Marriage Equality Thread

[Scratch]

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

First of all, I don't see the Westboro Church really withholding civil rights. They probably would, but I'm guessing it hasn't been an issue.

The major church thing is more to do with whether there has been pressure or enough interest to actually do something about it.

[Mormon Red Death]

First of all, I don't see the Westboro Church really withholding civil rights. They probably would, but I'm guessing it hasn't been an issue.

The major church thing is more to do with whether there has been pressure or enough interest to actually do something about it.

They wouldnt let a homosexual couple marry in their church.

[Sullyute]

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

I can see it happening with religious institutions like BYU, where the primary purpose is education, not religion. But I don't see it happening with contributions given directly to the Church (or any church). If they hold to their guns, you may have a revisiting of BYU sports from the late 60's and early 70's.

[Scratch]

They wouldnt let a homosexual couple marry in their church.

1) They wouldn't or they didn't? Have they ever actually denied providing a service to a gay couple that they provide to a straight couple?

2) Even if they had actually refused to do so, that refusal wouldn't really be considered a denial of a civil right because there was no federal civil right to gay marriage. This is kind of what I was getting at; this presents a new issue and a new "civil right" that really didn't exist before.

[U-Ute]

1) They wouldn't or they didn't? Have they ever actually denied providing a service to a gay couple that they provide to a straight couple?

2) Even if they had actually refused to do so, that refusal wouldn't really be considered a denial of a civil right because there was no federal civil right to gay marriage. This is kind of what I was getting at; this presents a new issue and a new "civil right" that really didn't exist before.

That's between private individuals and their church. They can always go get a civil union and be recognized by the state.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Westboro already had their IRS threatened in the last few years, and the IRS refused to remove their exemption. If the things they do can be considered 'charitable', then every other church organization should be safe.

Further, if the megachurches that _explicitly_ break the law by directly advocating for political causes at the pulpit, state they are breaking the law, and then sell videos of those sermons, still get to keep their tax exemptions then nearly every other church will be able to retain theirs. LDS church included.

[NorthwestUteFan]

That's between private individuals and their church. They can always go get a civil union and be recognized by the state.

The only people who should be forced to perform gay marriages are the city, county, and state officials who normally do so within the normal duties of their job. And even then it won't happen unless no other coworker is available.

And besides, who would choose to get married by a person who openly disdains the happy couple they are marrying?

[Diehard Ute]

A (for now) anonymous Utah legislator has already drafted and intends to introduce a bill to remove the State of Utah from the process of marriage.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

In an update the law I mentioned above would only allow churches to marry someone. Anyone else would have the state recognizing a contract between two people.

I really don't know what to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

In an update the law I mentioned above would only allow churches to marry someone. Anyone else would have the state recognizing a contract between two people.

I really don't know what to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely he realizes that his bill would FORCE the LDS church to marry lgtb couples. LOL at the unintended consequences of his extraordinary short-sighted action.

[Diehard Ute]

Surely he realizes that his bill would FORCE the LDS church to marry lgtb couples. LOL at the unintended consequences of his extraordinary short-sighted action.

I doubt he's thought this through at all. Some Utah officials made some excellent statements, others chose to bring up beastiality.

Not sure why people feel the need to spout before thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

I wouldn't be surprised if many churches lost their tax exemptions in our lifetime. I also wouldn't be surprised if churches keep their exemptions until the end of days. I guess I'm not easily surprised.

Certainly there is a non-trivial portion of the electorate who would vote today to remove all tax exemptions from churches.

Perhaps those who can show that they actually use their tax-free incomes for the community good should keep their exemption, but those who use most of the tax-free money to build up their own real estate holdings and to subsidize their group of universities should undergo closer scrutiny.


I wouldn't, but there are always some people who want to make a statement.

The only place that might be a problem is with commercial companies whose sole stated purpose is to perform marriages. Churches do more than simply marry people, and will still maintain their first amendment freedoms.

I have to wonder how doing the church will choose to edit the part of the CHoI that defines as an excommunicable offense entering into a same-sex marriage. Hopefully the outcry from the younger generations will prevail on the octogenarian leadership to make some changes.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I really love the final paragraph of the majority decision, written by Anthony Kennedy. It is beautiful, truly a statement for the ages.


“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

[Ma'ake]

With the tidal move in social acceptability, we'll see competition between religions, both to attract the new, younger generation with a more inclusive interpretation of the Bible, and to help staunch the growth of "nones", the fastest growing demographic in religion.

More orthodox churches will struggle to hang onto their younger members, like right now, but besides just bailing on religion in general, the young generation will go to churches that reflect their values and understandings.

This impressively quick market of ideas will force religions to change, or get smaller. I think a lot of conservatives fear their church will be forced by the government to perform marriages against their beliefs, but the more likely reality will be people saying "why do you want to get married in that church, to begin with? Go to the new church, no problem. Your friends will follow you there".

[jrj84105]

I wouldn't be surprised if many churches lost their tax exemptions in our lifetime. I also wouldn't be surprised if churches keep their exemptions until the end of days. I guess I'm not easily surprised.

Certainly there is a non-trivial portion of the electorate who would vote today to remove all tax exemptions from churches.
I'd vote for that. I donate to charities I care about and don't think think that I should really get a tax deduction for supporting PBS, NPR, Crimson Club, or animal charities because for the most part I personally benefit from the services these organizations provide. Same goes for church donations as churches serve their supporters, primarily in ways that are something in between entertainment and group therapy. No deductions.

[jrj84105]

With the tidal move in social acceptability, we'll see competition between religions, both to attract the new, younger generation with a more inclusive interpretation of the Bible, and to help staunch the growth of "nones", the fastest growing demographic in religion.

More orthodox churches will struggle to hang onto their younger members, like right now, but besides just bailing on religion in general, the young generation will go to churches that reflect their values and understandings.

This impressively quick market of ideas will force religions to change, or get smaller. I think a lot of conservatives fear their church will be forced by the government to perform marriages against their beliefs, but the more likely reality will be people saying "why do you want to get married in that church, to begin with? Go to the new church, no problem. Your friends will follow you there".

How quickly does the LDS church adjust? At what point do they gain/retain more young people by accepting gay marriage than they disenfranchise older members who committed so hard to the opposition? What a kick in the nuts it would be for a lot of people if the stance changed.

[U-Ute]

How quickly does the LDS church adjust? At what point do they gain/retain more young people by accepting gay marriage than they disenfranchise older members who committed so hard to the opposition? What a kick in the nuts it would be for a lot of people if the stance changed.

If we use their speed to adjust to the change in attitudes towards blacks and women, I wouldn't hold my breath. For the most part, the same people who bemoan these changes in attitudes are the best customers of these religious institutions. There isn't much incentive to change.

[Ma'ake]

If we use their speed to adjust to the change in attitudes towards blacks and women, I wouldn't hold my breath. For the most part, the same people who bemoan these changes in attitudes are the best customers of these religious institutions. There isn't much incentive to change.

It's a balancing act, certainly.

There are 2 major differences today that are putting enormous pressure on churches, and the LDS church in particular:

1. Access to Information - the LDS church's history is very well documented, and almost everything is at anyone's fingertips. The "essays" on polygamy and the priesthood ban I could never have imagined in my youth, as the church tries to be the messenger instead of being defined by their critics.

2. Connectedness through Technology (like this board). Historically, people have been far less connected, but the number of streams of thought are innumerable, and we're finding that human beings as social creatures quickly coalesce around schools of thought, accelerated by the Information Age.

Millenials are on an Autobahn, Baby Boomers (especially those of my generation who have not become immersed in technology) are riding horses.

Churches need both, and things are moving much quicker than anyone could have imagined, 20 years ago.

[LA Ute]

From Roberts' dissent:


Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

I think gay marriage was coming and I was fine with that. I just don't think it should have come by a Supreme Court decision, let alone a 5-4 one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

From Roberts' dissent:


Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

I think gay marriage was coming and I was fine with that. I just don't think it should have come by a Supreme Court decision, let alone a 5-4 one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is the "constitutional" problem here? Are they looking at it from a states rights perspective?

[USS Utah]

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues. . . . In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

-- D. Todd Christofferson

Link:

http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2301174-155/mormons-free-to-back-gay-marriage

Allow me to post something here that I posted a few months ago at UF.N regarding same sex marriage and the religious teachings of compassion:


Religions teach compassion, and in a way that makes it harder. Religions also teach adherents to hate sin. We are to hate the sin but love the sinner. Where is the line between having compassion and giving approval?

I have always believed that discrimination and persecution are wrong, no matter who the target is. But that didn't mean that I could support gay marriage. When asked for a legal reason why I opposed gay marriage, I had no answer, and I didn't like that. So I thought, perhaps, that I could accept civil unions.

I did not have an issue with granting the rights and privileges usually associated with marriage, I just didn't want to grant the word marriage. I was for civil unions when the president was for civil unions. But then it occurred to me that, if the word marriage meant that much to me, it must mean just as much to gays. In the end I decided that I could neither support nor oppose gay marriage, but could accept it as a matter of law.

That journey from A to B took six years. It wasn't easy. It wasn't like flipping a switch. I wanted to have compassion and not discriminate or persecute, but I didn't want to give permission or approval, either.

[Ma'ake]

I think gay marriage was coming and I was fine with that. I just don't think it should have come by a Supreme Court decision, let alone a 5-4 one.

For Republicans, Roberts went from being the goat on Thursday, to redeeming himself a bit on Friday.

Here's what is interesting: The 6-3 decision is an issue Republicans intend to keep pushing on, but the 5-4 decision they seem to be backing away from, in terms of pushing as a 2016 campaign issue.

[LA Ute]

What is the "constitutional" problem here? Are they looking at it from a states rights perspective?

You'll have to read Roberts' dissent, or maybe just excerpts from it. Legal scholars from all over the map will have plenty to say about this decision. For one thing, it uses the Due Process clause to find the right to gay marriage, not the Equal Protection clause, which almost everyone agrees provides a stronger basis for that right. Badly-reasoned Supreme Court decisions cause lots of "Pandora's box" problems. I think just like Roe v. Wade, this decision -- already being called one of the most significant in the last 100 years -- will be litigated over for decades.

Here are some Roberts excerpts. His beef arises from the majority's approach: start with a conclusion — X is a good idea, therefore X is constitutional; Y is a bad idea, therefore Y is unconstitutional — and then reason backwards.

On the proper role of the federal judiciary:


[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.



Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.



The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.


On the constitutional basis for a right to same-sex marriage:


Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.



The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.



The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”



Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.


On the natural and historic basis of the institution of marriage:


The premises supporting th[e] concept of [natural] marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.


On how the majority opinion basically requires legalization of polygamy/plural marriage:


Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.



When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.


On what our Founders would think about five unaccountable oligarchs in robes deciding what does and doesn’t constitute marriage:


Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.”

[U-Ute]

It will be interesting to see what this decision does to RNC Presidential candidates. Does it soften their position or does it galvanize the Southern Republicans and force them to move even further into the extreme right?

For DNC candidates, this decision removes gay rights as a plank for them. They actually have to focus more on policy issues and less on social issues. I predict that income inequality will just expand to fill the void.

[Ma'ake]

Link:
Allow me to post something here that I posted a few months ago at UF.N regarding same sex marriage and the religious teachings of compassion:

Definitely noteworthy, commendable. The reaction in Charleston has been very impressive, kind of like the Amish forgiving that guy who murdered a young girl(?). GOP governor Nikki Haley put it well, "he tried to start a race war, and got the exact opposite".

Maybe - just maybe - the Muslims are getting closer to starting to work the kinks out of their religious violence, with the Muslim-against-Muslim ISIS violence in Kuwait perhaps spurring an awakening in the Islamic world that violence just isn't the way. Islam is 500 years younger than Christianity. They need to grow up... fast.

[Ma'ake]

You'll have to read Roberts' dissent, or maybe just excerpts from it. Legal scholars from all over the map will have plenty to say about this decision. For one thing, it uses the Due Process clause to find the right to gay marriage, not the Equal Protection clause, which almost everyone agrees provides a stronger basis for that right. Badly-reasoned Supreme Court decisions cause lots of "Pandora's box" problems. I think just like Roe v. Wade, this decision -- already being called one of the most significant in the last 100 years -- will be litigated over for decades.

Presuming the swing in support for gay marriage persists, it will be interesting to see if/when states formally repeal laws prohibiting gay marriage. Alabama (I think) repealed their ban of interracial marriage in 2000.

I would expect Utah Democrats to sponsor a repeal in the Utah Legislature, and Utah Republicans may ignore or, or pass it, but won't make a difference, electorally.

[LA Ute]

Here's what is interesting: The 6-3 decision is an issue Republicans intend to keep pushing on, but the 5-4 decision they seem to be backing away from, in terms of pushing as a 2016 campaign issue.

If good sense prevails the GOP will give up on trying to repeal the Court's decision (e.g., by a Constitutional amendment). I think the battle will move from whether same-sex marriage shuld be the law of the land to protecting those whose religious beliefs oppose it. If done properly that one is a political winner, but it will be controversial and messy -- and a lot of the messiness will be the fault of those who want to police thought and for whom this victory is not enough.

[LA Ute]

Hers's a libertarian's take:

As an unabashed supporter of marriage equality, I am both delighted by the outcome in Obergefell v. Hodges and baffled by the unsound legal reasoning the Supreme Court employed. Neither Justice Kennedy’s majority decision, nor any of the four dissents, puts forth a compelling constitutional case for or against same-sex marriage. (For more on this, the Cato Institute’s Timothy Sandefur closely articulates my views on the subject (http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/gay-marriage-decision-right-for-the-wrong-reasons-dissents-wrong-for-worse-reasons).) Nevertheless, one way or another, the LGBT movement has triumphed in the highest court in the land as well as the court of public opinion, and this libertarian is thrilled that same-sex couples can now enjoy the same special benefits that opposite-sex couples do. This is the express purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment: to protect minorities from state-sponsored discrimination.

Three things. First, to conservatives who oppose gay marriage, I say this: It’s over. You lost. Please, resist the urge to die on this hill. I understand the temptation to treat the Obergefell ruling as merely another battle in the culture wars—like Roe v. Wade was—but continuing to advocate against marriage equality risks permanently alienating the under-30 crowd. Millennials are more entrepreneurial and less loyal to the Democratic Party than most people think. Republicans—particularly libertarian-leaning Republicans—can reach them, but only if the party preaches both economic opportunity and social tolerance.


Speaking of social tolerance, to liberals, I say this: give it a try, sometime. The best way to convince social conservatives that gay marriage will not destroy the very fabric of society is to demonstrate to them that gay marriage is perfectly healthy and benign. In other words, don’t humiliate them, boycott their states, shun their businesses, and petition the government to compel them to violate their beliefs (http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/01/this-anti-gay-pizza-place-got-trashed-on). Too many progressives move from accept this to accept this or die in the span of about five seconds. (An example: just a few days ago, virtually all informed commentators were in agreement about removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state capitol; today, Civil War-themed board games are being purged (http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/25/confederate-flag-purge-goes-nuts-almost) from stores to comply with the latest PC dictates.)

To my fellow libertarians, I wish only to remind them that this is as much their victory (http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/06/25/op-ed-libertarians-have-long-led-way-marriage) as it is anyone else’s. The Cato Institute has supported marriage equality for much longer than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Robby Soave (https://twitter.com/robbysoave) is a staff editor at Reason.

[U-Ute]

Hers's a libertarian's take:

This article he links to has a brilliant title.

[Ma'ake]

If good sense prevails the GOP will give up on trying to repeal the Court's decision (e.g., by a Constitutional amendment). I think the battle will move from whether same-sex marriage shuld be the law of the land to protecting those whose religious beliefs oppose it. If done properly that one is a political winner, but it will be controversial and messy -- and a lot of the messiness will be the fault of those who want to police thought and for whom this victory is not enough.

There may be some out there who are looking to crack down / retaliate against churches, but I think that's a bad idea.

Maybe time for the two-step idea - sign the marriage license at the courthouse, then do a religious ceremony at a church, or have a backyard party, or exchange vows on a mountain top, or whatever. Clean, little room to pry for inclusion. Americans may lean for equal rights, but they don't generally support barging into churches.

With the swing in public opinion, preserving the rights of believers to deny services will quickly lose meaning, as "we serve everyone" becomes like the Underwriters Laboratory seal of approval and denying service becomes an economic disadvantage. We'll hear very few stories like "I used to be a baker, then they wouldn't allow me to discriminate..."

[LA Ute]

There may be some out there who are looking to crack down / retaliate against churches, but I think that's a bad idea.

Maybe time for the two-step idea - sign the marriage license at the courthouse, then do a religious ceremony at a church, or have a backyard party, or exchange vows on a mountain top, or whatever. Clean, little room to pry for inclusion. Americans may lean for equal rights, but they don't generally support barging into churches.

With the swing in public opinion, preserving the rights of believers to deny services will quickly lose meaning, as "we serve everyone" becomes like the Underwriters Laboratory seal of approval and denying service becomes an economic disadvantage. We'll hear very few stories like "I used to be a baker, then they wouldn't allow me to discriminate..."

I think you are right.

I am counting on the ingenuity, creativity and general good will of (most of) the American people to figure this out. We've handled tougher problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrj84105]

Just to be clear, after years of forcing a religious worldview on homosexuals and preventing them from living according to their own consciences, those same religious voices are afraid the table could turn and gays could do the same and force the religious right to act against their conscience in alignment with the gay worldview? it seems like this irony completely escapes some people. The religious right is now relying on everyone else taking a higher road than they have, while sitting in a posture of victimization and judgement of those who they wronged.

[LA Ute]

Just to be clear, after years of forcing a religious worldview on homosexuals and preventing them from living according to their own consciences, those same religious voices are afraid the table could turn and gays could do the same and force the religious right to act against their conscience in alignment with the gay worldview? it seems like this irony completely escapes some people. The religious right is now relying on everyone else taking a higher road than they have, while sitting in a posture of victimization and judgement of those who they wronged.

I'll just disagree with your premise that it's now been determined that churches and faiths "wronged" gays. A number of faiths (LDS, Catholic, Adventists) have always taught that homosexual behavior is wrong/sinful/immoral. They've also taught that marriage is between opposite sexes, and will not perform same-sex marriages. Now the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution forbids states from preventing gay people from marrying one another. The court has no power to determine whether by teaching as they did (and still do) those faiths have "wronged" anyone. How could they, since the Constitutional right to gay marriage didn't exist until yesterday? So now that there is such a right, religious people worry that the force of law will be used to restrict their continued practice of those same beliefs they've always had. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. Now there are two Constitutional rights potentially in conflict: First Amendment freed of religion and due process/14th amendment liberty rights (both are mentioned in Kennedy's opinion) to marry. It's time to live and let live.

[USS Utah]

Just to be clear, after years of forcing a religious worldview on homosexuals and preventing them from living according to their own consciences, those same religious voices are afraid the table could turn and gays could do the same and force the religious right to act against their conscience in alignment with the gay worldview? it seems like this irony completely escapes some people. The religious right is now relying on everyone else taking a higher road than they have, while sitting in a posture of victimization and judgement of those who they wronged.

Posts like this appear to ignore the reality that there are people in the middle. I couldn't care less about what the religious right thinks, and I am sure that neither I nor LA are part of the religious right.

[U-Ute]

Posts like this appear to ignore the reality that there are people in the middle. I couldn't care less about what the religious right thinks, and I am sure that neither I nor LA are part of the religious right.

I never understood why anyone would want to stay with an organization that fundamentally loathes who they are.

[USS Utah]

I never understood why anyone would want to stay with an organization that fundamentally loathes who they are.

Which is why, as a Mormon, I am having trouble staying connected to the GOP.

