposed same-sex marriage could lose its tax-exempt status after such a ruling. “It is going to be an issue,” Mr. Verrilli replied.

That is putting it mildly; the phrase “persecution of Christians” might be more apt. It would be nice if states passed religious-freedom laws that both protected gays and lesbians from discrimination in day-to-day transactions and accommodated people whose beliefs recognize traditional man-woman marriage—as Utah did last month. But in today’s mood of vengeful triumphalism among the progressive elites who rule public opinion, don’t count on many compromises.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/modern-sin-holding-on-to-your-belief-1430436364

[NorthwestUteFan]

I have posted this already in this thread, but it perfectly sums up that WSJ editorial.

So now merely gloating over securing rights for people is tantamount to persecution of Christians? Surely the author recognizes the paradox.

[LA Ute]

I have posted this already in this thread, but it perfectly sums up that WSJ editorial.

So now merely gloating over securing rights for people is tantamount to persecution of Christians? Surely the author recognizes the paradox.

If you think the concern is about gloating, you're not reading very carefully. As I've said many times, NWUF, I assume gay marriage will soon be a national reality. I accept that. But so far, those who've been pushing for the change have been sore winners. (Mr. Eich at Mozilla; the bakers who -- wrong-headedly, I think -- wouldn't bake a wedding cake; the pizza shop, etc.) I just worry about where that will take us. Can't we all just find a way to get along? The Utah law should be a pattern for the rest of the country to follow. Do you agree?

Utah — yes, Utah — passes landmark LGBT rights bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/12/utah-legislature-passes-landmark-lgbt-anti-discrimination-bill-backed-by-mormon-church/)

[Jarid in Cedar]

Color me shocked that a group that has been oppressed for centuries is doing a victory lap.

Also, if you can't see the irony of those who were the oppressors now asking for tolerance of their views, your pov is slanted heavily in one direction

[LA Ute]

It's pretty simple. A great many people (including me, I like to think) took a position on the issue as a matter of conscience. It was not a fun position to take. The issue is now all but decided. My side of it is prepared to lose gracefully. (Heck, I was prepared to lose gracefully the night of the Prop 8 election. I was surprised we won.) We would like to move on and get along. Use of language like "oppressors" to smear all those people -- who did what they thought was right and bear no ill will for any group -- is exactly the kind of "sore winner" behavior I'm talking about.

P.S. Jarid was oppressing me. Just wanted to note that. But don't worry about me, I'll get through it somehow.... ;)

[LA Ute]

A truly fascinating story here:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?referrer=


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

This is a good read. People who oppose equality as a matter of conscience can still unconsciously and unintentionally cause irreparable harm to individuals by following dogma without objective evaluation of the outcomes of those dogmas.

http://seanandtaylor.tumblr.com/post/117994017260/a-letter-to-the-church

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA that position of conscience was painful for you to take because it conflicts with your internal morality.

[LA Ute]

LA that position of conscience was painful for you to take because it conflicts with your internal morality.

It was painful because I knew the result I was supporting would be painful to real people I know and care about. Life is often like that. I have no regrets about what I did, I regret only that it was necessary. As we move towards the new normal of same-sex marriage (no matter what the Supreme Court does, that's where we are headed eventually) I see my responsibility as being a decent human being to everyone going forward. I am just hoping that will be the majority view. It's not an easy goal but it's a good ideal to shoot for.

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA, you know I love you like a favorite uncle. I appreciate your last sentence of your statement.

It is a shame that the idea of 'By Common Consent' has virtually disappeared from the church. It used to be that we were urged to seek to gain a testimony of the things the leaders told us, and then to act on them accordingly. Now we are told that the first law of the Gospel is obedience, and that to openly disagree with the church leaders means that we are apostates.

[Rocker Ute]

LA that position of conscience was painful for you to take because it conflicts with your internal morality.

Snort!

[USS Utah]

LA, you know I love you like a favorite uncle. I appreciate your last sentence of your statement.

It is a shame that the idea of 'By Common Consent' has virtually disappeared from the church. It used to be that we were urged to seek to gain a testimony of the things the leaders told us, and then to act on them accordingly. Now we are told that the first law of the Gospel is obedience, and that to openly disagree with the church leaders means that we are apostates.

No one has told me that.

[LA Ute]

No one has told me that.

Well, pay better attention in church, then! 😉


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

NW, what time frame are you talking about? Is this a change within our lifetimes, or are you talking about early church history? In my lifetime, I feel like both things have been emphasized a lot.

