If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   US Supreme Court halts Utah same-sex marriages pending appeal. Sorry, procrastinators   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 150
    More: Followup, Supreme Court, Utah, opponents of same-sex marriage, Supreme Court halts, U.S. Court of Appeals  
•       •       •

1271 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jan 2014 at 1:35 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-06 01:22:12 PM
A sad step backwards for equality.  But hey, 2013 was a great year for it.  Question for legal eagles out there:  What are the odds of someone using the new precedent of DOMA violating equal protection to challenge same sex marriage bans nationwide?  And more importantly, what are the odds of it working?  I seriously doubt there's any other way to get it in all 50 states without it going the route of the courts.
 
2014-01-06 01:33:00 PM
Agree with you there, nekon, certainly a sad step backwards for equality.

As Utah put same-sex marriages up for a referendum vote, similar to what Alabama did for a new amendment to its constitution to ban same-sex marriages, how can that be constitutional? I highly doubt the same situation would fly if Alabama had put civil rights for African-Americans up to a referendum vote back in the 1960s with a white majority running things.

/SCOTUS, do the right thing here.
//We don't nead another Dred Scott decision here.
 
2014-01-06 01:39:22 PM
Yay for having so many varying state laws so we can halt progress to wait for the derper states to catch up.
 
2014-01-06 01:44:04 PM

AirForceVet: I highly doubt the same situation would fly if Alabama had put civil rights for African-Americans up to a referendum vote back in the 1960s with a white majority running things.


I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.

CSB:  My wife's uncle was one of those who got illegally gay married when a clerk in Montgomery county decided "fark this, I'm issuing them anyway"
/it doesn't count, but they thought it was cool
//Keep an eye on PA, lots of stuff up in the air on this issue here.
 
2014-01-06 01:45:23 PM
So, how many couples DID get married during this time?
 
2014-01-06 01:46:31 PM
The district court should have stayed its ruling in the first place.  Now all those people who rushed to get marriage licenses under this court ruling could have their marriage licenses invalidated, if the ruling gets overturned on appeal.
 
2014-01-06 01:47:48 PM
Issuing a stay pending appeal for a hot-button issue that has many legal ramifications is pretty standard...
 
2014-01-06 01:49:35 PM
What are the odds of someone using the new precedent of DOMA violating equal protection to challenge same sex marriage bans nationwide?  And more importantly, what are the odds of it working?

Depends on what Justice Kennedy has for lunch the day he hears oral arguments.  If it's Tikka Masala, forget it.  (Seriously, if Kennedy sticks to the precedent in Windsor, there's no way he won't go for that argument.)

I seriously doubt there's any other way to get it in all 50 states without it going the route of the courts.

Not necessarily.  It did take 41 years, though.
 
2014-01-06 01:50:09 PM
Is that dumbass off his hunger strike now?
 
2014-01-06 01:51:14 PM

nekom: I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.


Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of race an inalienable constitutional right? Yes
Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right? Buffering...

I have yet to hear a single good argument against same sex marriage that isn't rooted in the religious beliefs of inbred, illiterate, goat herders.
 
2014-01-06 01:55:19 PM
Just in the nick of time too... I was going to have to marry a turtle next weekend. Guess I dodged a bullet on that one.
 
2014-01-06 01:56:39 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: nekom: I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.

Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of race an inalienable constitutional right? Yes
Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right? Buffering...

I have yet to hear a single good argument against same sex marriage that isn't rooted in the religious beliefs of inbred, illiterate, goat herders.


BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???
 
2014-01-06 02:01:05 PM

Pincy: Monkeyhouse Zendo: nekom: I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.

Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of race an inalienable constitutional right? Yes
Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right? Buffering...

I have yet to hear a single good argument against same sex marriage that isn't rooted in the religious beliefs of inbred, illiterate, goat herders.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???


WHEN GAY CHILDREN GROW UP THEY CAN MARRY OTHER GROWN UP GAY CHILDREN, SO CHILDREN ARE GOOD.
 
2014-01-06 02:03:55 PM

Pincy: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???


Same-sex couples already have children, and they are doing quite well thankyouverymuch.
 
2014-01-06 02:05:26 PM
Pincy:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???

That may be one of the dumber ones out there.  My daughter is 6 and she's aware of gay people.  That conversation was super easy!  Daddy, what does gay mean?  "Oh, well you know how sometimes a man and a woman fall in love?  Well some people fall in love with people of the same gender.  So you may have a couple that are both men or both women."  "Oh, ok I get it."

So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.
 
2014-01-06 02:07:06 PM

SkinnyHead: Now all those people who rushed to get marriage licenses under this court ruling could have their marriage licenses invalidated, if the ruling gets overturned on appeal.


Or it could go like it did in California where the marriages were considered valid.  You remember California's Prop 8, don't you?  You should.  The shellacking you took from being wrong at every point of that fiasco probably still stings.
 
2014-01-06 02:09:46 PM
While it's a setback, I think this is more procedural than anything else.  I'm guessing that SCOTUS wants this to see this case complete its way through the Utah courts before making their own decision...and SCOTUS will end up ruling on this soon (this year or next year).
 
2014-01-06 02:10:36 PM

nekom: A sad step backwards for equality.  But hey, 2013 was a great year for it.  Question for legal eagles out there:  What are the odds of someone using the new precedent of DOMA violating equal protection to challenge same sex marriage bans nationwide?  And more importantly, what are the odds of it working?  I seriously doubt there's any other way to get it in all 50 states without it going the route of the courts.


Well states are using it for just that. So it all depends if it bubbles up to that federal level.
 
2014-01-06 02:11:26 PM
I wouldn't call it a "Setback" I would only call it a "Delay" so far.
 
2014-01-06 02:11:58 PM

qorkfiend: Issuing a stay pending appeal for a hot-button issue that has many legal ramifications is pretty standard...


Especially when it's a federal court overturning a portion of a state constitution.  You want to be really careful about those ones.  I completely support gay marriage and even think the Supreme Court might uphold the federal court's ruling.  But even I think this stay was probably the right call.
 
2014-01-06 02:18:43 PM

nekom: Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?


The civil rights. The first part of the sentence should have been "The opinions of the majority of the people", not "rights". There is plenty of precedent, from women voting to slavery and all sorts of other issues.

If one asked people in Arkansas "Should we kill all Mooslims?", the majority might vote yes. That's not how things work, fortunately. Just because a majority "wants" something doesn't mean it will apply to any sort of law. The majority of a state might want the speed limit to be 100, the majority of the US might want a Congresscritter to make $30K a year.
 
2014-01-06 02:19:58 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-06 02:20:32 PM
This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.
 
2014-01-06 02:20:44 PM

nekom: Pincy:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???

That may be one of the dumber ones out there.  My daughter is 6 and she's aware of gay people.  That conversation was super easy!  Daddy, what does gay mean?  "Oh, well you know how sometimes a man and a woman fall in love?  Well some people fall in love with people of the same gender.  So you may have a couple that are both men or both women."  "Oh, ok I get it."

So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.


Well of course, she is not at the age of consent.  Which is 7 for turtle marriage. I suggest a head of lettuce or an aquarium as a dowry, as mandated by the turtle's parents.
 
2014-01-06 02:21:40 PM
I'd rather watch the fundies fry slowly under a magnifying glass than be squashed anyway, so bravo.
 
2014-01-06 02:22:44 PM
Also, do you know what I really DON'T want to explain to my daughter?  Why there are poor people in this country.  Why people in Africa die of starvation.  Why people in best Korea are tortured.  Those things are OBSCENE.  Gays, that's an easy one.  Some people are gay.  That one's simple.
 
2014-01-06 02:23:38 PM
I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.
 
2014-01-06 02:23:40 PM
Procrastinating polygamists peeved?
 
2014-01-06 02:26:17 PM
I firmly disagree with the injunction, the state failed to show any sort of harm at all, let alone irreparable harm.
 
2014-01-06 02:28:59 PM

Soup4Bonnie: SkinnyHead: Now all those people who rushed to get marriage licenses under this court ruling could have their marriage licenses invalidated, if the ruling gets overturned on appeal.

Or it could go like it did in California where the marriages were considered valid.  You remember California's Prop 8, don't you?  You should.  The shellacking you took from being wrong at every point of that fiasco probably still stings.


California was different situation.  In California, the state supreme court discovered that the state constitution guarantees gay marriage.  Same sex marriages became legal once that court decision became final.  Prop 8 amended the state constitution to define marriage as between man and woman.  Because Prop 8 was seen as a change in the state constitution, those who were legally married before Prop 8 remained legally married.