[LA Ute]

Here is a shot of the Lincoln Memorial, viewed over the WWII Memorial. (I'm heretonight, running.) I must report that it is impossible to sustain a negative thought in this setting, even after two really bad SCOTUS decisions in the last three days. :D

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06/27/e8947380ccd38260d2a7cd8ef0889d7f.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Posts like this appear to ignore the reality that there are people in the middle. I couldn't care less about what the religious right thinks, and I am sure that neither I nor LA are part of the religious right.

The problem is that while all three of us were happily in the middle on the issue, our church was quietly exerting significant muscle and becoming one of the major players in the fight against marriage equality. Prop 8 never could have passed without the help, manpower (phone banks in the MTC and at byu-I), church members California going door to door, and church members donating money (estimates upwards of $30M from LDS fundraising). The church directly founded an anti-marriage equality organization in Hawaii, and later were instrumental in founding National Organization for Marriage (with Jeffrey Holland's son on the board of directors and a current 1Q Seventy Presidency member assisting - atyorney from Newport Beach, can't recall his name - L. Whitney Clayton* I think).

Our church dirtied our hands behind the scenes, and largely without our knowledge or consent. Because of this we are strongly attached to this fight, whether or not we realize it.

*in his favor is the fact that he is a Utah graduate, so he can't be all bad...:)

[jrj84105]

I'll just disagree with your premise that it's now been determined that churches and faiths "wronged" gays. A number of faiths (LDS, Catholic, Adventists) have always taught that homosexual behavior is wrong/sinful/immoral. They've also taught that marriage is between opposite sexes, and will not perform same-sex marriages. Now The court has no power to determine whether by teaching as they did (and still do) those faiths have "wronged" anyone. How could they, since the Constitutional right to gay marriage didn't exist until yesterday? .
I don't see how you can with any intellectual honesty say that people were not harmed by proposition 8. That wasn't passive acceptance of a default position as you're trying to make it sound. That was an active attempt to halt a progression, that if left alone, was leading to greater tolerance and rights for gays. Something good was happening for one group of people, and another group went out of it's way, with no demonstrable benefit to itself, to stop them (the gays) from benefiting from general cultural changes.

The Supreme Court ruled these actions unconstitutional. I think when one group tries to interfere in the pursuit of happiness of another group, in an unconstitutional manner, the appropriate response is to say "sorry", not to complain about how their right to do shifty things to others was infringed.

[concerned]

Not only did the Church's participation in Prop 8 and the Utah constitutional amendment greatly harmed gays, it harmed Church members who felt bullied into supporting Prop 8, for example. The Church's participation was heavy-handed as many of my friends and family members in California can attest.

[LA Ute]

Not only did the Church's participation in Prop 8 and the Utah constitutional amendment greatly harmed gays, it harmed Church members who felt bullied into supporting Prop 8, for example. The Church's participation was heavy-handed as many of my friends and family members in California can attest.


I don't see how you can with any intellectual honesty say that people were not harmed by proposition 8. That wasn't passive acceptance of a default position as you're trying to make it sound. That was an active attempt to halt a progression, that if left alone, was leading to greater tolerance and rights for gays. Something good was happening for one group of people, and another group went out of it's way, with no demonstrable benefit to itself, to stop them (the gays) from benefiting from general cultural changes.

The Supreme Court ruled these actions unconstitutional. I think when one group tries to interfere in the pursuit of happiness of another group, in an unconstitutional manner, the appropriate response is to say "sorry", not to complain about how their right to do shifty things to others was infringed.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. So let me give this another shot.

I was disagreeing with jrj's apparent premise, that the Supreme Court has now determined that the political and judicial battle over the constitutionality of bans on gay marriage "wronged" gays. Not so. The Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution forbids states from preventing gays from obtaining marriage licenses. Until Friday that question had not been decided. The system was working the issue through the political and judicial processes.

It's important to remember the history. In late May 2008 the California Supreme Court decided that a California statute passed by ballot initiative in 2000 (Prop 22), limiting marriage to one man and one woman, violated the California Constitution. I think California's was the second state supreme court to so hold, Massachusetts being the first. Both courts had to rely on their state constitutions to reach that result, because there was no clear federal Constitutional precedent. The issue had not been decided. In November 2008, Prop 8 was passed by a margin of 53-47. It amended the California Constitution by simply elevating the same statute that the state Supreme Court had overturned to the state constitution. There's a lot to that story. It was like all hard-fought initiative battles in California. Advocates on both sides did and said regrettable things, and there was lots of bruising on both sides. The question was open one and people went all-out. Yes, there's no way it would have passed without the backing of the LDS Church, but we were part of a coalition that included the Catholics, the Orthodox Jews, the Evangelcals, and a multitude of African-American churches. It was often an uncomfortable coalition (like all coalitions). Those others in it didn't sit idly by, but the LDS ability to organize was crucial.

So I don't think it's fair to say the church or others involved went out of their way to harm or wrong anyone. They were fighting for what they saw as a crucial principle and they were doing it through the lawful political process. It was a confusing and tumultuous time and it all unfolded in the space of three months: August, September and October 2008. There were wounded on both sides. At our home we had to arrange for around the clock security in response to death threats and intruders lurking around our property. I don't look back on any of it with fondness.

Seven years later, after ongoing ballot initiatives, legislation and multiple court decisions the Supreme Court has settled the Constitutional issue. They did so in a monumental 5-4 decision that will be fodder for legal scholars for the rest of history. So to say now that this is simply a matter of the tables turning and the former oppressors are now asking for mercy from their former victims seems to me a vast oversimplification of a long and complex political battle. The way I see it, the legal battle is over but the cultural battle continues. Both sides need to find a way to live and let live. People on the losing side of the legal battle justifiably have qualms about what the victors will do now, based on incidents like the Brendan Eich case and others.

My personal view is this: I still believe society's ideal should be that a solid marriage between a man and woman is best for children and for society. But I saw several years ago that public opinion was moving away from that ideal. (You must admit, that happened pretty quickly.) I hoped the political process would work through that issue, state by state. As some states approved gay marriage and others didn't, Congress would have to decide how to address the "full faith and credit" that the Constitution requires states to give contracts entered into in other states. Voters would have had their say, and gay marriage would have become a reality within a few years anyway, but people would have at least felt they had they say in the decision. I didn't want it to become the law via a sweeping Supreme Court decision a la Roe v. Wade.

But that's what happened. Now I hope we can figure out ways to live and let live, like Utah did with its anti-discrimination statute. I have a ton of gay friends and colleagues whom I love and who love me. We all need to move on. There will be lots of battles ahead still, because the Supreme Court resolved only one narrow Constitutional issue, leaving a lot yet to be decided. But with the legal battle over, there's no need to walk around the battlefield and bayonet the wounded. Instead we need to figure out how to make it all work. The messiness of democracy continues.

EDIT: Here's an entertaining take on the issue, from a well-know gay (fiscal) conservative:

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/06/244933-gay-conservatives-reaction-supreme-court-decision-legalizing-right-gay-marriage/

[#1 Utefan]

The problem is that while all three of us were happily in the middle on the issue, our church was quietly exerting significant muscle and becoming one of the major players in the fight against marriage equality. Prop 8 never could have passed without the help, manpower (phone banks in the MTC and at byu-I), church members California going door to door, and church members donating money (estimates upwards of $30M from LDS fundraising). The church directly founded an anti-marriage equality organization in Hawaii, and later were instrumental in founding National Organization for Marriage (with Jeffrey Holland's son on the board of directors and a current 1Q Seventy Presidency member assisting - atyorney from Newport Beach, can't recall his name - L. Whitney Clayton* I think).

Our church dirtied our hands behind the scenes, and largely without our knowledge or consent. Because of this we are strongly attached to this fight, whether or not we realize it.

*in his favor is the fact that he is a Utah graduate, so he can't be all bad...:)


Meh. Just because the Supreme Court cones down with a split and narrow 5-4 ruling on the issue doesn't mean everyone out there suddenly agrees with your interpretation and opinions on the subject. The LDS and other churches aren't going to suddenly do a 180 shift on the issue just because you and others agree with it and want to criticize everyone and anyone that doesn't share your viewpoints.

Get off your soapbox already.

[U-Ute]

Not only did the Church's participation in Prop 8 and the Utah constitutional amendment greatly harmed gays, it harmed Church members who felt bullied into supporting Prop 8, for example. The Church's participation was heavy-handed as many of my friends and family members in California can attest.

By this logic, you also need to give the church credit in their role in passing the anti-discrimination bill here in Utah. No way that passes without their consent.

[Ma'ake]

... A number of faiths (LDS, Catholic, Adventists) have always taught that homosexual behavior is wrong/sinful/immoral...

LA, your long rebuttal was impressive, and you did a great job of explaining how the earnest people who supported Prop 8 were doing so out of concern for society, etc. Very well said.

However, the statement above about faiths teaching that homosexual *behavior* is wrong understates some of the understandings taught before, IMO. I'm not drawing on canonized scripture, I'm spectacularly unprepared to debate the finer points of theology, but I remember that homosexuality itself was portrayed as a result of bad decisions on the part of the individual. Ie, "that you have these feelings now is a result of mistakes / sins you've made in the past".

I'm not asserting that you or anyone else needs to atone for past misunderstandings, that's absolutely not my place.

But I do think it is fair to recognize that a significant amount of the "vigor" of objection from the other side is from assertions / labeling from the not-so-distant past, similar to the anger from Mormons of African descent who struggle with reconciling previous understandings, the "less valiant" explanation, etc.

One thing I've learned from being married to my lovely wife is though I know far more than most others about the details of race, and racial problems, at the end of the discussion I still get in my car and drive, not thinking twice if I happen to see a police car. I've never been pulled over for "DWB" - driving while black.

Likewise, I don't know what it's like to be the person who trips "gay-dars" every where I go, and I don't know what it was like to take a stand on an extremely contentious moral / political issue, to the point of having my name and address be available to extremely passionate opponents, be victorious in the cause, only to see the entire issue (and my participation) boomerang.

You have my respect, LA, for your compassion, your faith, your ability to see things from different viewpoints... and especially for the pop you'll buy me at the Coliseum in a few months. :)

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA, thanks for the explanation. I agree this will be a contentious issue for decades to come.

That said, I have two bones of contention to pick with you.

1) I will see your Brendan Eich, and raise you countless victims of gay bashing, Harvey Milks, and Mathew Shepards and Stuart Matises and the seven (and counting) young gay Mormon men in Utah who have committed suicide since L. Tom Perry's "Counterfeit lifestyles" talk in the April 2015 Gen Con.

2) I can't believe you actually had the audacity to attempt to use the "I actually have some Black friends..." defense. :D

[NorthwestUteFan]

Meh. Just because the Supreme Court cones down with a split and narrow 5-4 ruling on the issue doesn't mean everyone out there suddenly agrees with your interpretation and opinions on the subject. The LDS and other churches aren't going to suddenly do a 180 shift on the issue just because you and others agree with it and want to criticize everyone and anyone that doesn't share your viewpoints.

Get off your soapbox already.

You are absolutely welcome to your own opinion. That is the beauty of this wonderful world in which we find ourselves. But we both have to accept the fact that our church did some underhanded things under the table and behind our backs, in our name and for our behalf, without even a hint of asking for Common Consent.

It is fascinating to me how both the LDS/SLC branch of the Mormon church and the Community of Christ (RLDS) arrived at diametrically opposed conclusions, despite having the identical foundational story and Scriptures, and shared early history. The CoC in D&C Section 164 affirmed the sanctity of any marriage between any two people without regard to sex or gender. They have a long history of fighting for equality for oppressed peoples (opposing polygamy way back in Nauvoo, fighting against slavery, giving Black men the priesthood, ordaining women to the priesthood, fighting for lgbt rights, fighting for world peace, sending service missionaries around the world to dig wells and build houses and fight diseases, etc.).

And I am forced to be on this soapbox and to fight for the rights of oppressed people because I have a beloved family member who is no longer drawing breath due to this very issue.

[LA Ute]

NWUF, thanks. I wasn't trying to compare casualties. Eich is just an example of retaliation that worries some people going forward. The (very real) suffering of others in the past doesn't make what happened to Eich right. And your throwing the "some of my best friends are black" nonsense at me just exemplifies how difficult it is to have an straightforward discussion about this issue. But I still love you, you warthog-faced buffoon.

Joking aside, I'm sorry for your loss. I hope this latest development will help prevent future tragedies like the one in your family. I think people are learning a lot about how to be kind, compassionate and accepting to gay people struggling to find acceptance. I know I have.

[Scorcho]

I made the mistake of bringing up Friday's same sex supreme court decision with my 13-14 year old Sunday school group today. We noodled it and talked about it, and they get both sides, but I feel like I'm the one that left the class feeling conflicted and bewildered.

This does seem like it is the issue for our time. I do believe this is a draw a line in the sand moment for the LDS Church.

[LA Ute]

1485

[USS Utah]

I posted yesterday that I have always believed that discrimination and persecution are wrong, no matter who the target is. I've experienced persecution and I have been bullied -- not because of my religion, but because I was the kid in my elementary school that it seemed everyone made fun of. It wasn't just at school, it was also at church and in the neighborhood -- heck, even in my own family. That tapered off is junior high, and almost completely disappeared in high school; yet it has had an enormous impact upon me. I figured out early on that because I didn't like being on the receiving end of crap, that it was incumbent upon me not to dish crap out to others. Not that it was ever in my nature to really do so; my friends tell me that I am a kind person and that I would never intentionally hurt anyone.

Whatever my political viewpoints, I have always viewed bashing, persecution and discrimination as wrong. Later on I took a college course on critical thinking, and learning about logical fallacies and rhetorical devices was eye opening, to say the least. I found that I now had logic and reason on my side when arguing that bashing is wrong. According to the rules of logic, arguments and positions are fair game, but people are not, and if I make an argument against a different argument, I am not guilty of bashing. Supporting a proposition and participating in the electoral process is not bashing.

Even so, I did not participate in the California electoral process regarding Prop 8, for the simple reason that I don't live in California. In my opinion, the political affairs of other states are none of my business, and I usually do not appreciate it when people from other states argue for what they think Utahns should do politically.

The passage of Prop 8 was a Pyrrhic victory. While in the short term it was a loss for proponents of same sex marriage, in the long term I believe it accelerated the process of same sex marriage being made legal in all 50 states. As I watched the reactions to the passage of Prop 8, I came to the conclusion that the opponents of gay marriage had already lost, they just didn't know it yet. It happened faster than I expected, but I nonetheless saw it as inevitable.

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA, I just put two and two together when I saw your post mentioning death threats, and now recognize why you were targeted. (Your secret is safe with me, Superman). I absolutely do not condone any kind of violence over political debates. That is the realm of modern jihadists and 19th-century anarchists. Threats have no place in healthy discourse.

However I am pleased that your efforts in some not-insignificant ways ultimately helped lead to the decision on Fri. :D

I still love you, ya lumpy old Hedgehog.

This is what happened in Heaven the past few days:

[Rocker Ute]

LA, thanks for the explanation. I agree this will be a contentious issue for decades to come.

That said, I have two bones of contention to pick with you.

1) I will see your Brendan Eich, and raise you countless victims of gay bashing, Harvey Milks, and Mathew Shepards and Stuart Matises and the seven (and counting) young gay Mormon men in Utah who have committed suicide since L. Tom Perry's "Counterfeit lifestyles" talk in the April 2015 Gen Con.

2) I can't believe you actually had the audacity to attempt to use the "I actually have some Black friends..." defense. :D

Who are these seven men who committed suicide because of Perry's talk? I haven't seen or heard anything about this.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I made the mistake of bringing up Friday's same sex supreme court decision with my 13-14 year old Sunday school group today. We noodled it and talked about it, and they get both sides, but I feel like I'm the one that left the class feeling conflicted and bewildered.

This does seem like it is the issue for our time. I do believe this is a draw a line in the sand moment for the LDS Church.

I agree it is enlightening and bewildering to speak with 13-14 yr old kids about this issue. They don't see the problem and seem confused that adults have such a divide on the issue of lgbt acceptance. They have much more of a live and let live outlook on life, and they are being raised with access to all of the knowledge of the world available at their fingertips.

They will have a significantly broader outlook on life than previous generations, and the world will change because of it. I think it will be fascinating to see what they do because of it.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Yesterday's SCOTUS action at church: Missed Sacrament meeting, so I can't report on any of that. Not a mention during Sunday school, since I was the one teaching those ambivalent 12 year olds. I was then supposed to teach the Teacher's but we got called in to join with the Priests. 3/4 of the class was going over snippets from the Mormon Newsroom response to the SCOTUS decision. When the Bishop asked for some response on their interactions at school, one of the Priests related a story about a time when a gay kid wanted to talk to him, and so this kid responded "hey man, I'm not going to hate on you or judge you or anything like that. You do you and I'll do me." I wanted to interject that the church actually doesn't support that either.

Next week's patriotic testimonials seem like they'll be a good set up, but I'll likely miss that Sacrament meeting as well.

[Two Utes]

You'll have to read Roberts' dissent, or maybe just excerpts from it. Legal scholars from all over the map will have plenty to say about this decision. For one thing, it uses the Due Process clause to find the right to gay marriage, not the Equal Protection clause, which almost everyone agrees provides a stronger basis for that right. Badly-reasoned Supreme Court decisions cause lots of "Pandora's box" problems. I think just like Roe v. Wade, this decision -- already being called one of the most significant in the last 100 years -- will be litigated over for decades.

Here are some Roberts excerpts. His beef arises from the majority's approach: start with a conclusion — X is a good idea, therefore X is constitutional; Y is a bad idea, therefore Y is unconstitutional — and then reason backwards.

On the proper role of the federal judiciary:


[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.



Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.



The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.


On the constitutional basis for a right to same-sex marriage:


Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.



The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.



The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”



Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.


On the natural and historic basis of the institution of marriage:


The premises supporting th[e] concept of [natural] marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.


On how the majority opinion basically requires legalization of polygamy/plural marriage:


Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.



When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.


On what our Founders would think about five unaccountable oligarchs in robes deciding what does and doesn’t constitute marriage:


Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.”






LA, it's just a damn shame that we can't just put this thing to a vote to protect these folks' rights. And do you know the ONLY reason this thing wouldn't win in several states? Religion. Because, according to many Christians, god doesn't approve of gay marriage.

I agree with the ruling, but the dissenters make some great points in their slippery slope analysis. It's a damn shame too many people care about what someone else is doing that really shouldn't matter to them. And, in my opinion, those same someones are going to run and hide a decade form now from their current opposition to gay marriage--just like you can't find a damn soul in this town who will openly tell you they strongly supported prop 8, even though they are all over the place.

[Two Utes]

Is religious belief not an acceptable reason to hold a particular political opinion?




It sure is. In fact, there are still some folks around who hold a religious belief that races shouldn't intermarry. And that religious belief is a damn shame, in my opinion.

[USS Utah]

Beware of the fallacy of composition. That there are are dumb religious beliefs does not mean that all religious beliefs are dumb.

[LA Ute]

Two Utes, I don't have much more to say except this.

First, for me and many, many others, this is a matter of conscience. We stood up for our belief in traditional marriage, as summarized here (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng):


The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

We always made a point of standing for those ideals, not against anyone or anything. Most of us thought we'd lose the Prop 8 election -- internal polling showed a 48%-48% tie the night before the vote. Part of me wishes we had lost. It didn't matter, in the long run; we were simply standing for what we believed. Like Americans.

Second, comparing the above position to opposition to interracial marriage is a smear and intellectually dishonest. I'll always resist it and I hope it never becomes the prevailing view. It if does, however, I'm willing to live with the consequences.

Third, we're going to do our level best to be charitable Christians no matter what. NWUF objects to me saying I have gay friends, but it is still important to me. One silver lining in the SCOTUS decision is that at least the tension over the legality issue has been resolved.

[Two Utes]

Two Utes, I don't have much more to say except this.

First, for me and many, many others, this is a matter of conscience. We stood up for our belief in traditional marriage, as summarized here (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng):



We always made a point of standing for those ideals, not against anyone or anything. Most of us thought we'd lose the Prop 8 election -- internal polling showed a 48%-48% tie the night before the vote. Part of me wishes we had lost. It didn't matter, in the long run; we were simply standing for what we believed. Like Americans.