I have a friend here who recently left the LDS church. In a recent conversation, he said the same thing you did about obedience. Almost word for word. Is this one of the popular talking points online for disgruntled Mormons? Man, I wish that guy would come back to church. He's a friend worth having, and I'll have to work to keep that friendship going now that we don't see each other weekly.

I am speaking about the changes from our younger years to now, so within the last 20-30 years.

The most recent example I fan think of was during general conference a few years ago. I think it was the session where Pres Monson's spoke about burning down the field. The Takeaway message was 'Obedience is the first law of Heaven'. I believe this is one of the Gospel Doctrine lessons in the manual. Also with the emphasis on Ezra Taft Benson this year of course this blends into his '14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet'. (The prophet will never lead the church astray, the prophet is not required yo have any knowledge or credentials in a subject to speak about it, prophet is not limited by Man's reasoning, and of course the final - "...follow (the teachings of the First Presidency) and be blessed; reject them and suffer.").

These are not necessarily problematic. Most of us barely remember Benson except for his Pride talk and John Bircher tendencies (Sean Hannity would be too 'liberal' for him). But the general theme of that talk is part of the culture, and some priesthood leaders seem to take it to heart and act on it.

Our close friend marched in a local Gay Pride parade several years ago in support of her brother. She posted pics of Facebook after with links to the church-owned mormonsandgays.org website, and the Mormons Building Bridges movement.

A few nights later her Bishop and a counselor knocked on her door at 8:45 pm. They came in and grilled her about her participation in the parade, her Facebook posts in support of marriage equality, etc. He told her that she must follow the prophet on this topic. She replied that prophets have been wrong in the past (eg blacks and the priesthood and interracial marriage bans), and that she believes this will also be corrected in the future.

The Bishop got upset, and asked her whether she 'supports anal sex'. She was very highly offended that he would barge into her home late on a school night, and then ask her a question like that in front of her husband and children. The Bishop immediately apologized for the highly inappropriate question, but continued his threatening stance. He told her that she was 'dangerously close to apostasy' for not following the prophet. She excused herself to get the kids to bed (at almost 10 pm) and the Bishop left.

This is a talking point among disgruntled people only because it can be used as a pressure point by leaders to get people to comply. It can be further used in conjunction with revoking temple recommends to make life even more uncomfortable for people.

As for your friend, just build your relationship on things you do have in common (i.e. anything other than church).

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I am speaking about the changes from our younger years to now, so within the last 20-30 years.

The most recent example I fan think of was during general conference a few years ago. I think it was the session where Pres Monson's spoke about burning down the field. The Takeaway message was 'Obedience is the first law of Heaven'. I believe this is one of the Gospel Doctrine lessons in the manual. Also with the emphasis on Ezra Taft Benson this year of course this blends into his '14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet'. (The prophet will never lead the church astray, the prophet is not required yo have any knowledge or credentials in a subject to speak about it, prophet is not limited by Man's reasoning, and of course the final - "...follow (the teachings of the First Presidency) and be blessed; reject them and suffer.").

These are not necessarily problematic. Most of us barely remember Benson except for his Pride talk and John Bircher tendencies (Sean Hannity would be too 'liberal' for him). But the general theme of that talk is part of the culture, and some priesthood leaders seem to take it to heart and act on it.

Our close friend marched in a local Gay Pride parade several years ago in support of her brother. She posted pics of Facebook after with links to the church-owned mormonsandgays.org website, and the Mormons Building Bridges movement.

A few nights later her Bishop and a counselor knocked on her door at 8:45 pm. They came in and grilled her about her participation in the parade, her Facebook posts in support of marriage equality, etc. He told her that she must follow the prophet on this topic. She replied that prophets have been wrong in the past (eg blacks and the priesthood and interracial marriage bans), and that she believes this will also be corrected in the future.

The Bishop got upset, and asked her whether she 'supports anal sex'. She was very highly offended that he would barge into her home late on a school night, and then ask her a question like that in front of her husband and children. The Bishop immediately apologized for the highly inappropriate question, but continued his threatening stance. He told her that she was 'dangerously close to apostasy' for not following the prophet. She excused herself to get the kids to bed (at almost 10 pm) and the Bishop left.

This is a talking point among disgruntled people only because it can be used as a pressure point by leaders to get people to comply. It can be further used in conjunction with revoking temple recommends to make life even more uncomfortable for people.