In Utah, there is no non-final judgment declaring a federal constitutional right to a gay marriage.  Court decisions don't become final until time for appeal expires.  If the lower court decision gets reversed on appeal, Utah is free to enforce its own state law to invalidate those marriages.
 
2014-01-06 02:32:58 PM

firefly212: I firmly disagree with the injunction, the state failed to show any sort of harm at all, let alone irreparable harm.


They think its icky and that thinking about icky things like man on man buttsex is irreparably harmful due to the decay in moral character something something reasons God.
 
2014-01-06 02:33:44 PM

ampoliros: This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.


No... that isn't it at all... the federal judciary (Shebly) invalidated it, it is going to the next higher federal court, the to SCOTUS... the federal judiciary is elbows deep in this, and will be the arbiter of whether or not it is compliant with the US Constitution, regardless of which way it goes... there is no state avenue for this particular matter. The state itself has no standing to determine whether or not its own laws are compliant with the US Constitution, that's pretty plainly the responsibility of the federal judiciary.
 
2014-01-06 02:34:28 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: firefly212: I firmly disagree with the injunction, the state failed to show any sort of harm at all, let alone irreparable harm.

They think its icky and that thinking about icky things like man on man buttsex is irreparably harmful due to the decay in moral character something something reasons God.


Mainlining mountain dew and mormonism can be dangerous.
 
2014-01-06 02:38:05 PM

firefly212: Mainlining mountain dew and mormonism can be dangerous.


You've basically described the modern-day Boy Scouts of America.
 
2014-01-06 02:38:58 PM
I love the fact that this is going to the supreme court, and specifically under the concept that preventing two people from getting married is a violation of their constitutional rights, and not as any sort of states rights or voting rights argument.

It will be fascinating to see the crazies on the court trying to explain how it's constitutional to treat two classes of people differently.
 
2014-01-06 02:41:20 PM
I live in Utah. I can tell you most Mormon here know it's going to happen eventually. I like Mormons, they are not bad people they are just incline to herd thinking. For example if you get them in groups they will rage against pot legalization. If you catch them alone most think it's fine.  They have to keep up a certain appearance for the community they belong too. I guess most humans are like that.


\If you really want to slam dunk them bring up polygamy. I generally never do this unless they start bashing my gay friends.
 
2014-01-06 02:45:25 PM

Smoking GNU: So, how many couples DID get married during this time?


From what I've read, 930 couples, or all the gay people in Utah.
 
2014-01-06 02:45:34 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Just in the nick of time too... I was going to have to marry a turtle next weekend. Guess I dodged a bullet on that one.


If Nevada reverses their constitutional ban on marriage equality, one of the Vegas wedding chapels should troll the religious crowd by offering Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles themed wedding packages.
 
2014-01-06 02:49:16 PM

Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.


Can a devout Mormon marry a non-Mormon and it be condoned by the church? Don't you like have to have a temple name, magical underwear, etc. to have an LDS wedding? Did you go through the motions, did she not care about having a church wedding, or did she convert after you wed?
 
2014-01-06 02:50:00 PM

nekom: So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.


You shrug it off now, but wait until she finds out that she can legally marry a black man.
 
2014-01-06 02:50:03 PM

t3knomanser: firefly212: Mainlining mountain dew and mormonism can be dangerous.

You've basically described the modern-day Boy Scouts of America.


*snert*. That's a good one.
 
2014-01-06 02:50:50 PM

nekom: Basically at the core here is which trumps which? The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?


Exactly, and in this case, civil rights trump the majority, because the majority cannot prove any specific harms caused by the minority getting to marry. In fact, the Prop 8 ruling codified that straights have no standing to oppose gay marriage because they cannot demonstrate how they are harmed.

Even if the majority might feel it is harmed, it has to prove that this harm is so substantial to deprive the minority of its rights. Take the case of Westboro Baptist Church: the majority feels it is harmed because it has to put up with Westboro saying things they don't like. However, despite the fact that the majority disapproves of Westboro, the minority does not need the majority's approval to exercise its rights. Because having your feelings hurt, getting offended, or hating the fact that a bunch of people say things that make your blood boil isn't enough of a harm to ban others from saying things you don't like.

In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.
 
2014-01-06 02:53:21 PM

soporific: In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.


You're talking abstract political philosophy about majoritarianism vs. minority rights, not actual legal analysis. As a practical matter, a 1st Amendment free speech case is unlikely to have anything to do with a 14th Amendment equal protection ruling.
 
2014-01-06 02:57:39 PM

firefly212: ampoliros: This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.

No... that isn't it at all... the federal judciary (Shebly) invalidated it, it is going to the next higher federal court, the to SCOTUS... the federal judiciary is elbows deep in this, and will be the arbiter of whether or not it is compliant with the US Constitution, regardless of which way it goes... there is no state avenue for this particular matter. The state itself has no standing to determine whether or not its own laws are compliant with the US Constitution, that's pretty plainly the responsibility of the federal judiciary.


I'd say it's because SCOTUS knows it will come to them and their decision if against Utah makes gay marriage legal everywhere in the US and they don't want to seem bias before it gets to them.
 
2014-01-06 02:58:57 PM

Churchill2004: soporific: In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.

You're talking abstract political philosophy about majoritarianism vs. minority rights, not actual legal analysis. As a practical matter, a 1st Amendment free speech case is unlikely to have anything to do with a 14th Amendment equal protection ruling.


"Community Standards" are a huge part of the anti-gay marriage arguments. As in: "Why should our community have to put up with gay people openly being gay and getting gay married? Why don't we in the majority have a right to ban that which we don't like?"

A right is a right is a right. Someone's right to free speech is not determined by the majority, just as someone's right to marry is not determined by the majority. Furthermore, it is a First Amendment issue because many religions support gay marriage. Why should their rights be infringed upon by a majority of people whose religion is against it? Why is the government supporting one religious belief over another?

So yes, the two cases are connected, and it is still my dream that Westboro is cited as to why it is unconstitutional for the majority to vote against gay marriage.
 
2014-01-06 03:01:16 PM

Amish Tech Support: I live in Utah. I can tell you most Mormon here know it's going to happen eventually. I like Mormons, they are not bad people they are just incline to herd thinking. For example if you get them in groups they will rage against pot legalization. If you catch them alone most think it's fine.  They have to keep up a certain appearance for the community they belong too. I guess most humans are like that.


\If you really want to slam dunk them bring up polygamy. I generally never do this unless they start bashing my gay friends.


I bet that whole "Curse of Ham" thing is still a sensitive issue too.
 
2014-01-06 03:02:18 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: firefly212: ampoliros: This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.

No... that isn't it at all... the federal judciary (Shebly) invalidated it, it is going to the next higher federal court, the to SCOTUS... the federal judiciary is elbows deep in this, and will be the arbiter of whether or not it is compliant with the US Constitution, regardless of which way it goes... there is no state avenue for this particular matter. The state itself has no standing to determine whether or not its own laws are compliant with the US Constitution, that's pretty plainly the responsibility of the federal judiciary.

I'd say it's because SCOTUS knows it will come to them and their decision if against Utah makes gay marriage legal everywhere in the US and they don't want to seem bias before it gets to them.


That's not the legal standard for having an injunction though... the legal standard is that the state would have to show that there could be irreparable harm were the injunction not to be issued. In this case, the state has repeatedly failed to show harm, and in many filings, even failed to declare that there would be any harm.
 
2014-01-06 03:02:49 PM

Churchill2004: Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.

Can a devout Mormon marry a non-Mormon and it be condoned by the church? Don't you like have to have a temple name, magical underwear, etc. to have an LDS wedding? Did you go through the motions, did she not care about having a church wedding, or did she convert after you wed?


We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon). I am not, nor will I ever be Mormon, therefore we can't be "sealed" in their temple as Mormon couples usually do.

My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen
 
2014-01-06 03:03:24 PM

soporific: In fact, the Prop 8 ruling codified that straights have no standing to oppose gay marriage because they cannot demonstrate how they are harmed.


I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that too is precedent now.  I was thinking the DOMA ruling on the equal protection clause might be used.  Perhaps they both will.  The legal system is something I have only a very basic understanding of, I'm don't even have an internet GED in law, but it is fun to watch it all unfold.  It's also REALLY fun to watch conservative heads asplode, which is reason enough for me to love legal same sex unions even if I didn't have gay relatives who I wish could marry their partners.  If nothing else, it could really shore up our strategic conservative tears supply.
 