Second, comparing the above position to opposition to interracial marriage is a smear and intellectually dishonest. I'll always resist it and I hope it never becomes the prevailing view. It if does, however, I'm willing to live with the consequences.

Third, we're going to do our level best to be charitable Christians no matter what. NWUF objects to me saying I have gay friends, but it is still important to me. One silver lining in the SCOTUS decision is that at least the tension over the legality issue has been resolved.

You're a great guy, but it's not a smear. It's very, very similar, unfortunately.

As to what you believe, that has changed dramatically. You need to go back and read what John Taylor, Parley Pratt, Brigham Young and others said about marriage between just a man and a woman.

Worse, gay marriage isn't stopping you in any way, shape or form from your belief that your type of marriage is "ordained of God." So why are you so concerned about other marriages?

[jrj84105]

I'm guessing some people make the distinction between interracial marriage and same sex marriage based on homosexuality being perceived as a choice and race being biological, when others see both race and sexual orientation as social constructs with a strong biological basis. I think the latter is much more widely believed by younger people who have much more plastic views concerning racial identification as well sexual orientation.

I wonder how much of this issue goes back to some people initially taking a side against gay marriage back in the 70's when the first cases seemed to be cropping up. At the time, it would have seemed outlandish I'm sure to support gay marriage. I imagine that the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s may have reinforced for many people their view of the terrible social consequences of openly practiced homosexuality. It sort of makes sense to me that people who formed their opinions of the wider social ramifications of homosexuality in this time period may have a very different outlook than people who formed their opinions more recently.

I think the irrational escalation bias may have played a big role for many opposed to same sex marriage. Retrospectively, it's hard to look at the issue and not see it as a personal attack on a small minority population. Through the prism of a not so distant AIDS epidemic, however, it might actually have looked more like a battle for the social good of the nation as opponents have tried, unsuccessfully, to frame it.

[LA Ute]

You're a great guy, but it's not a smear. It's very, very similar, unfortunately.

That pretty much the central issue, from a legal standpoint. We're never going to agree on it. Interracial marriages are between a man and a woman. Children resulting from such unions will have a mother and a father. Not so with a same-sex union. You can try to square that circle all you want but that is a true distinction.


As to what you believe, that has changed dramatically.

I think the definition of "you" here is problematic.


You need to go back and read what John Taylor, Parley Pratt, Brigham Young and others said about marriage between just a man and a woman.

OK, the polygamy card gets played. Those were still opposite-sex marriages.


Worse, gay marriage isn't stopping you in any way, shape or form from your belief that your type of marriage is "ordained of God." So why are you so concerned about other marriages?

This horse has been slaughtered and then beaten to a bloody pulp. You have to read this part of what I quoted too: "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." It's a clearly stated belief and quite rational, although reasonable people certainly disagree.

Look, there are two sides to this issue and there is a wide gulf between them. Now that the constitutional issue has been decided we need to figure out how to live and let live. Endlessly arguing about an issue that's been decided seems pointless to me.

[LA Ute]

Maybe. That is a biological perspective, I guess. You could also take a historical perspective. Cultural. For some on this board, there is also a religious perspective. In Mormon doctrine, same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are a million miles apart.

I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or is that true only for those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scratch]

I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or only those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's become a huge talking point that there is no possible legitimate, non-religious (and non-bigoted) negative impact from SSM. When I first heard that argument I rolled my eyes and assumed it wouldn't gain much real traction, so I've been shocked as it has essentially been adopted as inalienable truth. I initially thought that the debate would center on the significant "pros" for allowing SSM and how those anticipated pros measure up against the anticipated harms, but advocates of SSM managed to create common belief that there is no possible real-world downside, just embittered, mindless, hateful bigots who have no basis in their position other than homophobia.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Divorce also deprives a child of having the constant presence of a mother and father in their lives.

The bible also condemns divorce in the same vein as homosexuality, and in the event a divorce occurs, the woman(but not the man?) is to be stoned until dead. I wonder why the religious right doesn't pursue legislation to outlaw divorce?

I find the selective application of the Bible, when it comes to what is now condemned as sin in the sight of God and what is not, a fascinating observation.

[Scratch]

It's not just about what the bible says is wrong or a sin. The bible says adultery is a sin (and most Christians still believe that), but that doesn't mean we believe adultery should be illegal. I think it's safe to say most Christians (and probably a higher percentage of mormons) believe that just because they believe something violates god's laws that it should be legislated. I can't believe that you would have a difficult time understanding that just because someone believes that one thing that is condemned by the bible should be illegal, that doesn't mean they should believe all such things should be illegal.

There are numerous reasons why someone could believe something should be illegal. I don't think that whether someone believes something is a sin should have any bearing on whether it should be legislated.

[Rocker Ute]

Divorce also deprives a child of having the constant presence of a mother and father in their lives.

The bible also condemns divorce in the same vein as homosexuality, and in the event a divorce occurs, the woman(but not the man?) is to be stoned until dead. I wonder why the religious right doesn't pursue legislation to outlaw divorce?

I find the selective application of the Bible, when it comes to what is now condemned as sin in the sight of God and what is not, a fascinating observation.

Is anyone claiming that divorce is good for children?

[jrj84105]

I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or is that true only for those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.
Of course it's based on principle if you're referring to principle as a guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct or something similar. Most everything people do are in accordance with their own principles. Whether those actions result in charity, altruism, bigotry, and racism depends on what those principles are.

Is the default position to allow each person to live according to his own principles? If not, what is the default position? If two group's principles are at odds, how is that resolved? How does one determine who yields their principles? is it based on some sort of empiral evidence, or does the more powerful or larger group win? Does the status quo get the nod? Or does one set of principles win because they come from a deity or an established tradition? What's the test?

As for part two, I don't think the world is full of great philosophers. Our worldviews are largely the products of our cultural tradition and of the time we live. We have some select personal experiences that make us change from the default or put more emphasis on some parts of our cultural heritage than others, but there are few revolutionary thinkers out there.

[LA Ute]

Of course it's based on principle if you're referring to principle as a guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct or something similar. Most everything people do are in accordance with their own principles. Whether those actions result in charity, altruism, bigotry, and racism depends on what those principles are.

Is the default position to allow each person to live according to his own principles? If not, what is the default position? If two group's principles are at odds, how is that resolved? How does one determine who yields their principles? is it based on some sort of empiral evidence, or does the more powerful or larger group win? Does the status quo get the nod? Or does one set of principles win because they come from a deity or an established tradition? What's the test?

As for part two, I don't think the world is full of great philosophers. Our worldviews are largely the products of our cultural tradition and of the time we live. We have some select personal experiences that make us change from the default or put more emphasis on some parts of our cultural heritage than others, but there are few revolutionary thinkers out there.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If someone believes that the only real basis for disapproval of gay marriage is irrational hatred, there's no chance for a constructive exchange of views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Good two-sided discussion here:

http://www.hughhewitt.com/buzzfeeds-ben-smith-on-a-media-organization-declaring-its-political-opinions/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[jrj84105]

We'll have to agree to disagree. If someone believes that the only real basis for disapproval of gay marriage is irrational hatred, there's no chance for a constructive exchange of views.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who said that?

Most people attribute the anti gay marriage position to religious tradition AND a perceived mandate by people in certain religious traditions to generalize those religious principles to the larger society. I think the anti-gay marriage lobby realized that the second part wasn't going to fly so came up with a bunch of alternate reasons and hoped one would stick. That made for a confusing message and uncertainty as to motivations. People filled in the gaps and some ASCRIBED the motivation to irrational hatred.

I don't think that hatred was the motivation at all. I think it was a religious conviction coupled with a perceived religious mandate to generalize those beliefs to the larger society. The last part was the problematic part, and is just as problematic for any gay lobby attempt to force churches into performing gay marriage. The problem the anti gay marriage crowd faces is that the rationale for the position was so poorly expressed that it left room for speculation, and where uncertainty exists there is a tendency to find ill will. That puts public opinion largely against the churches.

i still think that the best way to stop retaliation is to apologize- not for the religious conviction that gay marriage is immoral but for the attempt to generalize that conviction to those who didn't share the beliefs. It's conciliatory and at the same time would frame any attempt by gay organizations to force their agenda on churches as a similar overextension of their principles on unwilling people.

[Scorcho]

you often hear that Sunday Play and ByuTV are 2 major obstacles that prevent BYU from major conference expansion consideration. But what about the LDS Church's stance on same sex marriage? Maybe I'm crazy but that seems like a major gap in philosophies between BYU and 95% of American college students.

[Scratch]

Who said that?

Most people attribute the anti gay marriage position to religious tradition AND a perceived mandate by people in certain religious traditions to generalize those religious principles to the larger society. I think the anti-gay marriage lobby realized that the second part wasn't going to fly so came up with a bunch of alternate reasons and hoped one would stick. That made for a confusing message and uncertainty as to motivations. People filled in the gaps and some ASCRIBED the motivation to irrational hatred.



If they believed this they weren't really listening, and this is more of an after-the-fact recitation attempting to legitimize the movement's incredibly effective recharaterization of the debate over the past few years. There were certainly people who were along for the ride due to religious belief and certainly some bigotry driving some, but it's insincere or misinformed to attribute that to anything more than a minority.



I don't think that hatred was the motivation at all. I think it was a religious conviction coupled with a perceived religious mandate to generalize those beliefs to the larger society. The last part was the problematic part, and is just as problematic for any gay lobby attempt to force churches into performing gay marriage. The problem the anti gay marriage crowd faces is that the rationale for the position was so poorly expressed that it left room for speculation, and where uncertainty exists there is a tendency to find ill will. That puts public opinion largely against the churches.



More recharacterization masquerading as understanding. For me and for others, religious belief had nothing to do with it. I believe that the vast majority of "sins" (using my personal religious beliefs) should not be legislated. This includes many things that have been hot political issues. This is the same here; I thought long and hard about my personal political position on gay marriage long before the LDS church ever got involved. Ultimately I decided, from a policy standpoint, that while full civil rights should be extended, from a purely policy perspective the negatives of SSM outweighed the positives. Most of my acquaintances who opposed SSM reached similar conclusions; maybe I'm hanging around a more sophisticated crowd, but it was not "a religious conviction coupled with a perceived religious mandate." I am viscerally opposed to imposing my religious beliefs on the rest of society; religion is not a basis for legislation but obviously religious principles align with good legislative policy on a regular basis.



i still think that the best way to stop retaliation is to apologize- not for the religious conviction that gay marriage is immoral but for the attempt to generalize that conviction to those who didn't share the beliefs. It's conciliatory and at the same time would frame any attempt by gay organizations to force their agenda on churches as a similar overextension of their principles on unwilling people.

Again, you're ascribing a position to many people that just didn't exist, and also implying that if people don't apologize for a position that they never held then they are just doubling down on non-existent bigotry. It's very smooth and emblematic of how well the movement has set the tone and (mis)defined public perception in a way that guaranteed the demonization of the opposition.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Two Utes, I don't have much more to say except this.

First, for me and many, many others, this is a matter of conscience. We stood up for our belief in traditional marriage,

Dont you assume that your side is the only one acting out of moral conscience.

I am convinced to the core with an immovable conviction that the greater morality is on the side of allowing the equal partners in a marriage to define what that marriage means to them, and through sad experience know that supporting a person's own choice in type of relationship they choose to enter will decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the long run. Far too many people attempt to force themselves to fit a particular cultural or religious paradigm by marrying the 'culturally-allowed' sex/gender of person they are told to, only to have significant problems when it all blows up years down the road (typically involving more people, especially children and a spouse no longer in his/her 'prime').


Whereas if he or she was able to enter a relationship with a more compatible person up front, he or she would cut out a significant and bumpy section of the roller coaster.


Third, we're going to do our level best to be charitable Christians no matter what.

I believe Jesus would support any measure that will increase the amount of happiness, love, and committment in the world.



NWUF objects to me saying I have gay friends, but it is still important to me. One silver lining in the SCOTUS decision is that at least the tension over the legality issue has been resolved.

You misunderstood my statement, particularly the smilie. I know you have close gay friends. I did not object to that the slightest. Diversity of friends is one of lifes true pleasures.
I was mocking your use of the classic and internally inconsistent qualifying statement often used by politicians in the media, "I am going to do or say something that will be offensive and harmful to <insert group here>, but I am not <a noun meaning filled with irrational scorn for said group>, because I have a lot of <insert group here> friends".

[Scratch]

Dont you assume that your side is the only one acting out of moral conscience.


I know that LA understands that the other side is acting out of moral conscience. I'm the same way; I understand that it's moral conscience driving the SSM movement. Indeed, I agree that it involves a very real and very significant moral consideration. I just believe that moral conscience is trumped by the (non-religious) legitimate considerations on the other side. The problem I have (and that many others have) is the pervasive belief from the SSM crowd that only one side of the debate has a moral conscience.

[USS Utah]

I'm guessing some people make the distinction between interracial marriage and same sex marriage based on homosexuality being perceived as a choice and race being biological, when others see both race and sexual orientation as social constructs with a strong biological basis. I think the latter is much more widely believed by younger people who have much more plastic views concerning racial identification as well sexual orientation.

"Race" is based on external physical features that do not explain or account for a person's behavior or lifestyle.

Same sex attraction is not external, and it clearly accounts, at least partly, for a person's behavior and/or lifestyle.

See this old post on another thread:

http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?796-What-is-Racism&p=15035&viewfull=1#post15035

[scottie]

Two Utes, I don't have much more to say except this.

First, for me and many, many others, this is a matter of conscience. We stood up for our belief in traditional marriage, as summarized here (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng):


The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

We always made a point of standing for those ideals, not against anyone or anything. Most of us thought we'd lose the Prop 8 election -- internal polling showed a 48%-48% tie the night before the vote. Part of me wishes we had lost. It didn't matter, in the long run; we were simply standing for what we believed. Like Americans.


Worse, gay marriage isn't stopping you in any way, shape or form from your belief that your type of marriage is "ordained of God." So why are you so concerned about other marriages?


That pretty much the central issue, from a legal standpoint. We're never going to agree on it. Interracial marriages are between a man and a woman. Children resulting from such unions will have a mother and a father. Not so with a same-sex union. You can try to square that circle all you want but that is a true distinction.

...

This horse has been slaughtered and then beaten to a bloody pulp. You have to read this part of what I quoted too: "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." It's a clearly stated belief and quite rational, although reasonable people certainly disagree.

Look, there are two sides to this issue and there is a wide gulf between them. Now that the constitutional issue has been decided we need to figure out how to live and let live. Endlessly arguing about an issue that's been decided seems pointless to me.


I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle.

LA, my friend, I think I understand you now, and maybe you've been saying the above all along--for what, 5+ years on CUF and here?--but for whatever reason I don't think I ever got it from your posts. Your principle is that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother..." and not necessarily the, "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan," part of what you quoted. If I'm correct, then just leave out the 'God and His eternal plan' stuff in these debates. I support SSM, but if I'm honest, I do struggle with parenting/adoption rights for gay couples (by the way, am I correctly presuming that gay married couples have adoption rights equal to hetero married couples?). I think kids are probably biologically designed to have the best chance to thrive in a family with male-female parents, with masculine and feminine nurturing. Gay marriage is all about the rights of the people who wish to marry; parenting is different though, because the rights of another individual--who, at the time of adoption, is usually not mature enough to have a real opinion on the matter--are at stake. With parenting, the rights of the child should be the foremost consideration.

Also, why does part of you wish you'd lost on Prop 8?

[Mormon Red Death]

GOP may regret its battle against gay marriage. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gop-may-regret-its-lasting-battle-against-gay-marriage/)

A look at public opinion on same-sex marriage and what drives party affiliation suggests that Cruz, Walker and the other candidates on the right may be risking the party’s appeal in the general election. The Republican Party’s opposition to same-sex marriage is one of the top positions that may have kept voters from identifying with and potentially voting for the GOP.
Polling generally suggests that same-sex marriage is not a top issue for most voters. A February CNN/ORC survey (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/02/19/rel2d.2016%5B2%5D.pdf) found that just 17 percent of Americans said the issue of gay marriage would be “extremely important” in choosing a candidate to support for president — the lowest of any of nine issues tested.
But digging deeper provides a different perspective. Beyond the importance voters place upon it directly, gay marriage may have symbolic power because of the messages it sends to voters about the parties.

[Two Utes]

I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or is that true only for those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll let Brother Jake do the talking for me.

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

[U-Ute]

you often hear that Sunday Play and ByuTV are 2 major obstacles that prevent BYU from major conference expansion consideration. But what about the LDS Church's stance on same sex marriage? Maybe I'm crazy but that seems like a major gap in philosophies between BYU and 95% of American college students.

Given the prevalence of southern influence in the B12, I doubt that will be an issue.

[LA Ute]

LA, my friend, I think I understand you now, and maybe you've been saying the above all along--for what, 5+ years on CUF and here?--but for whatever reason I don't think I ever got it from your posts. Your principle is that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother..." and not necessarily the, "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan," part of what you quoted. If I'm correct, then just leave out the 'God and His eternal plan' stuff in these debates. I support SSM, but if I'm honest, I do struggle with parenting/adoption rights for gay couples (by the way, am I correctly presuming that gay married couples have adoption rights equal to hetero married couples?). I think kids are probably biologically designed to have the best chance to thrive in a family with male-female parents, with masculine and feminine nurturing. Gay marriage is all about the rights of the people who wish to marry; parenting is different though, because the rights of another individual--who, at the time of adoption, is usually not mature enough to have a real opinion on the matter--are at stake. With parenting, the rights of the child should be the foremost consideration.

Also, why does part of you wish you'd lost on Prop 8?

It's that part -- that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother" that is the core principle for me. It is an ideal, and yes, we as a society fall short of it all the time. But it's still an ideal worth supporting. Kids are not pets, and having and rearing kids is not about adult desires or fun. It's about what is best for the kids.

That's my opinion. I'm voting for it. I also think lotteries are a ripoff for the poor and I vote against those. That's not me imposing my morals on someone, it's me voting my conscience.

Anyway, it's pointless to debate the merits or demerits of gay marriage now. It's the law of the land. The important thing now is to move on and figure out how to live and let live. If we next see an effort to equate exercising religious tenets that oppose same-sex relationships, on the one hand, with forbidding interracial dating, on the other (see Bob Jones University), and then taking governmental action against practitioners of those beliefs (like removing tax-exempt status, a la Bob Jones), there will be a huge cultural and legal war over that effort. I hope common sense prevails so that we don't see that happen. The Utah anti-discrimination statute seems like a model in that regard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or is that true only for those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.

I believe that it is because the general perception is that this principle is fundamentally driven by religious beliefs. While that may not be the case for you, for the majority of people, or at least the very vocal minority, who did not support SSM this appears to be the case. I have yet to see a credible basis for this strongly held principle that isn't founded primarily in theological terms. The best I have seen (paraphrasing) "children need a whole family with influence from both sides", but that leads to all sorts of legal entanglements with regards to divorce, rape that lead to pregnancies, and births out of wedlock.

For the most part, same sex couples who want to be married are doing so because of all of the legal ramifications that come from it. Things like tax benefits, hospital visitation, medical benefits, property rights transfers upon death, etc. Those seem like perfectly reasonable reasons that should not be denied just because someone feels a bit icky about the whole situation.

[jrj84105]

Again, you're ascribing a position to many people that just didn't exist, and also implying that if people don't apologize for a position that they never held then they are just doubling down on non-existent bigotry. It's very smooth and emblematic of how well the movement has set the tone and (mis)defined public perception in a way that guaranteed the demonization of the opposition.
My response was to LA who from all I can gather in this thread does stake his position based purely on principle(s), and those personal principles are highly informed by religious doctrine. If that's not the case for LA, then there have been about 20 posts that have failed to convey exactly what the rationale was, which is a central theme to the entire anti-gay marriage platform.