As for your friend, just build your relationship on things you do have in common (i.e. anything other than church).

Wow. This is beyond embarrassing. As correlated as the church is today, the fact that these rogue bishops can run around as their local Gestapo is beyond frustrating. It's also one of many examples where the church manages to talk out of both sides of its mouth. Despite specialized web sites, press releases and conference talks, there's still this need to go after people who are minding their own business.

I happened upon this blog post last night http://seanandtaylor.tumblr.com/post/117994017260/a-letter-to-the-church. Here's a kid who has been legally married to his husband, doesn't attend church, doesn't prosecute or antagonize the church, but here comes the bishop to make sure that this kid knows that he's out of church favor. Who cares? All that it's managed to accomplish is bad publicity with no reward. Unless we don't want these memberships to be dragging down our home teaching percentages.

Hopefully the recent comments about it being okay to side with these political issues without sparking the ire of the church get some traction and make a big difference. That would have been nice to throw at this bishop.

[LA Ute]

There are 11,000 bishops in the LDS church and there are 12,000 stories circulating about a rogue bishop at any given time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

I had a bishop who constantly referred to himself as 'the bishop'. As in 'The Bishop would appreciate it if the young men would arrive 15 minutes early to prepare the Sacrament...'

That is about the worst I've seen in my church experience. Oh, how we all suffered under his oppression though.

[NorthwestUteFan]

It's also third hand. I'm sure the bishop in question tells a different version.

Or, maybe all the church leadership in the northwest is incompetent.

The bishop in the story posted by Dwight SchrUte above is located in Ogden, UT and the married couple lives in NYC. I believe their court of love was held last Sunday.

I recalled a few details from my story. It took place during the election cycle in which Washington State's ballot included a an initiative to allow gay marriage (and simultaneously exempt/protect any religion or organization that does not choose to perform gay marriages). Our friend was upset by the signs against the initiative which were posted on church property, and the effort at church to get people to go door to door to gather signatures opposed to the initiative. The Facebook comments were based around seeing those signs at church, along with a statement questioning whether the church had learned it's lesson during Prop 8, Prop 22, etc (this was in 2012). We attend the same building as this friend but are in a separate ward, and we did not hear the same push to man phone banks or gather signatures. I was in the EQP and we would have raised hell if somebody pushed us to do that 'service project'.


Anyway, I think the friend's Bishop took some personal umbrage at anybody undermining his 'Vote No on Referendum 74' effort. And when he saw her pictures from the gay pride parade he just went overboard.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Hopefully the recent comments about it being okay to side with these political issues without sparking the ire of the church get some traction and make a big difference. That would have been nice to throw at this bishop.

I fully believe that members of the church can hold unpopular opinions, or opinions contrary to those espoused by the church, without consequence. As long as you mostly keep it to yourself.

But once you start sharing those in public, or on FaceySpacey, or on a blog of some sort, then you should expect some pushback and possibly be told that you are not supporting the Brethren.

Or not.

It all depends on the Local Leadership Roulette.

[DrumNFeather]

I learned when I was Executive Secretary a few years ago now that our Bishop would occasionally be emailed social media activity of member's in the ward. His response was pretty much universally "stop sending this to me, I don't care." I think that is a good policy to have for the most part (I'm sure there are exceptions...I don't know). Being a Bishop I'm sure has its rewards, but largely it has to be one of the worst callings in the church. When you start adding things like social media gestapo to the list of things a Bishop has to do, it would be unbearable.

We have a guy in our ward who left the church about a year ago and likes or shares just about everything that John Dehlin posts. He's funny because he's actually moved back toward the more general Christian faiths and has become a real jerk for Jesus. It's evident to me though that he is trying to taunt members of our ward into reporting him to the Bishop. So far, nobody has taken the bait (that I know of). Our stake has a pretty firm policy (maybe it is the church) that you never give people the option to have their names removed...but in a case like this, I think I'd send the letter and instructions for how to do it and just leave it at that.

[UtahsMrSports]

I learned when I was Executive Secretary a few years ago now that our Bishop would occasionally be emailed social media activity of member's in the ward. His response was pretty much universally "stop sending this to me, I don't care." I think that is a good policy to have for the most part (I'm sure there are exceptions...I don't know). Being a Bishop I'm sure has its rewards, but largely it has to be one of the worst callings in the church. When you start adding things like social media gestapo to the list of things a Bishop has to do, it would be unbearable.