2014-01-06 03:05:16 PM

soporific: Churchill2004: soporific: In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.

You're talking abstract political philosophy about majoritarianism vs. minority rights, not actual legal analysis. As a practical matter, a 1st Amendment free speech case is unlikely to have anything to do with a 14th Amendment equal protection ruling.

"Community Standards" are a huge part of the anti-gay marriage arguments. As in: "Why should our community have to put up with gay people openly being gay and getting gay married? Why don't we in the majority have a right to ban that which we don't like?"

A right is a right is a right. Someone's right to free speech is not determined by the majority, just as someone's right to marry is not determined by the majority. Furthermore, it is a First Amendment issue because many religions support gay marriage. Why should their rights be infringed upon by a majority of people whose religion is against it? Why is the government supporting one religious belief over another?

So yes, the two cases are connected, and it is still my dream that Westboro is cited as to why it is unconstitutional for the majority to vote against gay marriage.


Well if it's Utah that brigs marriage equality to all 50 states I'd say that's already pretty funny.
 
2014-01-06 03:05:25 PM
You guys are acting like this is a permanent change. Everyone knew they would do anything they could to stall for time, and filing appeals to stall is just another dick move in the GOP strategy.

A temporary halt is a dick move, but it isn't a permanent move. More than likely SCOTUS will review the appeal and allow same-sex marriages in Utah to resume as normally once they come to the inevitable decision that the federal ruling was correct.

Barring Scalia and Thomas ruling in favor of the assholes, there won't be strong enough support to overturn the Federal ruling. Most of them will shrug their shoulders and tell them to get over it.

Reviewing appeals is business as usual for SCOTUS, and we knew the GOP would be dicks about this. But this isn't the end of same sex marriage in Utah, this is just another road bump that we'll have to pass over and grumble about. But the GOP has lost this war, they're just going through the motions of using any ammunition they can find to stall for time.
 
2014-01-06 03:11:09 PM

Weatherkiss: just another dick move in the GOP strategy


Having a good dick move probably will lead to gay marriage, or at least a steady boyfriend.
 
2014-01-06 03:17:32 PM

Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon). I am not, nor will I ever be Mormon, therefore we can't be "sealed" in their temple as Mormon couples usually do.

My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen


You should try the beer with caffeine in it.
 
2014-01-06 03:19:54 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon). I am not, nor will I ever be Mormon, therefore we can't be "sealed" in their temple as Mormon couples usually do.

My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen

You should try the beer with caffeine in it.


I had to give up caffeine because of a heart rhythm condition or I would.
 
2014-01-06 03:21:49 PM

Tax Boy: Weatherkiss: just another dick move in the GOP strategy

Having a good dick move probably will lead to gay marriage, or at least a steady boyfriend.


Let's not be misogynistic here; many women would probably enjoy a good dick move as well.
 
2014-01-06 03:23:11 PM
Let me start by saying that I've looked at this issue from as many angles as I can find and there doesn't seem to be the slightest legal justification for withholding governmental benefits (tax breaks etc.) from same sex couples while allowing those same benefits to mixed sex couples. Barring some kind of amazing political or legal gymnastics it's a foregone conclusion that same sex marriage will be upheld at the federal level.

That being said, it's frustrating to see the same hollow anti-religious comments parroted in these threads by people that on the one hand criticize the group think that is prevalent in most religious movements and on the other hand spit out the same uneducated vitriol exactly like the sheep they love to mock.

While there appear to be a lot of religious morons that are against gay marriage because it's "icky", at an organizational level the vast majority of those opposing same sex marriage do so as a hedge against possible future infringement of their freedom of religion. Any objective analysis of their stance has to admit this fear is not unfounded.

Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

It's pretty clear that many people who deride the religious opposition to same sex marriage care more about bashing religion than they do about people's rights, or they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the rights of those who don't wish to be forced to participate in religious ceremonies that violate their most important beliefs.

I wish people on both sides of this issue would pull their heads out of their asses and realize that "marriage" consists of 2 parts: 1. The Ceremony and 2. Rights and Responsibilities. There doesn't seem to be a way to guarantee the rights of everyone involved until those 2 parts are well and truly separate. Let the religious nuts play dress up all they want without imposing governmental oversight and get the law to equal the playing field guaranteeing the same benefits for any couple regardless of their sexual orientation or any other factor.

Ignorance is ugly, but when I hear the religious masses decry the immorality of same sex marriage at least I can write off part of it to their indoctrination. When I see the other side of the coin expressed by so called rational people it's depressing to see how they're no less indoctrinated by some kind of anti-religious Cult of the Internet.

If you truly believe in equal rights, remember that people on both sides of this issue are entitled to them. Instead of acting like some kind of perverted Westboro Church of Anti-Religion let's get to the root of the issue and make sure everyone's rights are protected by getting the government out of the religion business and religion out of the government's business.

I have references for everything in this post if anyone's interested. Please everyone do some critical thinking and decide if you're truly on the side of equal rights or if you're on the side of "Internet Bandwagon Church of Religion Sucks"

Same Sex Unions need to be Federally protected, but so do the rights of the religious to practice their mumbo jumbo without the threat of government interference. The only way to accomplish both is to ensure the rights of ALL couples to tax breaks, visitation, inheritance, etc. etc. by decoupling those rights from any kind of outdated religious ceremony, regardless of its origin.
 
2014-01-06 03:26:23 PM

Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon)


Huh, I didn't know they did that in LDS churches. I'm not aware of any other church that provides a different sort of ceremony, in its building and officiated by its clergy, for interfaith weddings.
 
2014-01-06 03:26:23 PM

nekom: Pincy:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???

That may be one of the dumber ones out there.  My daughter is 6 and she's aware of gay people.  That conversation was super easy!  Daddy, what does gay mean?  "Oh, well you know how sometimes a man and a woman fall in love?  Well some people fall in love with people of the same gender.  So you may have a couple that are both men or both women."  "Oh, ok I get it."

So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.


SO FAR

SO FAR
 
2014-01-06 03:27:12 PM

push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.


Citation please?
 
2014-01-06 03:28:38 PM

nekom: A sad step backwards for equality.  But hey, 2013 was a great year for it.  Question for legal eagles out there:  What are the odds of someone using the new precedent of DOMA violating equal protection to challenge same sex marriage bans nationwide?  And more importantly, what are the odds of it working?  I seriously doubt there's any other way to get it in all 50 states without it going the route of the courts.


You don't challenge laws nationwide. You challenge your local law for violating Federal law and push it up the line until the Supreme Court applies the ruling nation-wide. Which is the likely result of this case (as opposed to New Mexico where it was deemed to viloate the state constitution).
 
2014-01-06 03:30:26 PM
push3r: Same Sex Unions need to be Federally protected, but so do the rights of the religious to practice their mumbo jumbo without the threat of government interference. The only way to accomplish both is to ensure the rights of ALL couples to tax breaks, visitation, inheritance, etc. etc. by decoupling those rights from any kind of outdated religious ceremony, regardless of its origin.

Very well put!  Separation of church and state should protect the state from the church, but also should protect the church from the state.  The best answer to all this is indeed to decouple marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a legal instrument.  As a religious institution, it's up to the individual churches to decide what it means to them.  As a legal instrument, it is merely an exclusive contract entered into by two natural persons.  To deny that right based on sexual orientation is nothing short of discrimination.  Whether or not a particular church will perform the ceremony, that MUST remain up to the church.  Though really, if the government tries to force me to perform a wedding I don't approve of, I just wouldn't do it.  What are they going to do, throw me in jail?

/I don't disapprove of same sex unions at all, and would be happy to perform such ceremonies
//internet ordained minister
///red letter Christian Buddhist agnostic
 
2014-01-06 03:30:31 PM

firefly212: tinfoil-hat maggie: firefly212: ampoliros: This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.

No... that isn't it at all... the federal judciary (Shebly) invalidated it, it is going to the next higher federal court, the to SCOTUS... the federal judiciary is elbows deep in this, and will be the arbiter of whether or not it is compliant with the US Constitution, regardless of which way it goes... there is no state avenue for this particular matter. The state itself has no standing to determine whether or not its own laws are compliant with the US Constitution, that's pretty plainly the responsibility of the federal judiciary.

I'd say it's because SCOTUS knows it will come to them and their decision if against Utah makes gay marriage legal everywhere in the US and they don't want to seem bias before it gets to them.