I think the vast majority of people on both sides feel the same way that you do and are viscerally opposed to imposing their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on the rest of society. I think this is especially true of younger people who seem to hold this as a deeply ingrained value. There is a lot of fear among religious people that the gay lobby will now force their belief structure, including gay marriage, on churches. I think people would generally be opposed to this for the same reasons they were opposed to religious groups pushing their agenda on gays. It violates the live and let live principle. The only caveat is that I think religious opponents of gay marriage have built up a lot of ill will through the process and haven't exactly garnered a lot of sympathy for people to rally behind them in the aftermath of the decision. I think that's why some apologies and some humility would be strategically important. If they want to continue to adopt the victim role, act persecuted, and refuse to acknowledge any hurt caused by their actions, then god help them because that rhetoric is putting them in a very treacherous position politically.

As for your position, it sounds like you're talking about a decision for the general good of society? I ask with a "?" because the non-religious opposition never really came out with a unified, concise argument and I still am uncertain what your objections are/were from your post.

To me, these "greater good" arguments resemble the stadium expansion pro/con arguments. A lot of people against stadium expansion say that 10k additional seats don't cover the $50M price tag. That's entirely true, and I think it's also true that traditional families with a father and mother are the best way to raise children and are the bedrock of our society.

Proponents of stadium expansion argue that the SEZ has to come down regardless and rebuilding the SEZ alone will cost $30-40M so the true cost of expansion is only $10-20M. Likewise, people who are gay are gay, and regardless of the legal status of marriage, they will partner and have children. So the social cost of homosexuality, in this paradigm, is largely engendered by people being gay and having children which is largely independent of gay people's access to marriage.

Additionally, virtually none of our other building projects pay for themselves, so the fact that expansion at least partially covers the $10-20M price tag is a positive. Again with gay marriage, does encouraging those same gay people who are already partnering and raising children to do it under the protections and stabilizing force of the marriage contract at least partially cover the social cost of non-traditional parents raising children? I think there's a good case to be made that it would, but clearly little data.

I guess the final parallel, is that if we expand the stadium and interest drops, would it cause the price point to drop across all our currently existing seats thereby devaluing what we already have? That would depend on the current rate of filled seats and the number of seats added. At 100% stadium capacity currently and ticket price inflation due to imposed scarcity, I think this is a real possibility if we over expand the stadium. Extending the analogy, if we had 100% of kids currently raised in male-female two parent households, and gays were exclusively avoiding their impulses and also raising children in male/female two parent households, then expanding marriage to gays would be a bad idea from a "greater good" perspective.

In the reality, our traditional marriage "occupancy" so to speak is 65% with 35% of kids currently raised in single parent households. Because gays represent 2-5% of the population, if we encourage more gays to have kids by allowing marriage, we're still looking at similar impact as what would happen if we expanded our stadium by 1-2k non-paying student seats when we're only selling 65% of tickets. It's doesn't produce any revenue, but it's probably no worse than empty seats, and there's a chance some of those students (gay married couples) may turn out to be future season ticket holders (good parents).

Anyway, that's about as far as I can take that analogy.

By the same extension, I don't see how mandating churches to perform gay marriages serves the greater good in any way, while it definitely violates our shared aversion to forceful extension of one's belief structure on others. A lot of people may feel the same, but some people who share that opinion may lack the conviction necessary to go to bat on for the churches, largely due ill will generated by the rhetoric coming from church spokespeople.

[Rocker Ute]

I'll probably get drilled for this too, but if religious ideals are driving some of the support, we also need to acknowledge - right or wrong - that there are biological reasons driving people's opinion on that matter. Specifically it is hard for some people to understand that attraction as it goes against their very nature, just like it is hard for some people to understand depression and other mental illness. I'm not equating homosexuality with mental illness, I am just saying for many people it just simply doesn't compute because nothing in their nature can't relate. Keep in mind that it is a fairly recently understanding that homosexuality is biological, and all previous understanding to that point was it was a mental disease at best and an evil perversion at worst. These were beliefs held by western civilization for a very very long time.

Of course that isn't grounds to discriminate, but if you are upset about people aged 35-55 opinion about homosexuality, go talk to a person 70+, 90% of them absolutely don't get it, just like our kids won't get our positions 10-15 years from now. After the Elder Perry 'counterfeit lifestyle' comment, I joked with a friend that I was pretty certain that was the nicest term any person over 90 had ever used about homosexuality.

Because of the extreme minority of the population that is LGBT many people will be entrenched in their beliefs for years to come. The ONLY effective means I've seen to help people understand the issues is to have a actual relationship with someone who is LGBT. Proof of this is that real progress was only made with the LGBT and LDS communities when they sat down together and began talking.

[Rocker Ute]

I think the vast majority of people on both sides feel the same way that you do and are viscerally opposed to imposing their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on the rest of society. I think this is especially true of younger people who seem to hold this as a deeply ingrained value. There is a lot of fear among religious people that the gay lobby will now force their belief structure, including gay marriage, on churches. I think people would generally be opposed to this for the same reasons they were opposed to religious groups pushing their agenda on gays. It violates the live and let live principle. The only caveat is that I think religious opponents of gay marriage have built up a lot of ill will through the process and haven't exactly garnered a lot of sympathy for people to rally behind them in the aftermath of the decision. I think that's why some apologies and some humility would be strategically important. If they want to continue to adopt the victim role, act persecuted, and refuse to acknowledge any hurt caused by their actions, then god help them because that rhetoric is putting them in a very treacherous position politically.


The problem is, the rhetoric is there. If you oppose gay marriage overtly, covertly or even just simply privately disagree with it you are now part of a 'hate group' or a 'bigot'. Maybe it is because I've seen actual hate groups in action, but to me those are very very strong words and I can confidently say someone like LA Ute doesn't even approach that and I don't think most people do. The problem with this is using the terminology doesn't help dialogue necessary to change people's point of view.

I think the big challenge for people today is the speed and availability of information is a great thing, but we haven't matured enough to understand the context of most anything, and this is true for just about everything. I've joked that this generation's primary export is outrage... it comes so cheap and easy.

Shortly before my Grandpa died he was at our place for Christmas he was about 90yo. We were passing around a plate of cookies and he picked up a ginger bread man shaped cookie that someone has frosted with brown frosting. He looked at it and said, "Oh look! A n------ cookie." The whole table gasped and he realized what he said, so he looked at the cookie and said, "I forgot you don't like to be called that... I'm sorry cookie." Fortunately he was among people who knew and understood him. Was he a racist, hate-filled bigot? No, his history was quite the opposite. (I won't go into the details but will just say he spent a lot of time and his reputation standing up for a black family in a small Utah town - no small feat.) However, he was a 90yo man with some cultural issues and offensive terminology that were ingrained in him. And for those of you who might be related to an old racist person - as many grandparents were/are, I'll bet you've found some redeeming qualities in sweet old Grandmama too, just don't get her talking about certain subjects.

There would be no tolerance whatsoever for what my Grandpa said today in the public. A great-grandson would tweet the interaction and 3 hours later he'd be kicked out of his retirement community.

So for me, the live and let live is going to have to come from both sides. Calling someone a bigot seems to only steel their resolve.

[Diehard Ute]

If it's not about religion someone should tell the very vocal leaders of (mostly) Southern states to stop invoking God and religion in their statements condemning the ruling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

It's that part -- that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother" that is the core principle for me. It is an ideal, and yes, we as a society fall short of it all the time. But it's still an ideal worth supporting. Kids are not pets, and having and rearing kids is not about adult desires or fun. It's about what is best for the kids......

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While its still rather young, I think the research is initially concluding that as long as the child is raised in a healthy, loving home, there's no difference in a child's psychological well being between a traditional home and a same sex married home. No?

[Mormon Red Death]

Personally, I have felt what it is to hate. It's an awful feeling. I feel comfortable in saying I don't have anything close to that feeling for anyone due to sexual orientation or political position. So, yeah, it bugs me to be called hateful. But I guess that's the point, right? It was never meant to be honest. It was meant to be effective.



Depends on the person. Some people double down. Some withdraw. Some change their position.

Did you join the KKK when you were in NOLA or something?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1z5PejkIyY

[Scratch]

So Rocker, what you're telling me is some of your grandfather's best friends were black?

[scottie]

It's that part -- that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother" that is the core principle for me. It is an ideal, and yes, we as a society fall short of it all the time. But it's still an ideal worth supporting. Kids are not pets, and having and rearing kids is not about adult desires or fun. It's about what is best for the kids.

If what jrj says here is correct, then that wasn't the correct principle to base your SSM disapproval on:


Proponents of stadium expansion argue that the SEZ has to come down regardless and rebuilding the SEZ alone will cost $30-40M so the true cost of expansion is only $10-20M. Likewise, people who are gay are gay, and regardless of the legal status of marriage, they will partner and have children. So the social cost of homosexuality, in this paradigm, is largely engendered by people being gay and having children which is largely independent of gay people's access to marriage.

Anyway...

I follow Dan Rather on Facebook, and he posted this (https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10155736264950716) yesterday about his personal journey, thought it was pretty good:


I have often said that I never thought back when I was covering the brutal battles of the Civil Rights Movement that I would live to see an African-American president. But at least in the shank of the evening over an adult beverage or two that was something we would speculate about. What no one ever thought to even discuss was whether we would have legalized gay marriage anywhere, let alone now in all 50 states.

It might be difficult for some of my younger readers to realize, but for most of my life what we now refer to as the LGBT community was never discussed in "polite" company. And all of the horrible epithets for gays were bandied about without a second thought. Today President Obama mentions LGBT in a speech and no one takes notice. The White House is bathed in a rainbow light and it becomes an internet meme. It's a far cry from what Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie was quoted as saying when he ran for president in 1972. "Goddamn it, if I have to be nice to a bunch of sodomites to be elected President, then f--k it." That was certainly the prevailing political calculation at the time.


I was raised in a religious household in Texas and I understand the deeply-held religious beliefs that many people who are concerned with the Supreme Court ruling have. (I distinguish this from the cynical political motives driving some public officials and media personalities to decry marriage equality). I do believe that people of good faith can disagree on this. But at the same time, I am heartened that so many of my fellow Americans are changing their minds. It's a journey I myself have followed.


When I was young, I wasn't very enlightened on gay issues. I probably, if asked at the time, wouldn't have been very tolerant by today's standards. But two important things happened. One is that I had some very close friends come out to me. This was decades ago and it reoriented me, an experience I imagine is similar for so many people. It's easy to see gays as "others" until one is a close family member, colleague or friend.


The other thing that happened is I saw my mission as a journalist to give voice to the powerless. And for most of my career the LGBT community was the voiceless and powerless. There is more to be done but I am happy today that LGBT voices are now a much fuller part of our national discourse. We are a better nation because of it.

[Rocker Ute]

So Rocker, what you're telling me is some of your grandfather's best friends were black?

Well at least one cookie.

[jrj84105]

I think at one point the terms "harm/harmful" was used by myself and others on the pro gay marriage side and in the subsequent anti-gay marriage responses it was immediately paraphrased to "hate/hateful". Scratch talked about false narratives, but one false narrative is this narrative of persecution, and I think some people are so primed to feel persecuted that they are hearing these words "hate" and "bigot" when those words aren't there. Certainly there are people who believe the anti-gay marriage stance is/was hateful and bigoted, but there seems to be a really strange perception that everyone ascribes these negative qualities to gay marriage opponents when that's not the case. Gay marriage opponents don't, by and large, hate gay people. Gay marriage proponents don't, by and large, hate religious people. Both sides think the other side are acting like dicks, and, by and large, both are right. If both sides continue to act like dicks then we'll wind up with churches forced to marry gays and tax exempt status revoked for institutions at the periphery of religious exercise. At least one side has to quit acting like dicks to keep that from happening. The churches are the ones with something to lose, so they stand to gain more by reducing the level of dickishness.

[jrj84105]

Well at least one cookie.
My grandma (dad's MIL) used to affectionately call my dad, my brother and I "the darkies", which was presumably due to our partial "Native American" ancestry. I did the genetic testing and found out that I'm not part NA but actually of the African and Jewish persuasion. I'm not sure if I should be more fake offended as a partial Jew, partial African, pretend Native American, or medium complected white person.

[Scratch]

jrj, to respond to your post generally, I support equal legal rights (that is, comprehensive civil unions). I believe there could be some negative social impact from doing so, but also believe that any such possible impact would be vastly outweighed by the benefits from such legal equality.

Your position apparently is that encouraging a few more gay couples to raise children is pretty de minimis. I agree, and that's why I'm fine with civil unions. My biggest concern is the message that is sent by further redefining families. It seems pretty inevitable to me that further expanding and modifying our cultural understanding of marriage and family just weakens the perception non-traditional families (in other words, any family without a mother and a father) are a significant departure from our social ideal. Obviously SSM is just a small part of the chipping away of this ideal, but I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not as terribly concerned with the 1% (or whatever the figure is) of kids being raised in a same sex relationship as I am with the impact SSM will have on the 65% and 35% figures you tossed out. I don't think there is anything doing more damage to our society than the growth of that 35% figure and everything that goes along with it (that's obviously not an attack on any individuals raising kids or who were raised in that 35%), but it's pretty clear to me that there's nothing that would benefit society more than raising that 65% number with stable, healthy relationships.

[jrj84105]

jrj, to respond to your post generally, I support equal legal rights (that is, comprehensive civil unions). I believe there could be some negative social impact from doing so, but also believe that any such possible impact would be vastly outweighed by the benefits from such legal equality.

Your position apparently is that encouraging a few more gay couples to raise children is pretty de minimis. I agree, and that's why I'm fine with civil unions. My biggest concern is the message that is sent by further redefining families. It seems pretty inevitable to me that further expanding and modifying our cultural understanding of marriage and family just weakens the perception non-traditional families (in other words, any family without a mother and a father) are a significant departure from our social ideal. Obviously SSM is just a small part of the chipping away of this ideal, but I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not as terribly concerned with the 1% (or whatever the figure is) of kids being raised in a same sex relationship as I am with the impact SSM will have on the 65% and 35% figures you tossed out. I don't think there is anything doing more damage to our society than the growth of that 35% figure and everything that goes along with it (that's obviously not an attack on any individuals raising kids or who were raised in that 35%), but it's pretty clear to me that there's nothing that would benefit society more than raising that 65% number with stable, healthy relationships.

Yes. I really hope we can wrap up the current distraction of gay marriage (not to minimize the profound importance to the 2-5%, but to realistically acknowledge that it has little impact on the other 95%) and get to the heart of this issue, which is IMO a much thornier problem. I think social conservatives see the root of the issue as erosion of a value system that places a premium on the sanctity of marriage (I think where you stand) while fiscal liberals (myself included) see it as an intermediate outcome that is in many instances the result of a diminishing middle class (financial issues are cited as the most common reason for divorce). There is the problematic cycle of high incarceration of minority males and fatherless children (greater than 50% of AA) and the corresponding question of whether or not drug policy is worsening the situation. Nobody wants to talk about the unforeseen effect of women entering the workplace, namely the emergence of power couples soaking up high paying positions while uneducated people marry each other creating an underclass of less educated and low wage couples, an underclass that experiences the highest rate of bankruptcy, lack of healthcare, lack of education, divorce, substance abuse, abortion, you name it. Social sciences aren't rigorous enough to provide empirical data to guide decisions on which of these factors are more causative of decline and which of these factors are more likely to respond to intervention. That leaves us in an battle of ideologies with central concepts to the debate like self reliance, bootstraps, safety net, wealth redistribution, income inequality, etc so emotionally charged, that I sort of think we'll continue to spar around the margins with less consequential stuff like gay marriage rather than addressing the central issues.

That's where I feel defeated in all of this, and frustrated that a substantial proportion of the 95-98% of straight people have been so fixated on a gay marriage that we've neglected our bigger problems for another decade during which the larger societal ills have only gotten worse. I think I would have the same beef with the gay rights movement if they proceed to go after the churches in the next five years instead of backing off and refocusing on the bigger issue, which as married couples with children is going to impact gay couples a lot more than where they have the wedding and who bakes the cake.

PS: The thing is there is one closely held Mormon belief that I think, if implemented across the spectrum, would go a long way toward fixing these problems (including wealth inequality, unemployment, single parent households, etc), and that is having one parent at home. I don't see that as actionable, because it would in practice discriminate against working women in opposite sex marriages, but ironically would be non-discriminatory for same sex couples.

[Rocker Ute]

I think at one point the terms "harm/harmful" was used by myself and others on the pro gay marriage side and in the subsequent anti-gay marriage responses it was immediately paraphrased to "hate/hateful". Scratch talked about false narratives, but one false narrative is this narrative of persecution, and I think some people are so primed to feel persecuted that they are hearing these words "hate" and "bigot" when those words aren't there. Certainly there are people who believe the anti-gay marriage stance is/was hateful and bigoted, but there seems to be a really strange perception that everyone ascribes these negative qualities to gay marriage opponents when that's not the case. Gay marriage opponents don't, by and large, hate gay people. Gay marriage proponents don't, by and large, hate religious people. Both sides think the other side are acting like dicks, and, by and large, both are right. If both sides continue to act like dicks then we'll wind up with churches forced to marry gays and tax exempt status revoked for institutions at the periphery of religious exercise. At least one side has to quit acting like dicks to keep that from happening. The churches are the ones with something to lose, so they stand to gain more by reducing the level of dickishness.

A few snippets from Facebook today that might indicate that I'm not just 'hearing' false narratives of 'hate/bigotry'. These are taken as written original posts:

"If you belong to a religion, any religion, that treats any LGBT with anything less than love, respect and decency you are a piece of shit and probably not even worthy to your own god.
Love is love and hate is hate and you can't pretend otherwise."

"Your thoughts on gay marriage aren't about principles it is about hate, pure and simple..."

That's just a couple of them... Sandwiched between those two was a video of Jimmer dancing, so I'm not having the best Facebook day.

[LA Ute]

Also, why does part of you wish you'd lost on Prop 8?

Forgot to answer this. Because in hindsight it only forestalled the inevitable, and most of the truly awful (much of it truly inexcusable) backlash occurred afterwards. But hindsight is always so clear! Past is past. I'm happy it's all in the past. Maybe someone like Lincoln will come along and talk this way:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Or maybe a Nelson Mandela will emerge with something like his national reconciliation movement. Good story about that here:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/12/very-occasionally-sport-truly-matters-1995-south-african-rugby-gave-us-moment-grace

[LA Ute]

If what jrj says here is correct, then that wasn't the correct principle to base your SSM disapproval on:

Anyway...

I am really talking about an ideal. By the time Prop 8 came along I had several gay colleagues who had adopted kids with their partners. California law gave them full rights to do that. They were raising great kids and were devoted parents. To me, as a matter of conscience and principle, I still didn't want to support that as equivalent to a marriage because it didn't meet the ideal of a mom and a dad for every kid. (There were amicus briefs filed in the Obergefell case by children of same-sex marriages who had some interesting views on that subject. Basically they did not like it that their parents made the decision for them th that they would never have both a mother and a father. They reported feeling unmet yearnings for a mother or a father, depending on which one they didn't have. I find it impossible to blithely dismiss those stories.)

With that, I'm done explaining my approach to Prop 8. It was seven years ago and has long since been overturned, and now everything has changed.


I follow Dan Rather on Facebook, and he posted this (https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10155736264950716) yesterday about his personal journey, thought it was pretty good:

Rather is 23 years older than I am but I found myself nodding my head as I read that. His description of the past rings true to me and is similar to my experience -- my views have evolved too. I suppose some people here see me as a neanderthal, or perhaps a guy who's just a hopeless prisoner of his generation (a very condescending view, IMO) but that ain't me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrj84105]

A few snippets from Facebook today that might indicate that I'm not just 'hearing' false narratives of 'hate/bigotry'. These are taken as written original posts:

"If you belong to a religion, any religion, that treats any LGBT with anything less than love, respect and decency you are a piece of shit and probably not even worthy to your own god.
Love is love and hate is hate and you can't pretend otherwise."