We have a guy in our ward who left the church about a year ago and likes or shares just about everything that John Dehlin posts. He's funny because he's actually moved back toward the more general Christian faiths and has become a real jerk for Jesus. It's evident to me though that he is trying to taunt members of our ward into reporting him to the Bishop. So far, nobody has taken the bait (that I know of). Our stake has a pretty firm policy (maybe it is the church) that you never give people the option to have their names removed...but in a case like this, I think I'd send the letter and instructions for how to do it and just leave it at that.

This reminded me of a guy from my mission. It has little to do with the topic at hand, so I apologize, but a funny story nonetheless.

I was in a ward with 700-750 people on the ward list and SM attendance numbers of about 150 per week.

A guy in the ward once called us up, out of the blue, and asked if we would like to spend the next day with him touring the ward boundaries (about 300 miles north and south!) and visiting some of the less active members in hopes of getting them to come back. That sounded like a more intriguing option than spending all day tracting, so we took him up on it. He picked us up the next morning and off we went.

As we left the city and headed out into the country, he told us about the first woman we were going to stop by. He said that she had just lost her husband, that she had formerly been an active member but when some family had moved away, she slipped into inactivity. I thought that this was a great opportunity. Well, she was home, she greeted us kindly, and invited us in. This guy did not waste two seconds before letting her have it.....

"I understand that your husband passed away last month. Im sorry for your loss, but I understand that you had the funeral at another church. Im baffled as to why you would do this. You need to figure out where you stand. I have a letter here, and all it requires is that you sign it and Ill make sure that your name is removed from the records of the church, it sure seems like thats what you want."

This poor lady was just sobbing. I didn't know what to do, and I felt horrible.

When we got back to the car, he told us that when he was the bishop, they made a list of families that they thought were close to reactivation. All of these families wanted their names removed, so he figured everybody who was less active did as well.

We spent the whole day doing this with "Hatchet Hal" Smith. We got a bunch of signatures, so I guess, if you think about it, we did help the percentage of activity go up.........

[LA Ute]

This reminded me of a guy from my mission. It has little to do with the topic at hand, so I apologize, but a funny story nonetheless.

I was in a ward with 700-750 people on the ward list and SM attendance numbers of about 150 per week.

A guy in the ward once called us up, out of the blue, and asked if we would like to spend the next day with him touring the ward boundaries (about 300 miles north and south!) and visiting some of the less active members in hopes of getting them to come back. That sounded like a more intriguing option than spending all day tracting, so we took him up on it. He picked us up the next morning and off we went.

As we left the city and headed out into the country, he told us about the first woman we were going to stop by. He said that she had just lost her husband, that she had formerly been an active member but when some family had moved away, she slipped into inactivity. I thought that this was a great opportunity. Well, she was home, she greeted us kindly, and invited us in. This guy did not waste two seconds before letting her have it.....

"I understand that your husband passed away last month. Im sorry for your loss, but I understand that you had the funeral at another church. Im baffled as to why you would do this. You need to figure out where you stand. I have a letter here, and all it requires is that you sign it and Ill make sure that your name is removed from the records of the church, it sure seems like thats what you want."

This poor lady was just sobbing. I didn't know what to do, and I felt horrible.

When we got back to the car, he told us that when he was the bishop, they made a list of families that they thought were close to reactivation. All of these families wanted their names removed, so he figured everybody who was less active did as well.

We spent the whole day doing this with "Hatchet Hal" Smith. We got a bunch of signatures, so I guess, if you think about it, we did help the percentage of activity go up.........

:blink: What a horrible way to approach less active people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mormon Red Death]

:blink: What a horrible way to approach less active people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well Alma 1 :24 says if their heart is hardened blot their name off the record.

[DrumNFeather]

This reminded me of a guy from my mission. It has little to do with the topic at hand, so I apologize, but a funny story nonetheless.

I was in a ward with 700-750 people on the ward list and SM attendance numbers of about 150 per week.

A guy in the ward once called us up, out of the blue, and asked if we would like to spend the next day with him touring the ward boundaries (about 300 miles north and south!) and visiting some of the less active members in hopes of getting them to come back. That sounded like a more intriguing option than spending all day tracting, so we took him up on it. He picked us up the next morning and off we went.

As we left the city and headed out into the country, he told us about the first woman we were going to stop by. He said that she had just lost her husband, that she had formerly been an active member but when some family had moved away, she slipped into inactivity. I thought that this was a great opportunity. Well, she was home, she greeted us kindly, and invited us in. This guy did not waste two seconds before letting her have it.....