That's not the legal standard for having an injunction though... the legal standard is that the state would have to show that there could be irreparable harm were the injunction not to be issued. In this case, the state has repeatedly failed to show harm, and in many filings, even failed to declare that there would be any harm.


I don't really like it but SCOTUS decided for the stay without discussion from what TFA said and they get to do what they want.
 
2014-01-06 03:32:04 PM

push3r: And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.


You can file a lawsuit over whatever you want, the law is perfectly clear that they have no case. Even if statutory anti-discrimination laws went that far, which they don't, and even if such laws had anything to do with whether or not SS civil marriage is legal, which they don't, then the 1st Amendment would still completely prohibit forcing any church or any religious officiant to perform a wedding they didn't want to. 

Try going to your local Catholic priest and getting him to marry a Hindu and an athiest. Try getting your local unreconstructed anti-miscegenation preacher to marry a black man and a white woman. 

Find me one example, in the entire history of the United States, where a church or religious officiant has been forced to solemnize a marriage against their wishes. You won't find one, because it hasn't happened, ever. 

This argument is a ridiculous red herring. It literally says nothing about civil marriage equality- it's at beast an objection to anti-discrimination laws, which are an entirely separate category of law.
 
2014-01-06 03:33:53 PM

Churchill2004: Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon)

Huh, I didn't know they did that in LDS churches. I'm not aware of any other church that provides a different sort of ceremony, in its building and officiated by its clergy, for interfaith weddings.


It was a generic ceremony, similar to what you would get from a Justice Of The Peace.
 
2014-01-06 03:33:54 PM
Hey, sometimes due process is a biatch.  Apparently these dipshiats are just as entitled to their day in court getting their ass handed to them as someone else is with a legitimate case.

We just have to wait around for a while, but this changes nothing.
 
2014-01-06 03:37:52 PM

Beerguy: Churchill2004: Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon)

Huh, I didn't know they did that in LDS churches. I'm not aware of any other church that provides a different sort of ceremony, in its building and officiated by its clergy, for interfaith weddings.

It was a generic ceremony, similar to what you would get from a Justice Of The Peace.


Hey, whatever floats your boat. My marriage ceremony was officiated by my grandfather-in-law, on top of an ancient Indian mound in a state park for no real reason other than I liked the topography (my husband insisted we make sure we were on the ceremonial mound and not the burial one a few hundred meters away!), followed by a brief JP civil ceremony out of state in Dubuque because Wisconsin doesn't recognize our (same-sex) marriage yet. I just find it surprising that a Mormon officiant in a Mormon church would have no problem conducting a non-Mormon wedding.
 
2014-01-06 03:41:50 PM

Churchill2004: push3r: And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

You can file a lawsuit over whatever you want, the law is perfectly clear that they have no case. Even if statutory anti-discrimination laws went that far, which they don't, and even if such laws had anything to do with whether or not SS civil marriage is legal, which they don't, then the 1st Amendment would still completely prohibit forcing any church or any religious officiant to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
Try going to your local Catholic priest and getting him to marry a Hindu and an athiest. Try getting your local unreconstructed anti-miscegenation preacher to marry a black man and a white woman.
Find me one example, in the entire history of the United States, where a church or religious officiant has been forced to solemnize a marriage against their wishes. You won't find one, because it hasn't happened, ever.
This argument is a ridiculous red herring. It literally says nothing about civil marriage equality- it's at beast an objection to anti-discrimination laws, which are an entirely separate category of law.


Thank you, very well put.
 
2014-01-06 03:44:21 PM

Musikslayer: nekom: Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?

The civil rights. The first part of the sentence should have been "The opinions of the majority of the people", not "rights". There is plenty of precedent, from women voting to slavery and all sorts of other issues.

If one asked people in Arkansas "Should we kill all Mooslims?", the majority might vote yes. That's not how things work, fortunately. Just because a majority "wants" something doesn't mean it will apply to any sort of law. The majority of a state might want the speed limit to be 100, the majority of the US might want a Congresscritter to make $30K a year.


"Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one." - Kurt Cobain
 
2014-01-06 03:50:34 PM

Beerguy: Churchill2004: Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.

Can a devout Mormon marry a non-Mormon and it be condoned by the church? Don't you like have to have a temple name, magical underwear, etc. to have an LDS wedding? Did you go through the motions, did she not care about having a church wedding, or did she convert after you wed?

We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon). I am not, nor will I ever be Mormon, therefore we can't be "sealed" in their temple as Mormon couples usually do.

My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen


Does she understand that she will never be able to ascend to the celestial kingdom?  And that is that is the case then there are all sorts of other sins that are open to her, but that will do no harm to her standing in the afterlife?  if you haven't pursued this line of argument in your pursuit of more debauchery with your wife, I think you should.. :D

Unless said debauchery is already there, in which case I would start asking her why expend any effort at keeping up lame appearances?  Just get the tattoos and body piercing, dye the hair and be done with it..
 
2014-01-06 03:51:21 PM
Really SCOTUS? you could at least offer some justification of your ruling on the stay in the order?   Not that i can think of ay legal standing UTAH had in getting a stay.

Seriously the SCOTUS needs to put on their collective big boy pants and rule gay marriage is legal as legislative action is just not gonna happen as in too many states to even suggest legalizing gay marriage is tantamount to political suicide.
 
2014-01-06 03:51:24 PM
push3r: Let me start by saying that I've looked at this issue from as many angles as I can find and there doesn't seem to be the slightest legal justification for withholding governmental benefits (tax breaks etc.) from same sex couples while allowing those same benefits to mixed sex couples. Barring some kind of amazing political or legal gymnastics it's a foregone conclusion that same sex marriage will be upheld at the federal level.

That being said, it's frustrating to see the same hollow anti-religious comments parroted in these threads by people that on the one hand criticize the group think that is prevalent in most religious movements and on the other hand spit out the same uneducated vitriol exactly like the sheep they love to mock.


I'm going to have to disagree with you based on one word: uneducated. Fark isn't the most religiously friendly site to begin with, but lets not mince words here. The Mormon church has been VERY active when it comes to suppressing Gay Marriage. When you are oppressed, it is natural to want to lash out at your attacker.

While there appear to be a lot of religious morons that are against gay marriage because it's "icky", at an organizational level the vast majority of those opposing same sex marriage do so as a hedge against possible future infringement of their freedom of religion. Any objective analysis of their stance has to admit this fear is not unfounded.

Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.


Freedom of Association. The Mormon church can choose to disallow people from marrying in their church. I know there are a number of hoops to jump through so you can marry in a Catholic church, I'm sure Mormons are the same.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

And they will (and should) fail based on Freedom of Association.

It's pretty clear that many people who deride the religious opposition to same sex marriage care more about bashing religion than they do about people's rights, or they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the rights ...

What rights are being dismissed? The right to try to control a word that they feel they have proprietary ownership of despite the convention existing well before their creation (by a few thousand years in the case of the Mormons)?
 
2014-01-06 03:51:52 PM

PawisBetlog: an more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one." - Kurt Cobain



Nice.
 
2014-01-06 03:52:22 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?


The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.
 
2014-01-06 03:54:23 PM

PawisBetlog: Hey, sometimes due process is a biatch.  Apparently these dipshiats are just as entitled to their day in court getting their ass handed to them as someone else is with a legitimate case.

We just have to wait around for a while, but this changes nothing.


If your partner dies while the state is appealing to keep you unequal, this changes everything... you aren't married, you don't get survivors benefits, you get taxed like you're a stranger, including getting taxed out of your own house... even while they're in the hospital and just critical, you aren't married, so you don't get to be their medical decision maker if some random family member challenges you on it. There absolutely is irreparable harm caused by granting this injunction, whereas there would be no harm in making the state issue the licenses pending resolution of its case.
 
2014-01-06 03:56:42 PM

push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.


Citing another country in a discussion about a state law in the US?  That has absolutely no bearing here.  Try again.
 
2014-01-06 03:57:46 PM

push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.


so... you have no citation in the US, where we explicitly forbid congress from making laws interfering with religion, and it would take a constitutional amendment to make churches be subject to that whole equal rights thing... got it. Seriously, in the US, churches can get away with anything, you can have whites only churches, straight-only churches, men-only staff... whatever kind of discrimination you want is ok for a church... what you're saying, about some wacky possibility of gays forcing churches to do their bidding... is just so wildly unrealistic that it serves only to undermine your own credibility.
 
2014-01-06 04:01:20 PM

firefly212: PawisBetlog: Hey, sometimes due process is a biatch.  Apparently these dipshiats are just as entitled to their day in court getting their ass handed to them as someone else is with a legitimate case.