"Your thoughts on gay marriage aren't about principles it is about hate, pure and simple..."

That's just a couple of them... Sandwiched between those two was a video of Jimmer dancing, so I'm not having the best Facebook day.

Facebook? Just wish them the best in governing their farmville community according to their convictions.

[Rocker Ute]

Facebook? Just wish them the best in governing their farmville community according to their convictions.

These weren't posts directed at me (I think) just posts that people were making on their own walls that of course show up on mine.

One that was meant to be funny, or at least made me laugh was, "Sorry you are a bigot if you didn't change your profile pic to the rainbow filter."

The point is, you said accusations of hate/bigotry didn't exist or was a false narrative. It clearly is not... that is the drumbeat today. I could scroll back to when the ruling was announced and get you probably a couple dozen similar quotes from people. Facebook is more fun when people post what they ate that day or inspirational but falsely attributed quotes.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The problem with the statement that children are better off raised by heterosexual couples than lbgt couples, is that the overwhelming majority of the data (hundreds of studies and countless subjects) shows that children raised by lgbt couples are at least equal to those raised by raised by hetero couples.

By far the bigger factor in the lives of the children is the stability of the home life (e.g. when the parents break up and a new parent figure comes in). This is the reality for hetero as well as lgbt couples. And this ruling enhances the stability in the homes of lgbt couples (because they are now married).

[LA Ute]

The problem with the statement that children are better off raised by heterosexual couples than lbgt couples, is that the overwhelming majority of the data (hundreds of studies and countless subjects) shows that children raised by lgbt couples are at least equal to those raised by raised by hetero couples.

Fro the kids' sake I truly hope you are proven to be right eventually but with so few same-sex parents I don't see how there can be enough data yet to reach any hard conclusions.

[LA Ute]

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06/30/af24bdfe17900ff495ab040bd664f98e.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06/30/af24bdfe17900ff495ab040bd664f98e.jpg


Wait. I thought we determined a person's sexuality by the kind of car they drive.

I'm obviously going to need a new rule sheet in this new world of ours.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Fro the kids' sake I truly hope you are proven to be right eventually but with so few same-sex parents I don't see how there can be enough data yet to reach any hard conclusions.

Perhaps you have not looked into the literature or read the statements by most of the professional psychology associations worldwide.

But that is inconsequential anyway. The percentage of married lgbt couples who will have children is a very small percentage of the total of all couples (hetero- or homo-) who have children. Most lgbt couples who have children are in fact raising their own biological children anyway, and the relative few who adopt are far more likely to be good parents because they put so much effort into even qualifying for the adoption and they desperately WANT children. The same certainly can not be said for all hetero couples, especially when a child is considered to be an 'Oops'.

But this breaks the majoroty of your opposition down to "What about the children?", as though marriage is simply a vehicle to bring more children into the world and into a stable home life. Kids are wonderful, but they are far from the primary reason to get married.

Anyway, my wish is that all of this effort spent arguing both sides of this issue can now be spent ensuring underprivileged people have access to good food, clean water, adequate healthcare, and justice for all. I am sure you agree with me on this point, because I know you to be a fundamentally good and decent person.

[NorthwestUteFan]

And Ellen DeGeneres is witty charming, vivacious, and disarmingly comfortable in her own skin.

It is to my great shame that I used to call her "Ellen Degenerate", based only on her sexuality. SMH.

[LA Ute]

Perhaps you have not looked into the literature or read the statements by most of the professional psychology associations worldwide.

But that is inconsequential anyway. The percentage of married lgbt couples who will have children is a very small percentage of the total of all couples (hetero- or homo-) who have children. Most lgbt couples who have children are in fact raising their own biological children anyway, and the relative few who adopt are far more likely to be good parents because they put so much effort into even qualifying for the adoption and they desperately WANT children. The same certainly can not be said for all hetero couples, especially when a child is considered to be an 'Oops'.

But this breaks the majoroty of your opposition down to "What about the children?", as though marriage is simply a vehicle to bring more children into the world and into a stable home life. Kids are wonderful, but they are far from the primary reason to get married.

Anyway, my wish is that all of this effort spent arguing both sides of this issue can now be spent ensuring underprivileged people have access to good food, clean water, adequate healthcare, and justice for all. I am sure you agree with me on this point, because I know you to be a fundamentally good and decent person.

1487

[#1 Utefan]

Perhaps you have not looked into the literature or read the statements by most of the professional psychology associations worldwide.

But that is inconsequential anyway. The percentage of married lgbt couples who will have children is a very small percentage of the total of all couples (hetero- or homo-) who have children. Most lgbt couples who have children are in fact raising their own biological children anyway, and the relative few who adopt are far more likely to be good parents because they put so much effort into even qualifying for the adoption and they desperately WANT children. The same certainly can not be said for all hetero couples, especially when a child is considered to be an 'Oops'.

But this breaks the majoroty of your opposition down to "What about the children?", as though marriage is simply a vehicle to bring more children into the world and into a stable home life. Kids are wonderful, but they are far from the primary reason to get married.

Anyway, my wish is that all of this effort spent arguing both sides of this issue can now be spent ensuring underprivileged people have access to good food, clean water, adequate healthcare, and justice for all. I am sure you agree with me on this point, because I know you to be a fundamentally good and decent person.

Most LGBT couples raising children are raising their own biological children? Please explain how this works. Inquiring minds want to know.

[NorthwestUteFan]

1487

I'm not beating you up so much as fleshing out the argument in my own mind.

How much longer until football starts?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Most LGBT couples raising children are raising their own biological children? Please explain how this works. Inquiring minds want to know.

My BIL was previously married. He and his husband raised his kids. (Incidentally the older one was Valedictorian if his college last month, and the younger one is on the Deans List every semester. They are pretty well adjusted).

My lesbian cousin was previously married. She is raising her kids with her partner.

A lot of lgbt couples were in previous relationships, where one partner or both created children.

[chrisrenrut]

Most LGBT couples raising children are raising their own biological children? Please explain how this works. Inquiring minds want to know.

Artificial insemination, at least in the case of my close family member and her partner. There is also surrogacy for men. Both quite expensive, even compared to adoption.

[LA Ute]

My BIL was previously married. He and his husband raised his kids. (Incidentally the older one was Valedictorian if his college last month, and the younger one is on the Deans List every semester. They are pretty well adjusted).

My lesbian cousin was previously married. She is raising her kids with her partner.

A lot of lgbt couples were in previous relationships, where one partner or both created children.

Those are different situations because those kids have biological mothers and fathers. I am talking about kids who are the children of gay couples and grow up never having a father/mother, as the case may be. Instead they have an anonymous egg or sperm donor. At this point only a relatively few adults are around who have had that experience. (There will be many more in the future.) Many of them have written of their resentment and confusion. They say they love their same-sex parents but they also say they resent or at least regret the decision that was made for them. They tell of an unmet longing to have a mother or a father. I am not making this up.

Now, I feel the same way about my former law partner who, deciding she would probably never marry, chose to be inseminated and had a baby, which she has raised alone. I adore the little girl but I don't support what her mom did. I don't think such things should be outlawed or regulated, but if someone came to me who was contemplating such a step, and asked me for advice I'd urge them not to do it. Kids are not pets and don't exist for the enjoyment of adults.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? Just that society is giving its imprimatur to such parenting. I don't like it. I don't hate the people who go that route. I just think it's the wrong thing for us to approve as an ideal. It's not ideal. Kids should at least have chance to have a relationship with an identifiable parent of both genders, aka a mother and a father. This is a simple, well-grounded principle.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Dan Quayle and Murphy Browne are, like, so 25 years ago, man.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I admittedly have a very small pool from which to draw, but a large number of the young lgbt people I know and work with are not particularly interested in getting married within the next decade, if at all. An even smaller percent of those want to have children.

But those who want to have children REALLY want to have those children, and are primed and ready to be good parents. That has to account for something.

[LA Ute]

Dan Quayle and Murphy Browne are, like, so 25 years ago, man.

Murphy's kid has grown up now and may have something to say....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I admittedly have a very small pool from which to draw, but a large number of the young lgbt people I know and work with are not particularly interested in getting married within the next decade, if at all. An even smaller percent of those want to have children.

But those who want to have children REALLY want to have those children, and are primed and ready to be good parents. That has to account for something.

And I think they'll be good parents.

Now that the subject has come up, do you think a Catholic adoption agency, for example, should be required by law to place a baby with same-sex parents, even if the Catholic agency's religious sponsor believes babies should have both a mother and a father? Should the birth parents of the baby be able lawfully to stipulate that it be placed with a mother-father family?

EDIT: Should birth parents be able to stipulate that the baby be placed with a same-sex set of parents? I think so, as long as it is even both ways.

I ask this because in our ward a Polynesian father stipulated that his child be placed with Polynesian parents. He was able to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

MB was straight, but single.

The Catholic adoption services is a trickier call. They are not a government agency, and they usually are not the only game in town. The adoption isn't really related to a marriage license, so I don't know whether this ruling would apply. And do they receive any federal funding?

Did any of the recent rulings hold that sexuality is a protected class? I don't believe any of them did. That would certainly factor into any court case.

When Romneycare was first starting in Mass, the law would have required every participating hospital to provide birth control, including abortions. Catholic Hospitals was forced to decide whether to provide abortions and birth control, or effectively go out of business in Mass. In the end they participated, but were given an exemption somehow. I am uncertain how that turned out (and I left Mass about thar time and didn't stay connected to the situation).

[#1 Utefan]

The bottom line really is that it is mother nature that created the concept that a mother and father is the best and ideal situation for a child. If not, wht can't gay couples procreate? I am not saying gay parents can't and won't be good parents. However, I do believe it is suboptimal in comparison to a healthy heterosexual couple and upbringing where the different strengths of a mother and father influence a child.

All these supposed psychologists and their alleged research on the topuc really holds no water IMHO. They really have no more idea than any of the rest of us at this point how this huge social experiment will turn out. It is way too early and everything is anecdotal at this point. Don't agree with my post? Take it up with mother nature.

[NorthwestUteFan]

LOL.

Be sure to write your congressman and demand that he sponsor a bill that will allow young children to Sue their parents and force them to stay together.

[Diehard Ute]

The bottom line really is that it is mother nature that created the concept that a mother and father is the best and ideal situation for a child. If not, wht can't gay couples procreate? I am not saying gay parents can't and won't be good parents. However, I do believe it is suboptimal in comparison to a healthy heterosexual couple and upbringing where the different strengths of a mother and father influence a child.

All these supposed psychologists and their alleged research on the topuc really holds no water IMHO. They really have no more idea than any of the rest of us at this point how this huge social experiment will turn out. It is way too early and everything is anecdotal at this point. Don't agree with my post? Take it up with mother nature.


Seriously, spend some time in my line of work, or with a DCFS worker and you'll not think too highly of a lot of "natural" parents

There are so many non healthy heterosexual situations for kids out there it's not even funny.

A marriage in the U.S. is more likely to fail than work, and then the kids often are the pawns in the chess game

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

The bottom line really is that it is mother nature that created the concept that a mother and father is the best and ideal situation for a child. If not, wht can't gay couples procreate? I am not saying gay parents can't and won't be good parents. However, I do believe it is suboptimal in comparison to a healthy heterosexual couple and upbringing where the different strengths of a mother and father influence a child.

All these supposed psychologists and their alleged research on the topuc really holds no water IMHO. They really have no more idea than any of the rest of us at this point how this huge social experiment will turn out. It is way too early and everything is anecdotal at this point. Don't agree with my post? Take it up with mother nature.

So when it comes to adoption services and foster care, how many times out of 10 are these kids faced with a situation of going to a healthy heterosexual couple and upbringing? I mean, it's not like there's this long line of ideal hetero couples that keep getting bumped back by homosexual couples. I say, if you can provide one of these kids with a home full of love and devotion, then I couldn't care less about the number of x chromosomes represented in your marriage.

[#1 Utefan]

If you guys reread my post, I said a "healthy" heterosexual couple. I realize the divorce rate is high and that there are a lot of unhealthy family situations out there. With that said, there are also a lot of good parents,and families out there which always seems to get downplayed or swept under the carpet anytime this debate arises.

Moreover, are you guys really going to try to make the argument that family strife, domestic violence, infidelity, financial arguments, etc (fill on blank) won't happen with married gay couples? I'm not sure where this notion that somehow gay couples are going to superior parents and family situations for children ever came from but it defies logic and common sense.

I have no problem with gay couples having their own children or adopting kids from foster homes, etc. I do think a stable, two parent household is better for children regardless of sexual orientation. I just don't buy the logic and oft repeated company line that because the traditional family and divorce rate are high, that somehow means gay couples won't have the same issues.

[concerned]

If you guys reread my post, I said a "healthy" heterosexual couple. I realize the divorce rate is high and that there are a lot of unhealthy family situations out there. With that said, there are also a lot of good parents,and families out there which always seems to get downplayed or swept under the carpet anytime this debate arises.

Moreover, are you guys really going to try to make the argument that family strife, domestic violence, infidelity, financial arguments, etc (fill on blank) won't happen with married gay couples? I'm not sure where this notion that somehow gay couples are going to superior parents and family situations for children ever came from but it defies logic and common sense.

I have no problem with gay couples having their own children or adopting kids from foster homes, etc. I do think a stable, two parent household is better for children regardless of sexual orientation. I just don't buy the logic and oft repeated company line that because the traditional family and divorce rate are high, that somehow means gay couples won't have the same issues.

So in other words gays can't marry because they are suboptimal parents but straights can marry even though many of them are suboptimal parents who may or may not get married or stayed married. If the goal is to prevent suboptimal parenting then don't allow single people to have kids. Otherwise you are just discriminating against one group for a purpose that does not achieve your goal of optimal parenting.

[LA Ute]

I'm just interested in the adoption question going forward. Married same-sex couples can adopt - that issue's been decided. I'm wondering if in the future the marital status and gender makeup of adoptive parents can be a factor in placing children for adoption, and if so under what circumstances? Just one of the issues remaining to be worked out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

.....Now, I feel the same way about my former law partner who, deciding she would probably never marry, chose to be inseminated and had a baby, which she has raised alone. I adore the little girl but I don't support what her mom did. I don't think such things should be outlawed or regulated, but if someone came to me who was contemplating such a step, and asked me for advice I'd urge them not to do it. Kids are not pets and don't exist for the enjoyment of adults......


Wait......you believe your law partner, because she chose parenthood while remaining single, arrived at her decision because she thought about this child as if it were a pet?

[Diehard Ute]

If you guys reread my post, I said a "healthy" heterosexual couple. I realize the divorce rate is high and that there are a lot of unhealthy family situations out there. With that said, there are also a lot of good parents,and families out there which always seems to get downplayed or swept under the carpet anytime this debate arises.

Moreover, are you guys really going to try to make the argument that family strife, domestic violence, infidelity, financial arguments, etc (fill on blank) won't happen with married gay couples? I'm not sure where this notion that somehow gay couples are going to superior parents and family situations for children ever came from but it defies logic and common sense.

I have no problem with gay couples having their own children or adopting kids from foster homes, etc. I do think a stable, two parent household is better for children regardless of sexual orientation. I just don't buy the logic and oft repeated company line that because the traditional family and divorce rate are high, that somehow means gay couples won't have the same issues.

They certainly may. But you miss the point entirely. Your oft repeated argument doesn't care about bad parents. The government doesn't do a thing to regulate who can have a child, unless they were gay.

The point isn't that gay couples aren't going to have issues. The point is you're more concerned with the sexual orientation of the parents rather than the quality of life for the child.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

No, the "pet" comment wasn't about her, just about my personal opinion that kids' best interests should outweigh adult desires. She decided to have a child because she wanted to have that life experience. I'm 100% sympathetic to that desire. But she also made the conscious decision for her daughter that it would be OK if the girl never has a father in her life. I personally disagree with that approach to parenting. The "pet" comment is just a point in response to many who I've heard say that any adult ought to be able to have a child if he/she wants to because parenthood us wonderful. Of course it is; but parenthood ia about more than adult desires. That was, for me, a reason to resist giving gay marriage a Constitutional imprimatur. But that ship has sailed. The interesting issue going forward is, to what extent will differing views of children's best interests be accommodated as we work through all of this as a society?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[#1 Utefan]

No, the "pet" comment wasn't about her, just about my personal opinion that kids' best interests should outweigh adult desires. She decided to have a child because she wanted to have that life experience. I'm 100% sympathetic to that desire. But she also made the conscious decision for her daughter that it would be OK if the girl never has a father in her life. I personally disagree with that approach to parenting. The "pet" comment is just a point in response to many who I've heard say that any adult ought to be able to have a child if he/she wants to because parenthood us wonderful. Of course it is; but parenthood ia about more than adult desires. That was, for me, a reason to resist giving gay marriage a Constitutional imprimatur. But that ship has sailed. The interesting issue going forward is, to what extent will differing views of children's best interests be accommodated as we work through all of this as a society?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said that Diehard but thanks for stretching things and putting words in my mouth. If you don't like my opinion because you see the bad side of marriage and humanity on a daily basis, fine. Just know there are also many good, loving families out there you aren't interacting with at your job on a daily basis.

The reality is neither of us really know what the long term results on children and families will be as gay marriage is too new. At this point it is all small anecdotal stories and speculation. I base my opinion on the basic laws of nature. Like I said (if you read my posts), any stable, two parent household will likely be better for children than one parent. Time will tell if sexual orientation makes a difference. In the meantime, we can respect each others opinions and agree to disagree.

[Diehard Ute]

No, the "pet" comment wasn't about her, just about my personal opinion that kids' best interests should outweigh adult desires. She decided to have a child because she wanted to have that life experience. I'm 100% sympathetic to that desire. But she also made the conscious decision for her daughter that it would be OK if the girl never has a father in her life. I personally disagree with that approach to parenting. The "pet" comment is just a point in response to many who I've heard say that any adult ought to be able to have a child if he/she wants to because parenthood us wonderful. Of course it is; but parenthood ia about more than adult desires. That was, for me, a reason to resist giving gay marriage a Constitutional imprimatur. But that ship has sailed. The interesting issue going forward is, to what extent will differing views of children's best interests be accommodated as we work through all of this as a society?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That ship sailed long ago. It takes extreme neglect to have a parents rights terminated.

Talk to a guardian ad litem sometime. I'm guessing most everyone would be surprised at just how bad of a parent you can be and not lose custody.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[#1 Utefan]

That ship sailed long ago. It takes extreme neglect to have a parents rights terminated.

Talk to a guardian ad litem sometime. I'm guessing most everyone would be surprised at just how bad of a parent you can be and not lose custody.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I realize you see a lot of bad stuff that I don't at your job daily.

Personally, I think the break down of the family, divorce rates, and domestic violence/drug problems are a huge societal problem that can and is having a very negative impact on a lot of children. I sometimes wonder if it was always like this for previous generations and children. I don't really know but do wonder what shift has occurred in our country and culture that has led to more issues. My guess is the proliferation of drugs and other vices that have become so readily available but I don't pretend to have enough insight to the past to really say for for sure.

[LA Ute]

That ship sailed long ago. It takes extreme neglect to have a parents rights terminated.

Talk to a guardian ad litem sometime. I'm guessing most everyone would be surprised at just how bad of a parent you can be and not lose custody.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Important points, but they have nothing to do with what I am talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

I am really talking about an ideal. By the time Prop 8 came along I had several gay colleagues who had adopted kids with their partners. California law gave them full rights to do that. They were raising great kids and were devoted parents. To me, as a matter of conscience and principle, I still didn't want to support that as equivalent to a marriage because it didn't meet the ideal of a mom and a dad for every kid. (There were amicus briefs filed in the Obergefell case by children of same-sex marriages who had some interesting views on that subject. Basically they did not like it that their parents made the decision for them th that they would never have both a mother and a father. They reported feeling unmet yearnings for a mother or a father, depending on which one they didn't have. I find it impossible to blithely dismiss those stories.)