"I understand that your husband passed away last month. Im sorry for your loss, but I understand that you had the funeral at another church. Im baffled as to why you would do this. You need to figure out where you stand. I have a letter here, and all it requires is that you sign it and Ill make sure that your name is removed from the records of the church, it sure seems like thats what you want."

This poor lady was just sobbing. I didn't know what to do, and I felt horrible.

When we got back to the car, he told us that when he was the bishop, they made a list of families that they thought were close to reactivation. All of these families wanted their names removed, so he figured everybody who was less active did as well.

We spent the whole day doing this with "Hatchet Hal" Smith. We got a bunch of signatures, so I guess, if you think about it, we did help the percentage of activity go up.........

Yikes!

Re-reading my post, I certainly don't mean to sound as harsh as what you've described, that's for sure.

[UtahsMrSports]

That was one of the more memorable days......that day's events also included

-Banging on a 70 year old mans trailer (guys last name was "wolf") and yelling at the top of his lungs "OPEN UP, WOLFY! I know youre in there!"
-Tracking down a less active member at his work (mcdonalds), complaining about the long drive-thru wait time, and then encouraging him to sign the letter.
-Accusing a middle aged woman of only being baptized because she was "interested" in the missionaries, and then encouraging her to sign his letter.

It would also be unfair to not say that this guy was in his late 70's, was always the first one to show up for a move or other service project, spent hours before and after giving people rides to and from church etc. Just a really unique appraoch to "missionary" work.

[LA Ute]

Well Alma 1 :24 says if their heart is hardened blot their name off the record.

Keep this up and I'm showing up at your house with a letter for you to sign.

[Rocker Ute]

I haven't been around long enough to know if these are real changes. Looking at the old "teachings of ......" manuals, though, there has always been talk about obedience and sustaining church leaders.

Actually, that reminds me... I recently had someone complain to me about the new approach to teaching in the church. She wanted the old style teacher manuals that spelled out everything and didn't appreciate the "Here is a topic for this week, here are lots of online resources... pray and study and tailor your lesson to your individual needs" approach that has recently been adopted. Of course, I think her motivation was doing it that was actually required some thoughtfulness and work.

[LA Ute]

Is that the new approach? I thought the new approach was to just show up and let "inspiration" take over.

The new approach for the youth is "active learning." It's like the BYU school of education got a hold of the curriculum department. Soon we'll have flipped Sunday School classrooms.

1458

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Actually, that reminds me... I recently had someone complain to me about the new approach to teaching in the church. She wanted the old style teacher manuals that spelled out everything and didn't appreciate the "Here is a topic for this week, here are lots of online resources... pray and study and tailor your lesson to your individual needs" approach that has recently been adopted. Of course, I think her motivation was doing it that was actually required some thoughtfulness and work.

My wife falls into this category. She's just wired that way. I'm the cook. She bakes. She gets annoyed with me because I can't necessarily tell her how long or how much of an ingredient to use. She bakes because it's an exercise in precision. Cooking is too whimsical. At church, she teaches the 12-13 year olds and the lesson manual is much more cooking instruction where as the old style was baking instruction. Drives her crazy. She didn't really grow up in the church though, so I think there's also an element of insecurity there in not always having a really good grasp of the material.

[Rocker Ute]

My wife falls into this category. She's just wired that way. I'm the cook. She bakes. She gets annoyed with me because I can't necessarily tell her how long or how much of an ingredient to use. She bakes because it's an exercise in precision. Cooking is too whimsical. At church, she teaches the 12-13 year olds and the lesson manual is much more cooking instruction where as the old style was baking instruction. Drives her crazy. She didn't really grow up in the church though, so I think there's also an element of insecurity there in not always having a really good grasp of the material.

That makes sense. Conversely, it seems that the people who think they have a good grasp of the material and don't prepare much have bad lessons and the ones who work hard to prepare have amazing lessons. I have no tolerance for the standard EQ lesson where they flip open the manual and say, "Okay, what lesson are we on?" When I was in charge of assigning such lessons I always let the teacher know that approach was not okay. They were given a month (in this case) to prepare and they should use it. We had some great lessons when they took that seriously.

So let your wife know that I would much rather participate in a lesson of someone who might struggle and bumble around a bit but has put in the time to study and prepare than the slick haired RM who thinks his mastery of the discussions on his mission means he can wing it or someone who is just following along in a manual. The former is invariably much much better than the latter.