We just have to wait around for a while, but this changes nothing.

If your partner dies while the state is appealing to keep you unequal, this changes everything... you aren't married, you don't get survivors benefits, you get taxed like you're a stranger, including getting taxed out of your own house... even while they're in the hospital and just critical, you aren't married, so you don't get to be their medical decision maker if some random family member challenges you on it. There absolutely is irreparable harm caused by granting this injunction, whereas there would be no harm in making the state issue the licenses pending resolution of its case.


I get it, I didn't say I agree with it, but I understand the reasoning.  It would be great if we could make it so nothing slipped through the cracks but in a population of 300MM+, that's tough.
 
2014-01-06 04:03:40 PM

push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.


Ah, commerce clause. Well, lets again, go back to what you were saying religion would originally be afraid of: being forced to marry homosexuals. I will again point to: Freedom of Association.

The reason that Freedom of Association does not apply to the the commerce clause cases you have brought up is simple: they are open in nature. Anyone can walk into a shop and ask for service, and, despite the desire of the clerk, or the photographer they pretty much have to serve you. I'll be honest, I cannot remember the exact term used to explain why this is, but the court has upheld it several times.

Churches are categorized differently. To marry in a church you, almost universally, have to be a member of the church. The church gets to control who becomes a member. That is their association. They can choose to designate people as non-members. This is freedom FROM association, which is part of freedom of association. See Boyscouts of America v. Dade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale). The church will not be forced, as a private organization, to include someone they believe is antithetical to their being. It simply isn't going to happen.
 
2014-01-06 04:05:55 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Churchill2004: push3r: And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

You can file a lawsuit over whatever you want, the law is perfectly clear that they have no case. Even if statutory anti-discrimination laws went that far, which they don't, and even if such laws had anything to do with whether or not SS civil marriage is legal, which they don't, then the 1st Amendment would still completely prohibit forcing any church or any religious officiant to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
Try going to your local Catholic priest and getting him to marry a Hindu and an athiest. Try getting your local unreconstructed anti-miscegenation preacher to marry a black man and a white woman.
Find me one example, in the entire history of the United States, where a church or religious officiant has been forced to solemnize a marriage against their wishes. You won't find one, because it hasn't happened, ever.
This argument is a ridiculous red herring. It literally says nothing about civil marriage equality- it's at beast an objection to anti-discrimination laws, which are an entirely separate category of law.

Thank you, very well put.


If only it were that easy, but it's not.

There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.

Unless you're some kind of super constitutional lawyer from the future there's no way to predict exactly how the rulings will break down once same sex unions of some sort are inevitably (and correctly, I might add) legalized at the Federal level. Using the Mormons again as an example. There's a dude in this very thread that was married in one of their chapels while not himself a member of their religion. Not a temple, I understand, but given the New Jersey ruling can you really see the Mormons successfully making the case that even though they allowed this dude to get married there that they should be able to refuse the same to a same sex couple? Even if they could, would it be right?

The majority of people on both sides of this issue seem to be level headed, if maybe misguided. But there are definitely extremists on both sides that won't be happy until they either force all religious institutions to recognize their homosexual awesomeness or on the other hand make all the Godless sinners admit they're heathens that don't deserve the same tax breaks as their upstanding Republican neighbors.

As long as there's a religious ceremony of any kind tied to governmental benefits this can't end well for one side or the other. What's the problem with separating them completely? Let the churches marry who they want how they want but don't give that union any kind of governmental recognition. Make all unions receiving tax breaks, survivor-ship etc. strictly a civil contract.

I'm totally open to better ideas, but I've looked at this way too hard and long to believe that it's as simple as many of you are making it out to be.
 
2014-01-06 04:06:10 PM

push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.


If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?
 
2014-01-06 04:09:33 PM

push3r: There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press.


Then how do you know about them? I'm calling shenanigans until you actually show us a case in the U.S. that, according to you, is already happening.
 
2014-01-06 04:10:18 PM

qorkfiend: push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?


More accurately, by opening them up to the public, the church has relinquished the right to claim religious preference.  If you aren't objecting to the divorcees getting married or the Buddhists using your church, you abrogate your rights to object to a same-sex marriage.
 
2014-01-06 04:11:12 PM

push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.


Let me know when someone wins a case in the US. The UK does not have a 1st amendment and they have a church that is controlled by the state, big difference. As far as religion goes the get to be discriminatory business no they don't get to where sexual orientation is a protected class.
 
2014-01-06 04:16:15 PM

push3r: There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.


Well I was gonna ask for a citation but the bolded part explains.
 
2014-01-06 04:18:03 PM

Churchill2004: Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon)

Huh, I didn't know they did that in LDS churches. I'm not aware of any other church that provides a different sort of ceremony, in its building and officiated by its clergy, for interfaith weddings.


Catholics do the same thing.  There might be a little more paperwork up front, but that's about it.  Even if both people are Catholic, you still get to choose between two ceremony types, (i.e. full on Mass with the Eucharist or a simple ceremony).
 
2014-01-06 04:21:22 PM

push3r: As long as there's a religious ceremony of any kind tied to governmental benefits


Oh and see know where you went with this. Having a wedding in a church does not make you married go to a justice of the peace and getting a marrige licence does. Otherwise several same sex couples that I've been friends with would be married since they had a wedding in a church here in Alabama.
 
2014-01-06 04:21:52 PM

push3r: There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.


And that's the issue right there. "Open to the public" means ALL the public. That also means that if you are in the wedding industry, you cannot discriminate against gay couples just as you can't discriminate against inter-racial couples. Your religious beliefs aren't a defense for refusing to serve black people when you operate your business in the public square, neither should they be a defense for refusing to serve gay people.

Besides, given the amount of crap that gay people have had to deal with, crap done to them by religious people, I'm having a hard time sympathizing now that the tables are turning. And I say this as a Christian myself. (who supports gay marriage)
 
2014-01-06 04:23:44 PM
push3r:If only it were that easy, but it's not.

It is, actually. The Supreme Court ruled, as I mentioned in my last post, about private institutions being able to exclude a person from joining.

There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.

Different story, they're not private institutions excluding members, they're private businesses turning away customers which gets into the commerce clause issue.

Unless you're some kind of super constitutional lawyer from the future there's no way to predict exactly how the rulings will break down once same sex unions of some sort are inevitably (and correctly, I might add) legalized at the Federal level. Using the Mormons again as an example. There's a dude in this very thread that was married in one of their chapels while not himself a member of their religion. Not a temple, I understand, but given the New Jersey ruling can you really see the Mormons successfully making the case that even though they allowed this dude to get married there that they should be able to refuse the same to a same sex couple? Even if they could, would it be right?
 
You're right, we're not going to be able to predict exactly how rulings will break down in the future. And it's possible that a miscarriage of justice could occur. But that potential miscarriage of justice isn't as important as the CURRENT AND ACTUAL miscarriage of justice that is CURRENTLY IN PLACE ACROSS THE MAJORITY OF THIS NATION.

And no I cannot see how you can see a case being made out of the Mormon example, because it appears to have been two separate ceremonies.

The majority of people on both sides of this issue seem to be level headed, if maybe misguided.

Possibly, but I only one side dealing with hypotheticals, and one dealing with reality at this moment.

 But there are definitely extremists on both sides that won't be happy until they either force all religious institutions to recognize their homosexual awesomeness or on the other hand make all the Godless sinners admit they're heathens that don't deserve the same tax breaks as their upstanding Republican neighbors.

Tangential at best.

As long as there's a religious ceremony of any kind tied to governmental benefits this can't end well for one side or the other.

That's just it. It doesn't HAVE to be religious. You can get married outside of a church. A pure church marriage wouldn't even do anything in the eyes of the state until you fill out the state forms.

What's the problem with separating them completely? Let the churches marry who they want how they want but don't give that union any kind of governmental recognition. Make all unions receiving tax breaks, survivor-ship etc. strictly a civil contract.

That's already the case. That's why all state recognized marriages are civil unions. And why Atheists can get married, and people from two different churches can get married even if neither church accepts it.

I'm totally open to better ideas, but I've looked at this way too hard and long to believe that it's as simple as many of you are making it out to be.

Because you're not looking at the law.

/If this post were on paper I would hope the sheet to catch fire with righteous indignation...
 
2014-01-06 04:24:39 PM

Stile4aly: Smoking GNU: So, how many couples DID get married during this time?