With that, I'm done explaining my approach to Prop 8. It was seven years ago and has long since been overturned, and now everything has changed.



Rather is 23 years older than I am but I found myself nodding my head as I read that. His description of the past rings true to me and is similar to my experience -- my views have evolved too. I suppose some people here see me as a neanderthal, or perhaps a guy who's just a hopeless prisoner of his generation (a very condescending view, IMO) but that ain't me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem is that you want to impose your ideal on a small subset of the population but not anybody else. Your proposed remedy of banning marriage equality cannot possibly achieve your ideal for your goal. That makes it tantamount to discrimination. Assuming of course that anybody has the right to impose their ideals on anybody else.

[U-Ute]

The bottom line really is that it is mother nature that created the concept that a mother and father is the best and ideal situation for a child. If not, wht can't gay couples procreate?

That's quite the logical leap there, and is incredibly false.

All Mother Nature has said is that having a male and a female is the best way to procreate. It has nothing to do with parenting skills but more to do with creating a diverse gene pool.

[Diehard Ute]

That's quite the logical leap there, and is incredibly false.

All Mother Nature has said is that having a male and a female is the best way to procreate. It has nothing to do with parenting skills but more to do with creating a diverse gene pool.

Very true.

Mother Nature made fish who can change gender if needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

That's quite the logical leap there, and is incredibly false.

All Mother Nature has said is that having a male and a female is the best way to procreate. It has nothing to do with parenting skills but more to do with creating a diverse gene pool.

Of course all births require sperm which diversified the gene pool. Gays don't procreate by dividing.

[Rocker Ute]

Of course all births require sperm which diversified the gene pool. Gays don't procreate by dividing.

Or do they?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/sspcs.gif

[LA Ute]

The problem is that you want to impose your ideal on a small subset of the population but not anybody else. Your proposed remedy of banning marriage equality cannot possibly achieve your ideal for your goal. That makes it tantamount to discrimination. Assuming of course that anybody has the right to impose their ideals on anybody else.

Recognizing that the subject has become academic, I just disagree. A civil society decides which ideals to prefer all the time.

France, interestingly, is still as twisted up about this issue as we are (and likely will be for a while):

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/nicolas-sarkozy-calls-repeal-france-same-sex-marriage-law

Just a rhetorical note: Your side of the debate has done a superb job of recasting the terms. People on my side are now defending "banning marriage equality," which puts us on the defensive right away. We preferred to say we were protecting traditional marriage and opposing a redefinition of marriage, but that terminology never caught on. The news media wasn't receptive to it at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scratch]

Very true.

Mother Nature made fish who can change gender if needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And then we used their DNA to make dinosaurs.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Of course all births require sperm which diversified the gene pool. Gays don't procreate by dividing.

According to some people, they procreate by recruiting straight people...

[NorthwestUteFan]

Recognizing that the subject has become academic, I just disagree. A civil society decides which ideals to prefer all the time.

France, interestingly, is still as twisted up about this issue as we are (and likely will be for a while):

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/nicolas-sarkozy-calls-repeal-france-same-sex-marriage-law

Just a rhetorical note: Your side of the debate has done a superb job of recasting the terms. People on my side are now defending "banning marriage equality," which puts us on the defensive right away. We preferred to say we were protecting traditional marriage and opposing a redefinition of marriage, but that terminology never caught on. The news media wasn't receptive to it at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In countries like The Netherlands where marriage equality has been the law of the land for over a decade, lgbt marriages account for roughly 2% of all marriages.

Putting aside our own personal opinions, we are faced with the academic fact of the situation that this has more to do with the legal rights associated with the legal contract of marriage than anything else.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Freaking gays. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=35321745&nid=1070&fm=home_page&s_cid=toppick2

[LA Ute]

Freaking gays. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=35321745&nid=1070&fm=home_page&s_cid=toppick2

You have now destroyed the argument that all straight parents are terrific parents, which nobody is making. :D

Having said that, stories like that one are gut punchers.

[#1 Utefan]

Very true.

Mother Nature made fish who can change gender if needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't know fish were part of this discussion.

[Rocker Ute]

Very true.

Mother Nature made fish who can change gender if needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are known as Jennerfish.

[#1 Utefan]

Freaking gays. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=35321745&nid=1070&fm=home_page&s_cid=toppick2

Sad story but what is your point? Do you really think domestic abuse or neglect would never occur if gay couples all had children? There are good & bad people everywhere, straight and gay. That won't change anytime soon.

[chrisrenrut]

Sad story but what is your point? Do you really think domestic abuse or neglect would never occur if gay couples all had children? There are good & bad people everywhere, straight and gay. That won't change anytime soon.

Right. Now I'm lost. So what is the argument again against SSM? Is it being asserted that they will be more likely to be bad parents?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Right. Now I'm lost. So what is the argument again against SSM? Is it being asserted that they will be more likely to be bad parents?

This is what I dont understand. We are talking about what amount to ~2% of married couples, and quite a bit smaller percentage of the total percentage of people raising children.

[Rocker Ute]

Right. Now I'm lost. So what is the argument again against SSM? Is it being asserted that they will be more likely to be bad parents?

I don't think the argument is that SSM couples make worse parents rather male and female roles and nurturing are fundamental to child development.

This study was unrelated to this whole debate, but I was listening to NPR a couple of weeks back and they were talking about a study regarding mommy-speak. They found that women tend to speak in a higher voice and speak in a more sing-songy way to babies than men. Men tend to speak to babies more like they do to adults.

They have found that this sort of mommy-speak actually helps babies understand language developmentally particularly understanding others when they speak to them. Conversely they also found that the way men speak to babies help them in how they communicate to others.

Now this study had nothing to do with LGBT parents or anything else, it was simply a study on babies and how they learn to understand language and speak it and their findings. Stripping all of the debate and religious beliefs out of it this study makes some sense biologically. Overs my generations our species has learned language and communication this way.

But I bring this up now to say that all things being equal we still don't know developmentally the effect of said relationships, and there are some indicators like what I mentioned above that at least point to the roles of gender in development. Can they be replaced and how critical are these sort of things? Is there a follow up study with kids deprived of mommy or daddy-speak tending to use phrases like 'hating on' or 'throwing shade'? Only time will tell.

We are just getting to a point where a fair study can be performed because the rights are there and the stigma is diminishing.

[LA Ute]

This Peggy Noonan op-ed summarizes well the reservations of many about the SCOTUS opinion. What the country does with this opinion and the remaining (and new?) issues in the next 5-10 years will be very important, I think.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-courts-disunited-state-1435874012


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

We are just getting to a point where a fair study can be performed because the rights are there and the stigma is diminishing.

This issue hits close to home for me, because the "welfare of the children" argument was one of the primary angles in defending interracial marriage bans in Loving v Virginia. My kids are all pretty well adjusted and doing well, but their parents are still together, and we don't live in the South, or another area where stereotypes are engrained - by both whites and accepted and (essentially) embraced by blacks. When we first got married, in 1987, the stigma was still there, but fading. Today, in Utah at least, it's imperceptible to me. It's really nice to no longer get the double-looks.

I'd bet $1000 the plight of kids in mixed race marriages today, in my wife's hometown in Kentucky, is not particularly good, because most of the interracial marriages I've seen involve "white trash" and blacks, with the expected problems of people of that socio-economic tier.

As strong as our family is, it would be difficult to live in my wife's hometown... the social expectations and stereotypes would be very difficult to block out.

[Ma'ake]

This Peggy Noonan op-ed summarizes well the reservations of many about the SCOTUS opinion. What the country does with this opinion and the remaining (and new?) issues in the next 5-10 years will be very important, I think.

5-4 opinions are less emphatic than 6-3, or 7-2 or 8-1 or 9-0. But I'm not sure if "Citizens United" is at greater chance of being overturned soon, or not.

The momentum toward gay rights suggests that non-discrimination laws may soon follow. In our lifetimes it's not hard to imagine in the past being in a workplace setting where the boss announces that "Robert" has been fired because he was homosexual, much like the argument in the military being about homosexuality damaging morale and group cohesion.

"Robert was a nice guy, but the boss makes good points about us needing to be cohesive, and not offending customers. I certainly didn't want him using OUR bathroom!"

It's also increasingly apparent that the same situation today would draw outrage, especially among Millennials. "You fired him because he's gay? Are you serious!?!?"

Social understandings are in flux, and always have been. As states ban discrimination based on sexuality, and formally repeal bans on SSM, the 5-4 decision will be seen as perhaps a little ahead of its time, but not by much.

[Ma'ake]

Regarding stigma and the welfare of kids:

- Any guesses about the general welfare of kids in polygamous families today? Based on my mother's experience as Director of Elementary Education in Davis County, involving the Kingstons and other clans, they live a very rough life, socially. "Shunned" is an understatement.

- How would the children of polygamous families be viewed 120 years ago, in Utah? There's reason to think those kids enjoyed somewhat of an elevated social status, ie, "yes, I'm a descendent of John Taylor. I am 'select'".

[LA Ute]

5-4 opinions are less emphatic than 6-3, or 7-2 or 8-1 or 9-0. But I'm not sure if "Citizens United" is at greater chance of being overturned soon, or not.

The momentum toward gay rights suggests that non-discrimination laws may soon follow. In our lifetimes it's not hard to imagine in the past being in a workplace setting where the boss announces that "Robert" has been fired because he was homosexual, much like the argument in the military being about homosexuality damaging morale and group cohesion.

"Robert was a nice guy, but the boss makes good points about us needing to be cohesive, and not offending customers. I certainly didn't want him using OUR bathroom!"

It's also increasingly apparent that the same situation today would draw outrage, especially among Millennials. "You fired him because he's gay? Are you serious!?!?"

Social understandings are in flux, and always have been. As states ban discrimination based on sexuality, and formally repeal bans on SSM, the 5-4 decision will be seen as perhaps a little ahead of its time, but not by much.

I think you are mostly right. My reservation is about the Court's reasoning. SCOTUS precedent matters -- i.e., as exciting as an outcome might be, how the Court got there is what worries me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

I think you are mostly right. My reservation is about the Court's reasoning. SCOTUS. precedent matters -- i.e., as exciting as an outcome might be, how the Court got there is what worries me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you have preferred a decision that created a protected class for sexuality? I think you might be opposed to that, and I think I would be too depending on the wording. (e.g. I would probably support the general statement, "You cannot discriminate based on sexuality or any preference", but would be opposed to a law that explicitly elevates homosexuality above heterosexuality, beyond simply equating them).

If you could write a SCOTUS giving the same outcome (i.e. marriage equality for any two consenting adults who choose to marry), what rationale would you use? What particular ideas would you include? We both agree that churches and individuals will need to have their free speech rights protected, as will those who speak out with the opposing argument.

[LA Ute]

Would you have preferred a decision that created a protected class for sexuality? I think you might be opposed to that, and I think I would be too depending on the wording. (e.g. I would probably support the general statement, "You cannot discriminate based on sexuality or any preference", but would be opposed to a law that explicitly elevates homosexuality above heterosexuality, beyond simply equating them).

If you could write a SCOTUS giving the same outcome (i.e. marriage equality for any two consenting adults who choose to marry), what rationale would you use? What particular ideas would you include? We both agree that churches and individuals will need to have their free speech rights protected, as will those who speak out with the opposing argument.

Just read Justice Roberts' dissent. Now the Consitution protects "dignity." That's a pretty vague and flexible concept, and it worries me where a SCOTUS with more than the current 4 absolutely predictable liberal votes will go with it.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Justice Roberts dissented. How would you (or JR) write a CONCURRING opinion based on what you would consider more sound constitutional reasoning?

And is there any possible sound constitutional reasoning that would have brought the four absolutely predictable conservatives into the majority?

[#1 Utefan]

5-4 opinions are less emphatic than 6-3, or 7-2 or 8-1 or 9-0. But I'm not sure if "Citizens United" is at greater chance of being overturned soon, or not.

The momentum toward gay rights suggests that non-discrimination laws may soon follow. In our lifetimes it's not hard to imagine in the past being in a workplace setting where the boss announces that "Robert" has been fired because he was homosexual, much like the argument in the military being about homosexuality damaging morale and group cohesion.

"Robert was a nice guy, but the boss makes good points about us needing to be cohesive, and not offending customers. I certainly didn't want him using OUR bathroom!"

It's also increasingly apparent that the same situation today would draw outrage, especially among Millennials. "You fired him because he's gay? Are you serious!?!?"

Social understandings are in flux, and always have been. As states ban discrimination based on sexuality, and formally repeal bans on SSM, the 5-4 decision will be seen as perhaps a little ahead of its time, but not by much.

Do people really get fired these days for being homosexual? I'm thinking these type of laws are unnecessary at this point.

I just ready yesterday about a couple in Oregon who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding for religious reasons. The couple and state filed a lawsuit against them. The resulting backlash led to their car and place of business being vandalized. They lost their bakery and now the state says they owe the couple $135k for the "mental anguish and emotional distress" their refusal to bake the cake caused this couple.

I'm sorry but when you consider these type of events, why do we need to pass any additional laws? The LGBT community seems to be doing just fine now. We can argue all day whether what happened in Oregon was merited but I would say if we are going to pass laws, maybe everyone should take a step back and do what is right for everyone involved. Awarding this couple 135k when the whole thing already put them out of business and cost them their livelihood is over the top and cruel IMHO. Was this couple really so traumatized by this event that they couldn't just turn the other cheek and go to another bakery without exacting their pound of flesh and destroying this couple and their livelihood?

I am not saying the couple was right or wrong in this case but when these type of stories keep surfacing with more and more frequency, it is difficult for me to get warm fuzzies and say that I think additional antidiscrimination laws need to be passed. Seems to me this Oregon couple and some others in the LGBT community could learn from Martin Luther King's example and try a kindler, gentler way of approaching people and converting those not yet in their camp to their side.

[NorthwestUteFan]

It is legal in 28 states to fire somebody solely because they are lgbt. That part of the culture war remains, and probably wont go away legally until it is buried with the people who still think that way.

IIRC the couple in Oregon were only supposed to make and deliver a wedding cake, without any other defining markings on it. I recall the couple themselves were going to put their own figures on it, so the Baker didn't even need to go to the painful step of putting two bride figures on it. (Because we all know that the only allowable number of penises in a marriage is one ... :rolleyes: ).

They refused to make the cake, and were in violation of state anti-discrimination laws. That is pretty slam-dunk.

Too bad they didn't catch the people who vandalized their property, because they should also have their day in court and be forced to make restitution.

If they are out of business because people don't want to buy cakes from a Baker who chose to die on the wrong hill, well I have little pity for them. Although I do admire the strength of their conviction.

Whether the damages award should be $130k is an academic question for the lawyers.

[LA Ute]

Here's an analysis of the problems with the "dignity" standard by Jonathan Turley:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trouble-with-the-dignity-of-same-sex-marriage/2015/07/02/43bd8f70-1f4e-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html

Like I said, precedent matters and justices need to be careful.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A libertarian view:

Whatever Happened to Religious Freedom?

https://id.wsj.com/auth/proxy/refresh?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2F whatever-happened-to-religious-freedom-1436827114


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Do people really get fired these days for being homosexual? I'm thinking these type of laws are unnecessary at this point.


This is an interesting point. I don't know to what degree there are firings of gays... because they're gay. I'm sure it happens, here and there, but my hunch is they're fairly rare, much like these stories of wedding cake vendors or photographers. They make great examples to illustrate a position, a need, a cause.

The Civil Rights Act was trying to counter centuries of severe abuse and widespread discrimination, and I don't think there's any doubt the South is notorious for hanging onto injustices in a highly dysfunctional way. S

(Southern whites are like Serbians, in a way, whose greatest national "achievement" is getting their asses handed to them in the year 11th century. "Remember the Alamo!" Didn't you lose that battle? "Segregation Forever!" It's your prerogative to make yourself an historical buffoon, but go right ahead!)

But if you look at what happened in Indiana, when the Governor got blind-sided by the reaction to their religious rights bill, and the pressure mounted quickly nationwide, Indiana businesses that didn't agree with the Legislature or Governor started putting up signs that said "We Serve Everyone!" The way these signs multiplied, it amounted to an affirmative seal of approval, outside of any law.

It's not hard to imagine something similar happening on a more widespread basis, like the "UL" insignia you see on products, meaning the insurance Underwriters Laboratories have tested the product for safety. Even straight couples may look for "non-bigoted" vendors to assist in their weddings, and the old mentality will be driven out without any laws or government involvement.

Is a boycott a bullying act? Rosa Parks the destroyer of good, honorable, proud businesses?

I would not be surprised if there's some kind of defiant response by the "Antis", probably in the South. I'd be surprised if the last chapter has been written on all this.

[USS Utah]

"Remember the Alamo!" Didn't you lose that battle?

That's not the point. It was a rallying cry, even a cry for vengeance.

"Remember the Maine!"

"Remember Pearl Harbor!"

[mUUser]

A libertarian view:

Whatever Happened to Religious Freedom?

https://id.wsj.com/auth/proxy/refresh?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2F whatever-happened-to-religious-freedom-1436827114





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I consider myself libertarian leaning -- (although admittedly I can't get my head around all of libertarianism yet) -- but would be interested to read the article. Unfortunately, its blocked. However, my libertarian leanings tells me I don't want the government to determine which adults can and cannot marry, unless there's an compelling reason to step in......such as with guns and felons.

I did run across this WSJ article though. What's the deal with this guy? A constitutional amendment? Ugh......

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/13/rick-santorum-calls-for-constitutional-amendment-banning-same-sex-marriage/

[LA Ute]

I consider myself libertarian leaning -- (although admittedly I can't get my head around all of libertarianism yet) -- but would be interested to read the article. Unfortunately, its blocked. However, my libertarian leanings tells me I don't want the government to determine which adults can and cannot marry, unless there's an compelling reason to step in......such as with guns and felons.

I did run across this WSJ article though. What's the deal with this guy? A constitutional amendment? Ugh......

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/13/rick-santorum-calls-for-constitutional-amendment-banning-same-sex-marriage/

By ROGER PILON

July 13, 2015 6:38 p.m. ET

With nationwide same-sex marriage now in its pocket, the gay-rights movement is turning quickly to the next item on its agenda: outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is where many libertarians who strongly supported same-sex marriage step back for a more measured approach. It is one thing to prevent government officials from discriminating against same-sex couples—that is what equal protection is all about—quite another to force private individuals and organizations into associations they find offensive.

The law here is unsettled, especially as the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion is pitted against various statutory rights to be free from discrimination. The Supreme Court muddied those waters in its same-sex marriage decision last month. Writing for the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Anthony Kennedy (http://topics.wsj.com/person/K/Anthony-Kennedy/7419) merely mentioned in passing that religious adherents would continue to be free to “advocate” and “teach” their beliefs. Conspicuously absent, as dissenting justices noted, was any mention of the “exercise” of those beliefs.

The week before, Cynthia and Robert Gifford, a Christian couple in upstate New York who own a small farm open to the public for seasonal activities, filed an appeal (http://www.adfmedia.org/files/GiffordAppellateBrief.pdf) with the state Supreme Court. They were fined $13,000 last year by the New York State Division of Human Rights for declining to host a same-sex wedding. The Giffords were also ordered to implement “antidiscrimination training and procedures” for their staff—re-education, in effect.Meanwhile, conflicts are increasing as the LGBT community presses its agenda. As Americans prepared to celebrate the Fourth of July, Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered (http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf) bakery owners Aaron andMelissa Klein to pay a lesbian couple $135,000 for “emotional damages” because the Kleins, citing their religious beliefs, had declined to bake a cake for the couple’s wedding.