[Rocker Ute]

That's just because you've never seen this​ slick haired RM wing it on Sunday morning.

There are always exceptions to the rules.

[Mormon Red Death]

1458
Where's my Mormon red death cartoon? !

[LA Ute]

I can't find the cartoon book. I'm suspecting my kids as the likely borrowers who didn't return it. I haven't forgotten.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Well Alma 1 :24 says if their heart is hardened blot their name off the record.

Alma was a dick. And a hypocrite. He certainly treated his own son better than that!

[jrj84105]

:blink: What a horrible way to approach less active people.
I'm sure at least some people would be appreciative. It's pretty creepy when you've gone through the name removal process and the reactivation crew still shows up at your new house before all your furniture does.

[Scorcho]

while I enjoy the new Sunday School teaching format for the youth, we are now on the 3rd year of the same lessons

[jrj84105]

I'm sure at least some people would be appreciative. It's pretty creepy when you've gone through the name removal process and the reactivation crew still shows up at your new house before all your furniture does.

After reading this thread, I resubmitted my resignation, for the first time by email. The typical form includes your address.

So on cue, the ward clerk showed up at our house tonight. He's a super nice guy and has no clue that the reason my name just popped up an his ward list is that I submitted a resignation request. I strangely know the guys nephew from Illinois, and I would say that I would have otherwise genuinely enjoyed the interaction had it not been brought to fruition by the duplicitous actions of the records office. I left the church with no hard feelings, but I have to say that the difficulty I've had in completely severing ties has made me pretty resentful. Why does it have to be like this?

[U-Ute]

After reading this thread, I resubmitted my resignation, for the first time by email. The typical form includes your address.

So on cue, the ward clerk showed up at our house tonight. He's a super nice guy and has no clue that the reason my name just popped up an his ward list is that I submitted a resignation request. I strangely know the guys nephew from Illinois, and I would say that I would have otherwise genuinely enjoyed the interaction had it not been brought to fruition by the duplicitous actions of the records office. I left the church with no hard feelings, but I have to say that the difficulty I've had in completely severing ties has made me pretty resentful. Why does it have to be like this?

Note to self: put in a resignation letter when I need help moving furniture around my house.

[LA Ute]

After reading this thread, I resubmitted my resignation, for the first time by email. The typical form includes your address.

So on cue, the ward clerk showed up at our house tonight. He's a super nice guy and has no clue that the reason my name just popped up an his ward list is that I submitted a resignation request. I strangely know the guys nephew from Illinois, and I would say that I would have otherwise genuinely enjoyed the interaction had it not been brought to fruition by the duplicitous actions of the records office. I left the church with no hard feelings, but I have to say that the difficulty I've had in completely severing ties has made me pretty resentful. Why does it have to be like this?

It's supposed to be a pretty straightforward process. I don't know what went wrong in your case. Hope it gets better.

[jrj84105]

It's supposed to be a pretty straightforward process. I don't know what went wrong in your case. Hope it gets better.

Thanks,
Apparently, roadblocks seem to be more common in the last ten years, and because it is handled locally, the process differs extensively person to person. First I should note that the standard form that people use as a template for their resignation letters (it will be rejected if it's not modified apparently) includes a request for no contact. Each time I tried I was contacted by 1) the bishop requiring an interview before acknowledging the resignation 2) missionaries 2) ward clerk. The thing that struck me as most odd about those interactions is that my religious/spiritual opinions weren't so much the topic of discussion as were my profession, and in the two instances when they came to my house, how nice my house was. I'm not loaded, but I do pretty well and am engaged in a profession that's well-respected seemingly by Mormons*. In each interaction, I was left feeling like my resignation would have been processed immediately if I lived in a run-down trailer, and if I didn't look like a potentially good source of tithing money. That may be paranoid, but the way each conversation went to house/job and not my religious/spiritual preferences was weird.

*I gave a presentation at work and while people were asking me questions in a small group at the podium afterwards. Someone who I never met before butted in to try and reactivate me. That's the kind of stuff that prompts resignation rather than just ignoring it*

[LA Ute]

Would Lincoln have supported same-sex marriage?

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/10/would-lincoln-have-supported-gay-marriage-looking-at-how-liberals-use-him/

[NorthwestUteFan]

This picture mocks strict gender roles. I think it is kind of funny.