From what I've read, 930 couples, or all the gay people in Utah.


lol

Well played.
 
2014-01-06 04:26:45 PM

qorkfiend: push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?


Jurodan: push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.

Ah, commerce clause. Well, lets again, go back to what you were saying religion would originally b ...


You're both on the edge of this, but not quite there.

In the existing New Jersey ruling the judge didn't even get into free exercise. Part of the ruling cited: "a much lower standard that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals."

This isn't a hypothetical, and in the case of the Mormon church the commerce clause wouldn't be a factor as the Mormons don't charge for the use of their facilities for marriage ceremonies, and they allow marriages of non-members within those facilities.

There's a good reason that ALL of the existing laws in this country SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE churches from being forced to perform same sex marriages. That protection is not seen as inherently granted by the constitution. That's all well and good until someone with a significant bankroll challenges those provisions. The bottom line is that it's all speculation until it gets to the supreme court, and no one can predict which way they'll rule.

None of this even takes into consideration the fact that any such lawsuit by someone with deep pockets could bankrupt a smaller congregation without a ruling ever resulting.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying it goes one way or the other. I think it's stupid to even have this conversation. The fact that our rights as citizens are in any way shape or form tied to something as antiquated as religion is asinine and the only logical way to ensure equal treatment is to end that relationship permanently.

We talk about separation of church and state, in the end that's all I'm proposing.
 
2014-01-06 04:28:05 PM

qorkfiend: push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?


No, "open to the public" does not mean the church doesn't own them.

I can have a bar and if I open the doors to the public I can't say Irish people can not come in and buy a beer.

If I have a private social club on the other hand I can exclude women, gay people or the Irish.

They rented out their reception hall to anyone who would pay, I am guessing Jersey is among the states that have some law preventing discrimination based on sexual preference therefore they can't say "Anyone who wants to can rent our reception hall, but not the gays."
 
2014-01-06 04:31:19 PM
push3r:

There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.

How the fark is the facility a practitioner? It's not even an animate object. The court ruling said that if they were going to rent the wedding space to the public (they rented it to plenty of non-methodist weddings), then they couldn't discriminate, Nobody forced a practitioner of any religion to do anything. You want a religion, fine... but if you want to have a separate side business of renting out dining halls, wedding halls, or whatever, then you have to abide by the rules that apply to businesses. If you don't like the mucking of the waters between a church and a business, stop trying to run businesses from your church.
 
2014-01-06 04:36:09 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: As long as there's a religious ceremony of any kind tied to governmental benefits

Oh and see know where you went with this. Having a wedding in a church does not make you married go to a justice of the peace and getting a marrige licence does. Otherwise several same sex couples that I've been friends with would be married since they had a wedding in a church here in Alabama.


Exactly... The wife and I are legally married even though we never stepped foot in a church to get married. Homosexuals are currently forbidden by law from doing this in many states. That's unequal treatment under the law. No religion's right to practice their religion is currently being infringed by homosexuals being allowed to obtain a marriage license.

The idea that the Government should "get out of the marriage business" is disingenuous, at best. Marriage is, and has always been a contract. Plain and simple. If someone chooses to have a wedding in a church, that's separate from the legal contract of marriage, which the government is and should be involved in.

What the government shouldn't be doing is codifying what type of consensual couples are permitted to obtain marriage licenses.
 
2014-01-06 04:45:44 PM

jst3p: qorkfiend: push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?

No, "open to the public" does not mean the church doesn't own them.

I can have a bar and if I open the doors to the public I can't say Irish people can not come in and buy a beer.

If I have a private social club on the other hand I can exclude women, gay people or the Irish.

They rented out their reception hall to anyone who would pay, I am guessing Jersey is among the states that have some law preventing discrimination based on sexual preference therefore they can't say "Anyone who wants to can rent our reception hall, but not the gays."


This is probably the case. Which is completely different than:

"there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. "

But he was being disingenuous in the first case anyway.
 
2014-01-06 04:50:27 PM
keylock71:
What the government shouldn't be doing is codifying what type of consensual couples are permitted to obtain marriage licenses.

Maybe this is a bad analogy, but what do you think would happen if a state passed a law that said black people were forbidden from forming limited liability corporations?  The courts wouldn't accept discrimination like that.  Similar situation here, it's discrimination in contract law.
 
2014-01-06 04:52:46 PM

Confabulat: Is that dumbass off his hunger strike now?


He'd better have a few sandwiches during this appeal. He has withered away that he appears as a bundle of sticks.
 
2014-01-06 04:56:53 PM
Well, I'm just going to admit defeat.

There's obviously no possible way that a law passed to "protect" a part of the population would ever be leveraged to oppress a different segment of the population. That has never ever happened and none of the lawsuits that have already been successfully prosecuted are in any way shape or form indicative of things to come.

Once the definition of marriage is changed at the Federal level to include anyone regardless of gender, orientation, etc. (which WILL happen, and hopefully sooner rather than later) everything will immediately be a panacea for everyone involved.

Oh, and even if some religions or members thereof have their rights infringed it's what they deserve anyway since they all "hate the gays" and have ALL been actively involved in a vast conspiracy to suppress LGBT people and their rights. Turnabout is fair play and there's obviously no hypocrisy involved.

It's clearly in no way better to quit allowing religious ceremonies to be conducted as part of a state sanctioned contractual agreement (or vice versa, depending on your perspective) and require that they be conducted separately. Eliminating "Marriage" as a legal term and instead defining all unions exclusively by a civil term couldn't possibly eliminate any issues or potential conflicts between church and state.

I'm glad this is all theoretical and there's never been a law leveraged to exert control over a segment of the population. What a stupid idea! That's almost as crazy as laws banning specific types of sexual conduct or explicitly allowing the murder of people that belong to a specific religious group. We all know that could never happen in this country, right?

Equal rights for everyone involved will just happen automatically. Thank goodness.
 
2014-01-06 04:58:08 PM

Beerguy:
My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen


CSB:
My mom told me a story about when her and my dad were in their first house together. They were living in a predominately Mormon neighborhood. My dad was out mowing the lawn on a Sunday and had a beer in hand while doing it. The neighbor across the street happened to come out of the house, looked over, and was like "You're not Mormon?!". My dad replied that he wasn't. The neighbor was subsequently excited as the neighbors were previously the only non-Mormons in the neighborhood and the were ecstatic to have some fellow non-Mormons they could hang out with.
 
2014-01-06 05:16:40 PM

push3r: Oh, and even if some religions or members thereof have their rights infringed it's what they deserve


Surprise! Not being able to infringe on others' rights is NOT an infringement on your rights. Unless, of course, you're saying that your religious rights take precedence over all other rights.
 
2014-01-06 05:21:38 PM
Damn you Poe's law sometimes I just can't tell.
 
2014-01-06 05:31:04 PM

Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.


So you're 26 years old?
 
2014-01-06 05:38:31 PM

push3r: While there appear to be a lot of religious morons that are against gay marriage because it's "icky", at an organizational level the vast majority of those opposing same sex marriage do so as a hedge against possible future infringement of their freedom of religion. Any objective analysis of their stance has to admit this fear is not unfounded.


I completely disagree--what examples of infringement of freedom of religion make this anything but crazy talk?

push3r: Oh, and even if some religions or members thereof have their rights infringed it's what they deserve anyway since they all "hate the gays" and have ALL been actively involved in a vast conspiracy to suppress LGBT people and their rights. Turnabout is fair play and there's obviously no hypocrisy involved.


Where? How? Who is getting their right to freedom of religion violated, unless it's what some perceive as the right to codify discrimination into law to match their religious "values" or whatever.  I'm genuinely curious where you're coming at this from.
 
2014-01-06 05:45:18 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Just in the nick of time too... I was going to have to marry a turtle next weekend. Guess I dodged a bullet on that one.



Actually, that was a smaller, faster turtle. But good job.

/Slowpoke.
 
2014-01-06 05:46:21 PM

what_now: So you're 26 years old?


Zing!
 
2014-01-06 05:50:22 PM

dr_blasto: push3r: While there appear to be a lot of religious morons that are against gay marriage because it's "icky", at an organizational level the vast majority of those opposing same sex marriage do so as a hedge against possible future infringement of their freedom of religion. Any objective analysis of their stance has to admit this fear is not unfounded.

I completely disagree--what examples of infringement of freedom of religion make this anything but crazy talk?

push3r: Oh, and even if some religions or members thereof have their rights infringed it's what they deserve anyway since they all "hate the gays" and have ALL been actively involved in a vast conspiracy to suppress LGBT people and their rights. Turnabout is fair play and there's obviously no hypocrisy involved.