How did we get to this point? Freedom of association—the simple idea that people are free to associate, or not, as they wish—certainly isn’t what it once was.
We’ve never had that freedom in its purest form, but the main restraints were once limited and reasonable. Under common law, if you held a monopoly or were a common carrier like a stage line or railroad, you had to serve all comers. If you represented your business, an inn for instance, as “open to the public,” you had to honor that, though you didn’t have to serve unruly customers and could negotiate what services you offered.

These rules left ample room for freedom of association more broadly, albeit with serious exceptions like Jim Crow, the deplorable state-sanctioned discrimination enforced by the heavy hand of government.

Forced association of the kind at issue with the Kleins and Giffords is a product mainly of the civil-rights movement of the 1960s. Believing, probably correctly, that the only way to break institutional racism in the South was to prohibit public and private discrimination, Congress passed civil-rights laws that forbid discrimination in wide areas of life on several grounds—such as race, religion, sex or national origin. States have also passed such laws, including those that in many jurisdictions now prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

But uncertainty arose concerning the relation between those laws, plus others, and religious liberty. Could a state withhold unemployment benefits from a Native American who used peyote—an illegal drug—for religious purposes? Hoping to resolve such questions, a nearly unanimous Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Twenty-two states have since passed similar laws, but the issue remains vexed. Witness the Supreme Court’s decision a year ago upholding Hobby Lobby’s challenge to ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate, and the uproar over Indiana’s religious freedom restoration act a few months ago.

The question at hand, then, is whether and how modern antidiscrimination laws limit the constitutional and statutory right to the free exercise of religion. Even after Obergefell, there are clear cases—on statutory, to say nothing of constitutional grounds—in which religious liberty will trump antidiscrimination claims. Clergy opposed to same-sex marriage surely will not be forced to perform or open their facilities to such ceremonies, although some in the LGBT movement are already pressing for churches to lose their tax-exempt status if they do not.

The public-accommodation cases are closer calls. Because they represent their businesses as open to the public, the Kleins and Giffords shouldn’t be able to deny entrance and normal service to gay customers—and neither has done so. If a same-sex couple had walked into that bakery hand-in-hand and ordered bagels, they would have been served without objection. But it is a step further—and an important one—to force religious business owners to participate in a same-sex wedding, to force them to engage in the creative act of planning the event, baking a special-order cake for it, photographing it, and so on.

No one enjoys the sting of discrimination or rejection. But neither does anyone like to be forced into uncomfortable situations, especially those that offend deeply held religious beliefs. In the end, who here is forcing whom? A society that cannot tolerate differing views—and respect the live-and-let-live principle—will not long be free.

Mr. Pilon is vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

[mUUser]

Thank you Dallin H. Oaks. Hey Kim Davis, just do your freakin' job!

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3082891-155/mormon-apostle-oaks-kentucky-clerk-wrong

[LA Ute]

Thank you Dallin H. Oaks. Hey Kim Davis, just do your freakin' job!

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3082891-155/mormon-apostle-oaks-kentucky-clerk-wrong

Yes. Public officials don't get to pick and choose which laws they'll obey. It's called the rule of law. If you can't in good conscience do your duty, then resign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

Yes. Public officials don't get to pick and choose which laws they'll obey. It's called the rule of law. If you can't in good conscience do your duty, then resign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The big thing she did wrong was not just refusing to sgin them herself, but refusal to allow anyone in her office to do it, or to allow the certificates to go out under her or the county's signature. That is not a good faith accomodation.

[LA Ute]

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

--Robert Bolt, "A Man for All Seasons"

[LA Ute]

This seems important enough to warrant its own thread. I don't see it as a Mormon issue or a Utah issue. Martin Marty doesn't either. It's something we need to discuss and figure out as a society.


Mormon Options on "Church" and "State"

“I hate war!” was a clear denunciation voiced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 14, 1936. He was talking about real war five years before he had to lead the United States in the most destructive war in history.

There are lesser wars in respect to which citizens are called to take sides. In recent decades some of the most popular chosen examples are the “culture wars,” which are so attractive among some religious factions. They have proven to be productive of not much more than unproductive polarization and civil chaos.

Now and then, over against them, an informed and articulate citizen is found to utter a meaningful “I hate war!” in respect to culture wars....

- See more at: https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/mormon-options-church-and-state#sthash.gMU7aNFp.dpuf

[SeattleUte]

Too bad that it took the Supreme Court if not an act of Congress to get them to this place.


My thesis if that we all want to live together in happiness, harmony, and peace. To achieve that common goal, and for all contending parties to achieve their most important personal goals, we must learn and practice mutual respect for others whose beliefs, values, and behaviors differ from our own. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.”

[NorthwestUteFan]

Too bad that it took the Supreme Court if not an act of Congress to get them to this place.

On the other hand, perhaps it is simply historical repetition for the US Government to step in and force them to experience a mighty change.

[LA Ute]

Martin Marty is a serious guy and this issue deserves more than the sneers you guys are giving it, NWUF and SU.

1676

[NorthwestUteFan]

At some point it is helpful yo step back and objectively look at tje evidence, and question whether you are on the proper side of the war.

ToKcmnrE5oY

[LA Ute]

At some point it is helpful yo step back and objectively look at tje evidence, and question whether you are on the proper side of the war.

ToKcmnrE5oY

I'll respond substantively to this point as soon as it is clear you have actually read what Prof. Marty says and Elder Oaks's address. Right now it's clear that neither you nor SU have bothered to do that and you're both blind to the irony in your responses. You're proving Oaks's point.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Sorry, but Elder Oaks' talk last week about Kim Davis doing her job, and his speech last January claiming 'non-church entities shouldn't discriminate against lgbt people' is not enough to erase 3+ decades of his rhetoric the other direction. He has been on a Mark E Peterson level of rhetoric since the early 80s.

He has led the charge in the culture wars, by claiming that his religious rights were threatened any time he was restricted from discriminating against lgbt people. That is the very bleeding edge of the culture war.

I'm sorry, but this new tine out of Elder Oaks feels more like a feignt, than a surrender.

[Rocker Ute]

The LDS church has done a poor job of explaining the nuances of their position in this matter and so I expect the average SL Trib commentator to be confused but expected better out of you two. This last post feels a bit like plugging your ears and saying, 'Na Na Na I can't hear you!!!'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

I'll respond substantively to this point as soon as it is clear you have actually read what Prof. Marty says and Elder Oaks's address. Right now it's clear that neither you nor SU have bothered to do that and you're both blind to the irony in your responses. You're proving Oaks's point.

I read Prof. Marty's puff piece. It reminded me of that obscure blurb that Harold Bloom once gave for one of Givens's books. Marty is a good friend. I didn't read Oaks's speech. Good grief. Oaks and the LDS Church have been obsessive in their vilification of homosexuals and opposition to their civil rights. This is like a death bed conversion. Who cares what he says now.

http://rationalfaiths.com/timeline-of-mormon-thinking-about-homosexuality/

[LA Ute]

I read Prof. Marty's puff piece. It reminded me of that obscure blurb that Harold Bloom once gave for one of Givens's books. Marty is a good friend. I didn't read Oaks's speech. Good grief. Oaks and the LDS Church have been obsessive in their vilification of homosexuals and opposition to their civil rights. This is like a death bed conversion. Who cares what he says now.

http://rationalfaiths.com/timeline-of-mormon-thinking-about-homosexuality/

IOW you're a culture warrior, want total victory for your side, and are unwilling to consider opposing views. Oaks has you pegged, but in an ironic way you're a man of your time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Applejack]

IOW you're a culture warrior, want total victory for your side, and are unwilling to consider opposing views. Oaks has you pegged, but in an ironic way you're a man of your time.

My opinion of Oaks has really tanked in the past 5 years, mostly because he seems to be the church's go-to man on gay marriage. He has given a lot of talks that obscure the issues that matter and focus on the peripheral, meaningless stuff that's meant to make blood boil. Calling out Kim Davis is a positive step, but really, that's an easy call. That his statement--that a county clerk has to uphold the law--is newsworthy is perhaps the most telling evidence that Oaks' messages have become maddeningly predictable.

[SeattleUte]

Oaks has nothing to fear from us cultural warriors. On the contrary. We've always been ready to defend his right to believe and say disagreeable things. What does he want?

Thank you. I'm pleased to be a man of my times. Better that than of earlier times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

The LDS church has done a poor job of explaining the nuances of their position in this matter and so I expect the average SL Trib commentator to be confused but expected better out of you two. This last post feels a bit like plugging your ears and saying, 'Na Na Na I can't hear you!!!'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the contrary, Oaks spent 3+ decades unwaivering in his message, and the Proclamation on the Family explicitly spells out the church's position. There is no place for lgbt people in The Kingdom of God, unless they live a fully heterosexual lifestyle.

Oaks in particular has given no quarter in numerous speeches (mostly at the byu's) and in Gen Con talks. I know everybody is tired of hearing this, but statements like the ones he has made for decades real harm to lgbt people who believe Oaks speaks with/for God.

For him to now speak out against cultural warriors and to beg for mercy where he has given none rings hollow. This is an entirely one-sided war. He risks having his feelings hurt, while the people he marginalized and castigated are losing their families, their mental health, and even their lives (driven to suicide) through church members acting on his and other church leaders' rhetoric.

[SeattleUte]

On the contrary, Oaks spent 3+ decades unwaivering in his message, and the Proclamation on the Family explicitly spells out the church's position. There is no place for lgbt people in The Kingdom of God, unless they live a fully heterosexual lifestyle.

Oaks in particular has given no quarter in numerous speeches (mostly at the byu's) and in Gen Con talks. I know everybody is tired of hearing this, but statements like the ones he has made for decades real harm to lgbt people who believe Oaks speaks with/for God.

For him to now speak out against cultural warriors and to beg for mercy where he has given none rings hollow. This is an entirely one-sided war. He risks having his feelings hurt, while the people he marginalized and castigated are losing their families, their mental health, and even their lives (driven to suicide) through church members acting on his and other church leaders' rhetoric.

Well put. There's been nothing "nuanced". And the focus of Oaks's decades long fixation with this has been how to control the secular discussion and prevent legal reforms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

On the contrary, Oaks spent 3+ decades unwaivering in his message, and the Proclamation on the Family explicitly spells out the church's position. There is no place for lgbt people in The Kingdom of God, unless they live a fully heterosexual lifestyle.

Oaks in particular has given no quarter in numerous speeches (mostly at the byu's) and in Gen Con talks. I know everybody is tired of hearing this, but statements like the ones he has made for decades real harm to lgbt people who believe Oaks speaks with/for God.

For him to now speak out against cultural warriors and to beg for mercy where he has given none rings hollow. This is an entirely one-sided war. He risks having his feelings hurt, while the people he marginalized and castigated are losing their families, their mental health, and even their lives (driven to suicide) through church members acting on his and other church leaders' rhetoric.

I'm with LA, I'm positive you haven't read what he said here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

I'm with LA, I'm positive you haven't read what he said here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read it quickly, but I am not very smart. Perhaps somebody could spell put the salient points of the editorial and the talk to which it refers.

[LA Ute]

How long has your fixation with Elder Oaks been running?

Everyone else seems to be following him more closely than I am. Honest question - in how many general conference talks has he discussed homosexuality?

He makes carefully reasoned, scholarly arguments that most of his opponents don't want to address because of intellectual laziness.

I say this with love, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jarid in Cedar]

He makes carefully reasoned, scholarly arguments that most of his opponents don't want to address because of intellectual laziness.

I say this with love, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am sure that Oaks doesn't address any points that his opposition puts fourth due to intellectual laziness as well.

And the followers of each side will continue to insult the intelligence, intentions, and sincerity of the other. They will continue to only hear what they want to hear, and will continue to pat themselves on the back as they claim that the other side is simply unwilling to listen to their rational and perfectly perfect point of view and opinions.

[LA Ute]

We can start with this, Elder Oaks's thesis statement:

"My thesis if that we all want to live together in happiness, harmony, and peace. To achieve that common goal, and for all contending parties to achieve their most important personal goals, we must learn and practice mutual respect for others whose beliefs, values, and behaviors differ from our own. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, the Constitution 'is made for people of fundamentally differing views.'"

What is the substantive argument against this? I am not asking for ad hominem arguments about Oaks himself. Only this: What is wrong with this statement? What part of it do you disagree with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

How long has your fixation with Elder Oaks been running?

Everyone else seems to be following him more closely than I am. Honest question - in how many general conference talks has he discussed homosexuality?

A recent famous talk is the Oct 2013 talk wherein he labelled anybody who disagrees with the church's position against marriage equality a 'moral coward' for following popular worldly beliefs.

Disregard that faithful LDS people can reach a different conclusion from the brethren. And disregard the fact that standing for for marriage equality or lgbt rights can carry a significant social cost for many people and that it can require significant moral courage.

I don't feel like digging up his Mark E Peterson-esque talk at byu-I a few years ago, but that one was a real doozie.

[LA Ute]

"First, parties with different views on the relationship between church and state should advocate and act with civility. In this country we have a history of tolerant diversity—not perfect but mostly effective at allowing persons with competing visions to live together in peace. We all want effective ways to resolve differences without anger and with mutual understanding and accommodation. We all lose when an atmosphere of anger or hostility or contention prevails. We all lose when we cannot debate public policies without resorting to boycotts, firings, and intimidation of our adversaries."

Feel free to post your opposing point of view on this argument..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I know there is an opposing point of view to this.

"Second, on the big issues that divide adversaries on these issues, both sides should seek a balance, not a total victory. For example, religionists should not seek a veto over all nondiscrimination laws that offend their religion, and the proponents of nondiscrimination should not seek a veto over all assertions of religious freedom. Both sides in big controversies like this should seek to understand the other’s position and seek practical accommodations that provide fairness for all and total dominance for neither. For example, an influential article by Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School concludes that “accommodation and negotiation can identify practical solutions where abstract principles sometimes cannot.”[10] She observes that this approach “is highly relevant to sustaining and replenishing both American pluralism and constitutional protections for minority groups.”[11] Thus, in a head-on conflict over individual free exercise and enforced nondiscrimination in housing and employment, for example, the Utah Legislature crafted a compromise position under the banner of “fairness for all.” It gave neither position all that it sought but granted both positions benefits that probably could not have been obtained without the kind of balancing that is possible in the lawmaking branch but not in the judiciary."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

The third principle Elder Oaks proposes:

"Third, it will help if we are not led or unduly influenced by the extreme voices that are heard from contending positions. Extreme voices polarize and create resentment and fear by emphasizing what is nonnegotiable and by suggesting that the desired outcome is to disable the adversary and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely attainable and never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.

The Supreme Court bowed toward this principle in its majority opinion in Obergefell, the 5-4 case establishing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It implicitly rejected several argued bases for its decision, such as alleged animus in traditional marriage laws and the need for establishing a new suspect class for laws affecting those with same-gender attraction. Either of those bases for the decision would have complicated the kind of accommodation I advocate here. Just as important, the majority opinion also included some teachings that are particularly welcome to those who argued the losing position. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy acknowledged the reasonableness of the religious and philosophical premises of those who argue that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman and assured that the First Amendment will protect religious organizations and persons who continue to teach them."

Any response -- again, not about Oaks or his church, but to the principle he proposes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jarid in Cedar]

LA, you are putting up quite a fight with that strawman. The argument is being put forward is that, after 30+ years of hostile rhetoric, maybe Oaks isn't the correct person to be putting forth the points above.

It comes across about as effectively as the KKK saying, "We should just agree to disagree, and let by bygones be bygones."

[SeattleUte]

How long has your fixation with Elder Oaks been running?

Everyone else seems to be following him more closely than I am. Honest question - in how many general conference talks has he discussed homosexuality?


I am interested in Oaks. But you can find out everything I know about him with about ten minutes of Internet research. That he was Earl Warren's law clerk when some of those revolutionary and momentous civil rights opinions were issued, and became what he is, is fascinating. Recently he even gave a sermon trying to marginalized the Renaissance, humanism, and the Enlightenment. He knows what he's doing.

I consider him a son of perdition. If you do a little research on Google you'll see that since at least the early eighties he's been writing top secret memos to the first presidency about a political and legal strategy against the LGBT movement and sermonizing in the Ensign etc about the sinfulness, aberrance, and perversion of same sex attraction. He's suing for peace now but it's not genuine. He'd criminalize homosexuality if he could, as is clear from his 1984 memo.

What's he complaining about anyway? His and his religion's liberty aren't threatened. He's the one who has been unwilling to live and let live, who has set out systematically to abridge liberty. See Prop. 8. This after the LDS Church condemned Brown v Board of Education, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, every feminist position and movement, etc. Now that he's been routed what he wants is respect. That's all. But you know the old saying about respect--if you have to ask for it...

[SeattleUte]

I know there is an opposing point of view to this.

"Second, on the big issues that divide adversaries on these issues, both sides should seek a balance, not a total victory. For example, religionists should not seek a veto over all nondiscrimination laws that offend their religion, and the proponents of nondiscrimination should not seek a veto over all assertions of religious freedom. Both sides in big controversies like this should seek to understand the other’s position and seek practical accommodations that provide fairness for all and total dominance for neither. For example, an influential article by Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School concludes that “accommodation and negotiation can identify practical solutions where abstract principles sometimes cannot.”[10] She observes that this approach “is highly relevant to sustaining and replenishing both American pluralism and constitutional protections for minority groups.”[11] Thus, in a head-on conflict over individual free exercise and enforced nondiscrimination in housing and employment, for example, the Utah Legislature crafted a compromise position under the banner of “fairness for all.” It gave neither position all that it sought but granted both positions benefits that probably could not have been obtained without the kind of balancing that is possible in the lawmaking branch but not in the judiciary."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA, this is not an honest argument. It's a straw man, and worse, it's fear mongering and unfair. His religious liberty is not at risk.

[SeattleUte]

I know there is an opposing point of view to this.

"Second, on the big issues that divide adversaries on these issues, both sides should seek a balance, not a total victory. For example, religionists should not seek a veto over all nondiscrimination laws that offend their religion, and the proponents of nondiscrimination should not seek a veto over all assertions of religious freedom. Both sides in big controversies like this should seek to understand the other’s position and seek practical accommodations that provide fairness for all and total dominance for neither. For example, an influential article by Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School concludes that “accommodation and negotiation can identify practical solutions where abstract principles sometimes cannot.”[10] She observes that this approach “is highly relevant to sustaining and replenishing both American pluralism and constitutional protections for minority groups.”[11] Thus, in a head-on conflict over individual free exercise and enforced nondiscrimination in housing and employment, for example, the Utah Legislature crafted a compromise position under the banner of “fairness for all.” It gave neither position all that it sought but granted both positions benefits that probably could not have been obtained without the kind of balancing that is possible in the lawmaking branch but not in the judiciary."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In don't understand the difference between his three points. They seem to be saying the same thing.

[LA Ute]

LA, you are putting up quite a fight with that strawman. The argument is being put forward is that, after 30+ years of hostile rhetoric, maybe Oaks isn't the correct person to be putting forth the points above.

It comes across about as effectively as the KKK saying, "We should just agree to disagree, and let by bygones be bygones."

Oaks and the LDS church likened to the KKK? Really? I mean, really?


I am interested in Oaks....I consider him a son of perdition.

A view shared in your usual understated manner.

You know, I thought (and still think) Oaks made an important speech. But I understand that there are those who disagree profoundly. Still, I thought we might have an interesting discussion about what he said. He's talking about a path forward. But maybe that's not going to be a good discussion here.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Oaks and the LDS church likened to the KKK? Really? I mean, really?
.

I could have compared him to Goebbels, but that wouldn't be very original

[LA Ute]

I could have compared him to Goebbels, but that wouldn't be very original

The only honorable thing for me to do now is to challenge you to a duel. I choose Rocker as my second. You can have SU. (Warning: He's reportedly queasy at the sight of blood.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

A local high school football coach makes a big deal about praying on the 50 yd line after each high school game. Kids have been shunned for not participating, and students of other Christian denominations have also felt awkward while participating. A few kids finally worked up the gumption to complain to the District.