[chrisrenrut]

This picture mocks strict gender roles. I think it is kind of funny.

:rofl:

[LA Ute]

I don't know that I agree with everything this author says but I don't think his arguments can be dismissed easily.
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilated_969581.html?page=1)
You Will Be Assimilated (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilated_969581.html?page=1)

[jrj84105]

This picture mocks strict gender roles. I think it is kind of funny.
:highfive:
more than kind of. I made sandwhiches for lunch and my wife was confused when I started laughing out loud for no reason.

[DrumNFeather]

Supreme court rules 5-4 in favor of same sex marriage.

[U-Ute]

Supreme court rules 5-4 in favor of same sex marriage.

Damn. I wish I would've known that the world ended before I came to work this morning. I could've stayed in bed.

[U-Ute]

You legal types will have to confirm this, but it seems like this is poor form, even for Scalia.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851173/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia/in/8271596

[LA Ute]

From Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion:


If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

Anyway, let's move on. The issue is decided for everyone.

[LA Ute]

You legal types will have to confirm this, but it seems like this is poor form, even for Scalia.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851173/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia/in/8271596

I think his points are to be expected and are pretty standard for him. Those who are happy with the outcome will applaud the decision, but you asked for a legal point of view. Constitutional jurisprudence is not supposed to be about outcomes, it's supposed to be about what the Constitution says. Reasonable people disagree about that, often vehemently.

The problem, as I see it, is this: We have a judicial cram-down. We have a decision that changes marriage for everyone in the USA, forever. It was made by a single vote in the Supreme Court. If the people of the USA had decided to make that change, that would be acceptable to me (and I think we were headed that direction anyway). It's bad government to make breathtaking changes this way, by 5-4 decisions in the Supreme Court. People aren't going to simply shrug their shoulders and fall in line with this, and the culture war will just get worse.

[concerned]

You legal types will have to confirm this, but it seems like this is poor form, even for Scalia.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851173/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia/in/8271596

To me Scalia's dissent the last two days are extremely poor form. He really personalizes his attack on the integrity and motives of the majority opionion. He didn't have to, and shouldn't have. It is demeaning to the strength of his argument. Hard to see how you could be collegial in the face of the ad hominim and sarcastic attacks.

I suspect that is why Roberts did not join his dissent today. Roberts did it right.

[concerned]

I think his points are to be expected and are pretty standard for him. Those who are happy with the outcome will applaud the decision, but you asked for a legal point of view. Constitutional jurisprudence is not supposed to be about outcomes, it's supposed to be about what the Constitution says. Reasonable people disagree about that, often vehemently.

The problem, as I see it, is this: We have a judicial cram-down. We have a decision that changes marriage for everyone in the USA, forever. It was made by a single vote in the Supreme Court. If the people of the USA had decided to make that change, that would be acceptable to me (and I think we were headed that direction anyway). It's bad government to make breathtaking changes this way, by 5-4 decisions in the Supreme Court. People aren't going to simply shrug their shoulders and fall in line with this, and the culture war will just get worse.

The last paragraph of Kennedy's opinion really potentially expands the concept of fundamental rights to include dignity as well.privacy from Griswold and roe. I thought it was quite expansive.

[LA Ute]

I don't think this part of Scalia's dissent was over the top:


I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.
Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

[concerned]

The part where he said he would put a bag over his head it he traded a fifth vote was really in poor taste as was his accusation that Kennedy was straining for memorable quotes and utterly pretentious. No need for that whatsoever. Extremely ironic since Scalia is always playing to the cheap seats.

The ask a hippie line was funny but demeaned the significance of the issues at stake.

[U-Ute]

The problem, as I see it, is this: We have a judicial cram-down. We have a decision that changes marriage for everyone in the USA, forever.

:confused:

I don't see how it changes anything for the 99% of marriages which are heterosexual. Its business as usual.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Get Bent, Scalia. The Citizens United decision was many orders of magnitude more damaging and divisive to the nation than this gay marriage decision is or will be.

I can appreciate people who are appalled at the methodology, but I think in the end most will agree that this is the right outcome.

[LA Ute]

:confused:

I don't see how it changes anything for the 99% of marriages which are heterosexual. Its business as usual.

More Nino:


Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work. [...]