Where? How? Who is getting their right to freedom of religion violated, unless it's what some perceive as the right to codify discrimination into law to match their religious "values" or whatever.  I'm genuinely curious where you're coming at this from.


Hence my Poe's law comment..
 
2014-01-06 07:05:11 PM
points of order

1) a federal judge ruled that the state law (UTAH) violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. - this happened in federal court

2) the federal appeals court tenth circuit - refused to grant an emergency stay. They basically said, "MEH, there is no emergency here, we can wait for the normal appeals process to proceed"

3) SCOTUS granted an emergency stay. marriages stopped until the federal appeal is heard and ruled on.

next steps
4) 10th circuit will meet, hear whatever, and rule one way or the other

5) 10th circuit or scotus will grant a stay on THAT ruling until the case is heard by SCOTUS

6) regardless of the 10th circuit ruling, the case will be appealed to SCOTUS

SCOTUS will:
a) hear the case and decide 
b) agree with the 10th courts decision and the stay would be lifted


/the stay would only be in place if the decision was that gays could marry, wouldnt need a stay if gay marriages are forbidden.

//state courts? not part of any of this discussion. this is, as it always should be, a federal issue.
/// I am surprised that more married couples havent moved to gay-hating states and sued in federal court.
 
2014-01-06 07:09:30 PM

Pincy: Monkeyhouse Zendo: nekom: I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.

Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of race an inalienable constitutional right? Yes
Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right? Buffering...

I have yet to hear a single good argument against same sex marriage that isn't rooted in the religious beliefs of inbred, illiterate, goat herders.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???


Pope Francis is cool with them. In LDS Country, though, YMMV.
 
2014-01-06 07:20:04 PM

Churchill2004: Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.

Can a devout Mormon marry a non-Mormon and it be condoned by the church? Don't you like have to have a temple name, magical underwear, etc. to have an LDS wedding? Did you go through the motions, did she not care about having a church wedding, or did she convert after you wed?


I am a devout Mormon, a convert of 27 years married to a non-Mormon. We have been married 22 years. We were married in the courthouse by the justice of the peace, not in an LDS temple. The marriage is recognized by the church, but it is "until death do us part", whereas an LDS temple marriage is for time and all eternity. I married him despite our religious differences because I knew he was "the one".
 
2014-01-06 07:32:30 PM

Tergiversada: Churchill2004: Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.

Can a devout Mormon marry a non-Mormon and it be condoned by the church? Don't you like have to have a temple name, magical underwear, etc. to have an LDS wedding? Did you go through the motions, did she not care about having a church wedding, or did she convert after you wed?

I am a devout Mormon, a convert of 27 years married to a non-Mormon. We have been married 22 years. We were married in the courthouse by the justice of the peace, not in an LDS temple. The marriage is recognized by the church, but it is "until death do us part", whereas an LDS temple marriage is for time and all eternity. I married him despite our religious differences because I knew he was "the one".


So he can change the matrix?
 
2014-01-06 07:42:33 PM

push3r: Well, I'm just going to admit defeat.

There's obviously no possible way that a law passed to "protect" a part of the population would ever be leveraged to oppress a different segment of the population. That has never ever happened and none of the lawsuits that have already been successfully prosecuted are in any way shape or form indicative of things to come.

Once the definition of marriage is changed at the Federal level to include anyone regardless of gender, orientation, etc. (which WILL happen, and hopefully sooner rather than later) everything will immediately be a panacea for everyone involved.

Oh, and even if some religions or members thereof have their rights infringed it's what they deserve anyway since they all "hate the gays" and have ALL been actively involved in a vast conspiracy to suppress LGBT people and their rights. Turnabout is fair play and there's obviously no hypocrisy involved.

It's clearly in no way better to quit allowing religious ceremonies to be conducted as part of a state sanctioned contractual agreement (or vice versa, depending on your perspective) and require that they be conducted separately. Eliminating "Marriage" as a legal term and instead defining all unions exclusively by a civil term couldn't possibly eliminate any issues or potential conflicts between church and state.

I'm glad this is all theoretical and there's never been a law leveraged to exert control over a segment of the population. What a stupid idea! That's almost as crazy as laws banning specific types of sexual conduct or explicitly allowing the murder of people that belong to a specific religious group. We all know that could never happen in this country, right?

Equal rights for everyone involved will just happen automatically. Thank goodness.


When it is 2013 and churches can still refuse to marry black people, I won't be worried about them forcing to marry gay people.

The only people that will have to marry gay people are government employees.
 
2014-01-06 07:48:03 PM

firefly212: So he can change the matrix?


Hehehehe : )
 
2014-01-06 07:51:36 PM

namatad: points of order

1) a federal judge ruled that the state law (UTAH) violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. - this happened in federal court

2) the federal appeals court tenth circuit - refused to grant an emergency stay. They basically said, "MEH, there is no emergency here, we can wait for the normal appeals process to proceed"

3) SCOTUS granted an emergency stay. marriages stopped until the federal appeal is heard and ruled on.

next steps
4) 10th circuit will meet, hear whatever, and rule one way or the other

5) 10th circuit or scotus will grant a stay on THAT ruling until the case is heard by SCOTUS

6) regardless of the 10th circuit ruling, the case will be appealed to SCOTUS

SCOTUS will:
a) hear the case and decide 
b) agree with the 10th courts decision and the stay would be lifted


/the stay would only be in place if the decision was that gays could marry, wouldnt need a stay if gay marriages are forbidden.

//state courts? not part of any of this discussion. this is, as it always should be, a federal issue.
/// I am surprised that more married couples havent moved to gay-hating states and sued in federal court.


There are plenty of gay couples in states that don't recognize their legal marriages.

It is expensive, time consuming, and quite painful emotionally to be part of one of these lawsuits. You also risk being ostracised from your community. And there is a very real chance it would be all for nothing.

Courts are probably going to just look at recognition of the other state's marriage (ie full faith and credit) and not decide on the constitutionality of refusing to grant licenses.
 
2014-01-06 08:43:53 PM

Testiclaw: Yay for having so many varying state laws so we can halt progress to wait for the derper states to catch up.


Are you kidding? If you put civil rights up to a vote in some southern states TODAY it'd still be a close call.

Yes, sometimes we who don't live in areas which proudly tout their racism as a badge of honor do enjoy finding fault with what, in retrospect, are terrible ideas.
 
2014-01-06 08:48:01 PM

push3r: Let me start by saying that I've looked at this issue from as many angles as I can find and there doesn't seem to be the slightest legal justification for withholding governmental benefits (tax breaks etc.) from same sex couples while allowing those same benefits to mixed sex couples.


If you acknowledge that the purpose of marriage laws (and the benefits conferred) are to promote child birth and a stable nuclear family (including both men and women as heads of household) in which to bring these children to adulthood, then there is your compelling state interest.  This was a no-brainer legal justification for 240 years; perhaps you should "look at this issue" from some more angles.

Barring some kind of amazing political or legal gymnastics it's a foregone conclusion that same sex marriage will be upheld at the federal level.

Agreed.  The Supreme Court has already legislated this issue (as it did with abortion) because it got tired of waiting for the actual legislatures to come to a conclusion they supported politically.
 
2014-01-06 08:57:03 PM

SunsetLament: push3r: Let me start by saying that I've looked at this issue from as many angles as I can find and there doesn't seem to be the slightest legal justification for withholding governmental benefits (tax breaks etc.) from same sex couples while allowing those same benefits to mixed sex couples.

If you acknowledge that the purpose of marriage laws (and the benefits conferred) are to promote child birth and a stable nuclear family (including both men and women as heads of household) in which to bring these children to adulthood, then there is your compelling state interest.  This was a no-brainer legal justification for 240 years; perhaps you should "look at this issue" from some more angles.

Barring some kind of amazing political or legal gymnastics it's a foregone conclusion that same sex marriage will be upheld at the federal level.

Agreed.  The Supreme Court has already legislated this issue (as it did with abortion) because it got tired of waiting for the actual legislatures to come to a conclusion they supported politically.


Marriage has been about property at least as much as children for thousands of years.

Very few things related to marriage have anything to do with children (eg hospital visitation rights are for the spouse, not the lawfully wedded parent of your children). And there has never been any restrictions on infertile people being married.

At the same time gay couples can and do raise children.

So, no "marriage is about the children therefore gays can't get married" is not a valid argument.