The Superintendent spoke with the coach and asked him to stop. He agreed at first, then contacted/was contacted by The Liberty Institute and decided to continue the practice, under their legal representation.

Two weeks ago he held a 'moment of silence' at midfield, but last week he again stated he would hold the prayer at midfield after the game. The District suspended him WITH PAY, and he has now filed a lawsuit against the District.

In the meantime the Seattle Satanic Temple offered their services to pray after the game if he also intended to pray.

He is claiming in the lawsuit that his right to freedom of religious expression have been violated. Because he wasn't allowed to use the event (the High School football game, in front of the entire assembled crowd) and location (on the football field at the high school) to express his own personal beliefs. He is fully welcome to express his faith wherever he wants, but he does not deserve a stage and the assembled crowd of onlookers should not be similarly required to support and recognize his expression of faith. The district even said they are perfectly willing to allow the players and anybody else to lead the prayer circle, just that a coach, teacher, or other employee of the school district cannot be the leader.

And now the local school district is faced with a multi-million dollar lawsuit, as a part-time coach feels his own personal rights have been violated.

The coach and his attorney claim they have acted in good faith throughout this entire situation. But they cavalierly disregard the rights of other people, including students on his own football team. And when he is asked to stop he doubled down and the whole time cried 'Religious Persecution!' He even had the audacity to claim that, 'now the school district will be able to ban a Jew from wearing a yarmulke or a Muslim from wearing a hijab', apparently ignorant of the difference between his very public display of his religion and a theoretical Jew or Muslim person's very private expression.

What is the reasonable accommodation for the coach? According to him it is for everybody to give him the attention he demands while on the stage. But what about everybody else?

Is it religious persecution to call out a religious leader for funding and materially supporting a law which removes previously-granted rights from a broad range of law-abiding citizens, although said religious leader only speaks for a very small minority if the population?

The answer is a resounding NO.

[SeattleUte]

So is it the one conference talk then?

No.

[SeattleUte]

Here's the list of his conference talks:

I just don't see the 30+ years of hostility. This list doesn't include top secret memos, though.

Here's the top secret memo I was referring to. It took me two minutes to find it and review it. I see I have to retract my statement that he favored criminalization of homosexuality. He clearly says on pages 9-10 that the LDS Church should be a fence-sitter as to that issue. I apologize for the error. The memo should still be quite embarrassing to Mormons.

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&q=Dallin+H.+Oaks&domains=general-conference

Here are some additional resources:

https://docs.google.com/folderview?id=0B1u3K43P-3JoNzNlY2IwNmMtMTMzYy00ZjM4LTgzMDgtNGVjZjljMThiY2Y 4&usp=drive_web&hl=en

http://rationalfaiths.com/timeline-of-mormon-thinking-about-homosexuality/

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

[SeattleUte]

By the way, I'm not the best person to do your research about Mormonism, as I'm not a student of the movement.

[LA Ute]

By the way, I'm not the best person to do your research about Mormonism, as I'm not a student of the movement.

I forgot to congratulate you on the "son of perdition" bit about Elder Oaks. I've been laughing about that one for a while. You don't even believe in perdition, you fraud. (But you're our Ute Brotherfraud.)

[SeattleUte]

Here is Oaks condemning the Renaissance, humanism, and the Enlightenment. Like Packer, he realizes that intellectuals, gays, and women are the chief enemies of the LDS Church.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/witnesses-of-god

[LA Ute]

Here is Oaks condemning the Renaissance, humanism, and the Enlightenment. Like Packer, he realizes that intellectuals, gays, and women are the chief enemies of the LDS Church.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/witnesses-of-god

Now you are just trolling. Besides, I already destroyed your claims about this Oaks piece some time ago. You are a glutton for punishment.

You're pulling off an outstanding thread jack, by the way. But I understand -- the Oaks speech that's the basis for this thread is far too logical, civil, and conciliatory for you. Gotta replace it with a ginned-up controversy you can make hysterical claims about. All that said, you're a skilled troll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

I for one applaud Elder Oaks for coming to Jesus with his latest speech.

[UtahsMrSports]

A recent famous talk is the Oct 2013 talk wherein he labelled anybody who disagrees with the church's position against marriage equality a 'moral coward' for following popular worldly beliefs.

Disregard that faithful LDS people can reach a different conclusion from the brethren. And disregard the fact that standing for for marriage equality or lgbt rights can carry a significant social cost for many people and that it can require significant moral courage.

I don't feel like digging up his Mark E Peterson-esque talk at byu-I a few years ago, but that one was a real doozie.

Congratulations. This is an absolutely stunning misinterpretation of what was actually said. One would have try to get this far away from the actual (and obvious) intent.

[SeattleUte]

Congratulations. This is an absolutely stunning misinterpretation of what was actually said. One would have try to get this far away from the actual (and obvious) intent.

Fortunately, Sancho helpfully has linked the speeches Oaks has given, and I don't think it's at all a misrepresentation by NUF.

First, this is a clear as can be expression of LDS Church opposition to homosexual civil rights recently established by the U.S. Supreme Court:


There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness.


He cites simply LDS theology as the basis for this position:



Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

Then he belittles those progressive Mormons--I know many of them--and others who disagree with the LDS Church's position on same sex marriage as "moral cowards":
A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh.

In other words, Oaks is now making a plea that others respect the LDS belief and position on same sex marriage, after he has been belittling those who disagree as "moral cowards" who are simply going with the secular herd. He's a hypocrite.

Oaks and I have different values. What he condemns in his speech as threatening our civilization, I celebrate as fruits of expanding enlightenment, increased liberties and education for women and men, and relief for our overburdened planet:
The United States now has the lowest birthrate in its history, and in many European Union nations and other developed countries, birthrates are below the level necessary to maintain their populations. . . .
In America, the percentage of young adults ages 18 to 29 who are married fell from 59 percent in 1960 to 20 percent by 2010. The median age for first marriage is now at its highest level in history: 26 for women and almost 29 for men.



I strongly disagree with him that "[t]his threatens the survival of cultures and even of nations." These are good facts, not bad facts. Indeed, to me the foregoing statement by Oaks is chilling; it smacks of bigotry or even fascism. Apparently he's alarmed that Americans and Europeans aren't procreating as fast as other peoples. The solution to this is to replace religious dogma with enlightenment and education. It's a fact of life that as education increases, affluence increases, and as these things increase, the birth rate decreases. This is even happening in Mormonism. Oaks's firebrand sermonizing will never change that. He's a man who has been way behind the times.

I don't have a label for the following other than appalling:

In many countries and cultures (1) the traditional family of a married mother and father and children is coming to be the exception rather than the rule, (2) the pursuit of a career instead of marriage and the bearing of children is an increasing choice of many young women, and (3) the role and perceived necessity of fathers is diminishing.


Item (1) is demonstrably false. It's a lie. The divorce rate in America has actually decreased. What he's doing is making a veiled attack on same sex parents of adopted children.

Item (2) is pure and simple sexist. He thinks that women should stay at home and not pursue careers.

Item (3) is breathtakingly ignorant. With the feminization of society, with increased liberty and economic power for women, fathers are becoming more vital. I see all the time that fathers are the big winners, spending more time with children, co-parenting children, staying home with children.

I wouldn't call Oaks a moral coward. But I'd call his values atavistic, out of step with our emerging national morality. He is a medieval man.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

[LA Ute]

SU, you never disappoint. I am never sure that what you say is what you actually believe, as opposed to simple spouting of bile, or basic trolling. Reading your posts is kind like playing Whack-a-Mole. . I never know what will pop up next, or where. I can be sure only that it will be a fairly vicious attack, usually misrepresenting the views of the individual you're attacking.

[SeattleUte]

SU, you never disappoint. I am never sure that what you say is what you actually believe, as opposed to simple spouting of bile, or basic trolling. Reading your posts is kind like playing Whack-a-Mole. . I never know what will pop up next, or where. I can be sure only that it will be a fairly vicious attack, usually misrepresenting the views of the individual you're attacking.

LA, my views are not radical or even outlier. I'm the new normal. I know this from the periodicals I read--every one of which goes by a name that begins with the word "New" (I don't watch television).

[LA Ute]

LA, my views are not radical or even outlier. I'm the new normal. I know this from the periodicals I read--every one of which goes by a name that begins with the word "New" (I don't watch television).

It's not your views that make it so dispiriting to try to have a conversation. It's the almost comically strident, ad hominem nature of your approach. I thought Oaks gave an interesting speech. It was one that serious people took seriously and found worthy of discussion. I optimistically (maybe naively) thought it might contribute to an interesting discussion here. You, and to a lesser extent NWUF, have come in to the thread and basically taken a dump on it. I wish you would not do that.

[SeattleUte]

It's not your views that make it so dispiriting to try to have a conversation. It's the almost comically strident, ad hominem nature of your approach. I thought Oaks gave an interesting speech. It was one that serious people took seriously and found worthy of discussion. I optimistically (maybe naively) thought it might contribute to an interesting discussion here. You, and to a lesser extent NWUF, have come in to the thread and basically taken a dump on it. I wish you would not do that.

I think you should have filed this in the believer thread.

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA, calling to attention the weaknesses of the original article and Oaks speech you posted when taken against decades of statements to the contrary is not the same thing as crapping all over your thread. You of all people should appreciate a robust discussion of the salient points, and should recognize the discussion as such rather than floating the ad hominem trial balloon.

[SeattleUte]

LA, calling to attention the weaknesses of the original article and Oaks speech you posted when taken against decades of statements to the contrary is not the same thing as crapping all over your thread. You of all people should appreciate a robust discussion of the salient points, and should recognize the discussion as such rather than floating the ad hominem trial balloon.

The irony of his plea for mutual respect and peace, and his false concern for religious liberty are also fair grounds for comment. The other thing is, as Oaks makes clear in his conference speech, this "cultural war" is about values, about morality. What are we supposed to do, be moral cowards so as to be more popular with our less progressive Mormon friends and family?

[LA Ute]

So, NWUF and SU, do you think there is any meaningful alternative to the culture wars now going on? Or are you in the "we are right, so we deserve total victory" camp? I haven't seen any response from you to Oaks's actual arguments, only attacks on him, i.e., "Who cares about what he has to say? He's not in a position to say it!" There's a lot of fluff in what you guys are saying. It's angry fluff but it's fluff nonetheless.

[SeattleUte]

So, NWUF and SU, do you think there is any meaningful alternative to the culture wars now going on? Or are you in the "we are right, so we deserve total victory" camp? I haven't seen any response from you to Oaks's actual arguments, only attacks on him, i.e., "Who cares about what he has to say? He's not in a position to say it!" There's a lot of fluff in what you guys are saying. It's angry fluff but it's fluff nonetheless.

Let's stop the wars. Right now. Nobody is talking about this except Oaks. Nobody wants anything from the LDS Church or to affect it in any way.

[SeattleUte]

I agree with this that Oaks said:


[W]e must learn and practice mutual respect for others whose beliefs, values, and behaviors differ from our own. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.”

How can this be reconciled with Oaks's October 2013 Conference talk?

[LA Ute]

I agree with this that Oaks said:



How can this be reconciled with Oaks's October 2013 Conference talk?

Weren't those two addresses made to two different audiences -- one secular/legal, the other religious -- on two different subjects? I don't think they are hard to reconcile at all. But if you're going to slide into accusations that Elder Oaks is flat-out lying and is a [redacted] (a wonderful comment, coming from an atheist/agnostic) then what's the point of any discussion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scratch]

I just took a peak at this thread. SU, I'm sorry but you're all over the place here and many of your attacks are inconsistent and grossly misrepresent the source material. One such example is your repeated attacks of Justice Oaks's discussion of moral cowardice. Here's a excerpt:

Then he belittles those progressive Mormons--I know many of them--and others who disagree with the LDS Church's position on same sex marriage as "moral
cowards":

"A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh."


In other words, Oaks is now making a plea that others respect the LDS belief and position on same sex marriage, after he has been belittling those who disagree as
"moral cowards" who are simply going with the secular herd.


Is your position that these progressive Mormons you're referencing actually think that the church's position on SSM is correct, but they refuse to support th church's position because others will disapprove or mock them? Because that's what your position is implying. Personally, I think your described "progressive Mormons" believe that the church's position on SSM is wrong, so they espouse that position. In other words, they clearly do not fit into Justice Oaks's definition of moral cowardice and your repeated efforts to claim that Oaks is calling them moral cowards is inaccurate and illogical.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Let's stop the wars. Right now. Nobody is talking about this except Oaks. Nobody wants anything from the LDS Church or to affect it in any way.

If the church leaders would stop meddling with politics there would be no reason to push back against them.

And as far as I know the CHoI still requires a same-sex couple getting married to be excommunicated, even if their only 'sin' is to get married and stop 'living in sin'. The sweet lesbian couple in my grandmother's ward in Seattle who are getting married in the next few weeks are about to have a cruel wedding present. The church members in the ward love and support them (as does their Bishop) but the church leadership in slc would prefer not to allow them to remain members. I don't know how hard the area presidency will push the issue.

[SeattleUte]

Scratch, I don't think we disagree. I don't think that the progressive Mormons I know think that the Church's position is correct. I think that what Oaks means is that there are at least some Mormons who purport to be progressive but are only purporting to be progressive because of social pressure. He regards people who do that as moral cowards. He doesn't say that all progressives are moral cowards, but nor does he acknowledge that some may be sincere and even be morally courageous.

I don't agree I'm all over the place. In fact my overarching point about Oaks is that his current advocacy for tolerance is irreconcilable with his lifelong intolerance-- since he clerked for Warren. I'm not the one wh's all over the place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

I want to add, that by saying that there are progressive Mormons out there who are moral cowards without saying that some may not be, Oaks impugns all progressive Mormons as potentially if not actually moral cowards. This is what makes Ironic his current request that progressive people respect his atavism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

Weren't those two addresses made to two different audiences -- one secular/legal, the other religious -- on two different subjects? I don't think they are hard to reconcile at all. But if you're going to slide into accusations that Elder Oaks is flat-out lying and is a [redacted] (a wonderful comment, coming from an atheist/agnostic) then what's the point of any discussion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[redacted] is a useful concept for making my point about the Oaks enigma. I borrow LDS jargon ironically sometimes.

[SeattleUte]

If the church leaders would stop meddling with politics there would be no reason to push back against them.

And as far as I know the CHoI still requires a same-sex couple getting married to be excommunicated, even if their only 'sin' is to get married and stop 'living in sin'. The sweet lesbian couple in my grandmother's ward in Seattle who are getting married in the next few weeks are about to have a cruel wedding present. The church members in the ward love and support them (as does their Bishop) but the church leadership in slc would prefer not to allow them to remain members. I don't know how hard the area presidency will push the issue.

I agree. The LDS Church has nothing to fear but itself.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Here is the pic from Church Handbook of Instructions. This is OK, it is their club and they can do what they want.

http://i.imgur.com/l2QQz1P.jpg

[SeattleUte]

Yikes! I'd better be more careful.

[Ma'ake]

With "war" as the metaphor, it may be useful to recall that as a nation we made a very, very BIG step in initiating pre-emptive war against Iraq, for what appeared at the time as solid reasons.

Parallels?

[LA Ute]

With "war" as the metaphor, it may be useful to recall that as a nation we made a very, very BIG step in initiating pre-emptive war against Iraq, for what appeared at the time as solid reasons.

Parallels?

I don't think so, because Oaks's speech was actually against culture wars, as that term is currently understood. It was a version of "live and let live," along the lines of the Utah anti-discrimination ordinance -- let churches believe and practice as they wish, within their own membership and within existing Constitutional limits; and don't discriminate in secular life on any of the forbidden bases, e.g., race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and so forth.

[LA Ute]

I want to add, that by saying that there are progressive Mormons out there who are moral cowards without saying that some may not be, Oaks impugns all progressive Mormons as potentially if not actually moral cowards. This is what makes Ironic his current request that progressive people respect his atavism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to find for us the place that he said that. We'll need to see the full-context quote, so please don't try to mislead the court, counselor. You'll be sanctioned. :snack:

[LA Ute]

I don't agree I'm all over the place. In fact my overarching point about Oaks is that his current advocacy for tolerance is irreconcilable with his lifelong intolerance-- since he clerked for Warren. I'm not the one wh's all over the place.

For those here who are not lawyers and might be deceived by this disingenuous statement, Supreme Court clerks are not chosen because they agree with the justices they work for. Frequently they do not.

[LA Ute]

LA, calling to attention the weaknesses of the original article and Oaks speech you posted when taken against decades of statements to the contrary is not the same thing as crapping all over your thread. You of all people should appreciate a robust discussion of the salient points, and should recognize the discussion as such rather than floating the ad hominem trial balloon.

Not buying it. The man made a serious speech to a audience and all you and SU can do is roll out your anger against the church and talk about prior speeches he has given that you did not like. You haven't said one word about the speech that Martin Marty -- no LDS apologist -- thought was important.

Here's a litmus test for you both: Do you approve of the Utah anti-discrimination law? If you do not then it will be clear that you are in the "total victory" camp and will not accept any live-and-let-live scenario. That's your privilege but you might as well be out in the open about it.

[LA Ute]

I merged the thread about the Oaks talk with the Marriage Equality thread. I'm done with it.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Here's a litmus test for you both: Do you approve of the Utah anti-discrimination law? If you do not then it will be clear that you are in the "total victory" camp and will not accept any live-and-let-live scenario. That's your privilege but you might as well be out in the open about it.

I think that law is very good and I think it follows common sense. I don't like the way the religious exemption portion reads as it appears it will allow discrimination in housing where byu-approved housing is concerned, as well as the allowance for employment discrimination where byu is involved. But the law will keep churches themselves safe from the larger world, and protects lgbt people from most forms of discrimination.

It is a shame that this bill was tabled for two years (allegedly at Oaks' request, according to the author) while the cases played out at the Supreme and lower Courts, but u applaud Utah for passing the law.

SLC ranks extremely high as a gay-friendly city. It is a perennial Top Ten city in Advocate Magazine for lgbt people to visit or live, and apparently has the 7th largest lgbt population in the nation (ranked by quantity, not percentage). SLC just elected a lesbian mayor. The dichotomy is interesting.

[LA Ute]

This is a very interesting and worthwhile read for anyone, regardless of how one sees the issue:

Dan and Me: My Coming Out as a Friend of Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a_b_2564379.html

Don't prejudge anything until you've read the whole thing.


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[LA Ute]

Methodists struggling with this subject too.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-methodist-culture-war-showdown-1463093434?cb=logged0.7461192646216552


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[Applejack]

Methodists struggling with this subject too.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-methodist-culture-war-showdown-1463093434?cb=logged0.7461192646216552


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

If I had to pick sides, I'd join the side of western nations on social issues; they can still kill you for being gay in Africa.

[LA Ute]

If I had to pick sides, I'd join the side of western nations on social issues; they can still kill you for being gay in Africa.

True, but be careful about using the term "Africa." It is a big place. I think the United States could fit into that continent three times. As a nation and society, South Africa is far different from Libya.

(Just giving you a hard time, AJ.)

[SeattleUte]

http://religionnews.com/2016/06/02/leaders-urge-mexicos-mormons-to-fight-against-same-sex-marriage/

[Utah]

http://religionnews.com/2016/06/02/leaders-urge-mexicos-mormons-to-fight-against-same-sex-marriage/

I don't get this crusade. I don't get it at all. It has NOTHING to do with the Church. It's almost like the Church sees that it is losing members at an alarming rate and is trying to rally the troops by creating an emotional crusade to keep people on their side.

Why do we not believe this:


We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Why do we not allow others to do what they want? Why do we have to force our will on them?

Also, you'd think if any Church out there would be sympathetic to the feelings of others regarding marriage, it would be our Church. We were the original "people who want to do marriage differently than everyone else" people.