[U-Ute]

I don't think this part of Scalia's dissent was over the top:

This seems to be the pertinent part of his dissension:


Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

This sounds like a "you're not the boss of me" tantrum of my 7 year old. The only thing "robbed" from the people was the ability to take something from others. I understand and believe in the "states rights" argument of allowing states to make laws to govern themselves, but at some point you have to have the ability to step in and say "You've gone too far" when the small mindedness of the local majority uses that argument to persecute people who they don't like.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I've got the point of his dissent wrong.

[LA Ute]

Going forward the only issue I care about is religious liberty. Good summary from the Washington Post of what today's decision says about that:

*****

Here are the key excerpts on religious liberty from the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/26/here-are-the-key-excerpts-on-religious-liberty-from-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-gay-marriage/)

The case has raised questions over how legalizing gay marriage would affect religious institutions.

During oral arguments in March, Justice Samuel Alito compared the case to that of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 the school was not entitled to a tax-exempt status if it barred interracial marriage.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the same-sex couples on behalf of the Obama administration, said,”You know, **I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is –it is going to be an issue.”

Friday’s ruling will raise questions again on that issue.

Here’s a key section on religious views from the majority ruling:


“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.”



Here’s another key section on religion from the majority opinion:



“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”



In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. discussed religious liberty concerns. “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty,” Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.”



“Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”



Roberts noted that the question of tax-exempt status of religious institutions could become an issue.



“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”



Justice Clarence Thomas issued the following on religious liberty in his dissent:



“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect. Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”



He also wrote the following on religious liberty.



“Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

[U-Ute]

More Nino:

Fair enough. We don't like to think of our Supremes as political animals, but they are. Maybe a better dissent from Scalia should have been this (paraphrasing since I don't do legalese):


It's obvious that public opinion is shifting to eventually allow gay marriage. Kennedy just wants to be the one who plants his flag in history, to be able to say "I made this happen" when it was going to happen anyway had we just let the system work.

That would've been awesome and I would respect him much more for that.

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA, could you please give us a scenario in which your religious liberty could be affected by this ruling?

I am not trying to pick on you, but I want to discuss the subject.

[LA Ute]

LA, could you please give us a scenario in which your religious liberty could be affected by this ruling?

I am not trying to pick on you, but I want to discuss the subject.

I don't know, and the uncertainty is what worries me, along with the take-no-prisoners attitude of many activists on your side of the debate. Maybe simply winning the Constitutional argument will satisfy them. But Justices Roberts and Thomas lay out the concerns in their dissents:

Roberts:

“Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

Clarence Thomas:

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect. Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

He also wrote the following on religious liberty.

“Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

Both Roberts and Thomas are devout Catholics.

[jrj84105]

... along with the take-no-prisoners attitude of many activists on your side of the debate.

THE debate is over. I think people on the religious right have a tendency to view others as completely aligned and fundamentally opposed to the point of persecution against them. Most of the people who opposed the religious right for its extreme position on gay marriage with oppose the far left when subsequent debates move to religious freedom. It only seemed like most of America had it in for strident anti-gay activists because the strident gay activists were very wrong on THE debate. That won't be the case in subsequent debates.

[Scratch]

It's only a matter of time until I can no longer deduct my contributions to the LDS church for tax purposes.

[LA Ute]

THE debate is over. I think people on the religious right have a tendency to view others as completely aligned and fundamentally opposed to the point of persecution against them. Most of the people who opposed the religious right for its extreme position on gay marriage with oppose the far left when subsequent debates move to religious freedom. It only seemed like most of America had it in for strident anti-gay activists because the strident gay activists were very wrong on THE debate. That won't be the case in subsequent debates.

I will be very happy if it turns out you are right, and I hope the same thing.

[Mormon Red Death]

It's only a matter of time until I can no longer deduct my contributions to the LDS church for tax purposes.

explain the westboro baptist church then. Those dipshits have been going strong without repercussions for 20+ years now.

[Scratch]

explain the westboro baptist church then. Those dipshits have been going strong without repercussions for 20+ years now.

What "civil rights" have they deprived of others? And they're probably not a big enough target to bother with. We'll see what happens when major churches refuse to marry same-sex couples or kick out SSM people from their churches and/or schools.

[Mormon Red Death]

What "civil rights" have they deprived of others? And they're probably not a big enough target to bother with. We'll see what happens when major churches refuse to marry same-sex couples or kick out SSM people from their churches and/or schools.

So it has to be a major church before the IRS will take away tax exemptions?

[jrj84105]

I would be happy to be done with all charitable tax deductions as long as the base rates were lowered accordingly.