As long as legislation violates superior legislation it is the judiciary's job to strike them down.
 
2014-01-06 09:00:24 PM
what is the reason americans cannot understand that human rights are not something you get to vote for, like a popularity contest?

Good god but people are stupid AND unkind.

This bodes well for no one.
 
2014-01-06 09:17:20 PM

mrEdude: what is the reason americans cannot understand that human rights are not something you get to vote for, like a popularity contest?

Good god but people are stupid AND unkind.

This bodes well for no one.


Because as always, many Americans claim to hate tyranny, when what they really mean to say is that they want a turn at being tyrants.
 
2014-01-06 09:29:02 PM

Girl Sailor: Testiclaw: Yay for having so many varying state laws so we can halt progress to wait for the derper states to catch up.

Are you kidding? If you put civil rights up to a vote in some southern states TODAY it'd still be a close call.

Yes, sometimes we who don't live in areas which proudly tout their racism as a badge of honor do enjoy finding fault with what, in retrospect, are terrible ideas.


Yea most people don't realize school segregation is still on the books in Alabama although when it came up in 2012 all of the sane people voted to keep it becuase the way the Republican legislature wrote the new law it didn't guarantee a right any public education for anyone.

/Sigh
 
2014-01-06 09:29:32 PM
dywed88:

At the same time gay couples can and do raise children.

They can't give birth and they can't provide a home with both genders at the head of the household.  If you believe that the government has an interest in promoting procreation and in exposing children to guidance of both genders ... then the government can discriminate to further this interest.  The Supreme Court didn't even say these weren't compelling state interests; instead they said they didn't believe the various state governments when they said this was the reason for the laws (which, as we all know is BS, but the majority had to defend its decision somehow).

I'm pro-gay marriage legalization, but I am capable of acknowledging reality and I believe in law (not judicial legislating).  Like abortion, this was five justices who decided they were tired of waiting and were going to do it themselves - not because it was their job, not because the law said they should, but instead because they had the power and they could.  If you want gay marriage, change hearts and minds - don't legislate through unelected judicial fiat.
 
2014-01-06 09:40:08 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Girl Sailor: Testiclaw: Yay for having so many varying state laws so we can halt progress to wait for the derper states to catch up.

Are you kidding? If you put civil rights up to a vote in some southern states TODAY it'd still be a close call.

Yes, sometimes we who don't live in areas which proudly tout their racism as a badge of honor do enjoy finding fault with what, in retrospect, are terrible ideas.

Yea most people don't realize school segregation is still on the books in Alabama although when it came up in 2012 all of the sane people voted to keep it becuase the way the Republican legislature wrote the new law it didn't guarantee a right any public education for anyone.

/Si


I've heard my Alabama relatives, without a hint of shame, talking about the N's getting uppity again. Not having the slightest idea. How do you explain it to them? How do i explain to my son that his great uncle thinks less of him because of the quantity of melanin in his skin? How do I explain that my uncle believes that his book of truths is so important and infallible that it makes it ok for laws to make other people's actions illegal?
 
2014-01-06 09:40:49 PM

SunsetLament: dywed88:
They can't give birth to a racially pure child and they can't provide a home with two members of the same race at the head of the household.  If you believe that the government has an interest in promoting racial purity and in exposing children to guidance of two parents of the same race ... then the government can discriminate to further this interest.  The Supreme Court didn't even say these weren't compelling state interests; instead they said they didn't believe the various state governments when they said this was the reason for the laws (which, as we all know is BS, but the majority had to defend its decision somehow).

I'm pro-racial equality legalization, but I am capable of acknowledging reality and I believe in law (not judicial legislating).  Like abortion, this was five justices who decided they were tired of waiting and were going to do it themselves - not because it was their job, not because the law said they should, but instead because they had the power and they could.  If you want racial equality, change hearts and minds - don't legislate through unelected judicial fiat.


Explain to me how this modified quote is different from the unmodified one.  Right is right.  Should an injustice be allowed to continue just because it got tackled in a different manner than you deem appropriate?

/and no, I'm not calling you a racist or anything, just food for thought
 
2014-01-06 09:43:22 PM

nekom: SunsetLament: dywed88:
They can't give birth to a racially pure child and they can't provide a home with two members of the same race at the head of the household.  If you believe that the government has an interest in promoting racial purity and in exposing children to guidance of two parents of the same race ... then the government can discriminate to further this interest.  The Supreme Court didn't even say these weren't compelling state interests; instead they said they didn't believe the various state governments when they said this was the reason for the laws (which, as we all know is BS, but the majority had to defend its decision somehow).

I'm pro-racial equality legalization, but I am capable of acknowledging reality and I believe in law (not judicial legislating).  Like abortion, this was five justices who decided they were tired of waiting and were going to do it themselves - not because it was their job, not because the law said they should, but instead because they had the power and they could.  If you want racial equality, change hearts and minds - don't legislate through unelected judicial fiat.

Explain to me how this modified quote is different from the unmodified one.  Right is right.  Should an injustice be allowed to continue just because it got tackled in a different manner than you deem appropriate?

/and no, I'm not calling you a racist or anything, just food for thought


Sure, the changed quote is advocating discrimination based on ethnicity and the unmodified (my quote) doesn't advocate discrimination based on ethnicity.
 
2014-01-06 09:50:47 PM
SunsetLament:

Explain to me how this modified quote is different from the unmodified one.  Right is right.  Should an injustice be allowed to continue just because it got tackled in a different manner than you deem appropriate?

/and no, I'm not calling you a racist or anything, just food for thought

Sure, the changed quote is advocating discrimination based on ethnicity and the unmodified (my quote) doesn't advocate discrimination based on ethnicity.


And to follow-up ...

I pointed out that for 240 years the country recognized (almost entirely without question) a compelling state interest to promote procreation.

.... and you countered with asking why the state wouldn't have a compelling state interest in promoting racially-pure child birth.  It's a canard for several reasons: (1) there's no such thing as racial purity if you go back far enough in a person's lineage, (2) the country doesn't have a 240 year history of promoting racially-pure child birth that the courts just decided to ignore one day, and (3) regardless of how many ways you jam their genitals together, you're never going to have two men procreate or two women procreate without assistance from someone of the other gender - this is not an issue with people of differing ethnicities and therefore renders your hypothetical mute from the standpoint of determining if there is currently a compelling state interest.
 
2014-01-06 09:56:22 PM

Girl Sailor: tinfoil-hat maggie: Girl Sailor: Testiclaw: Yay for having so many varying state laws so we can halt progress to wait for the derper states to catch up.

Are you kidding? If you put civil rights up to a vote in some southern states TODAY it'd still be a close call.

Yes, sometimes we who don't live in areas which proudly tout their racism as a badge of honor do enjoy finding fault with what, in retrospect, are terrible ideas.

Yea most people don't realize school segregation is still on the books in Alabama although when it came up in 2012 all of the sane people voted to keep it becuase the way the Republican legislature wrote the new law it didn't guarantee a right any public education for anyone.

/Si

I've heard my Alabama relatives, without a hint of shame, talking about the N's getting uppity again. Not having the slightest idea. How do you explain it to them? How do i explain to my son that his great uncle thinks less of him because of the quantity of melanin in his skin? How do I explain that my uncle believes that his book of truths is so important and infallible that it makes it ok for laws to make other people's actions illegal?


Um something like this...
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Ya know my maternal grandfather managed a Woolworth in Atlanta ( the old one near the Atlanta Underground.) back during the segregation days. He said back then he that the law was stupid but he couldn't do anything other than let people sit at at the counter and then some busy body would call the cops. Really a sad time back then ., and hell one of the coolest best men I know is my Aunts husband and untill the laws were changed the not only wouldn't be able to be married but they could have been arrested.
 
2014-01-06 09:58:48 PM
SunsetLament:
I pointed out that for 240 years the country recognized (almost entirely without question) a compelling state interest to promote procreation.

Sure, that much is true.  But there was a time when many states had a fairly long history of keeping slaves "in their place".  That's no longer true, thankfully, and hasn't been for a very long time, but when it was, the basic legal framework was generally the same as it is now.

All I'm saying is that SOMETIMES (not always) the ends justify the means.  Especially when the ends don't harm anyone, and the means is full equality for all citizens.  The court's job is to rule on whether or not laws are constitutional.  Isn't that what they're doing here?  Do they have their own agendas?  Absolutely, everyone does.  But isn't this within their purview?  Isn't it more important to do what's right than to worry about whether or not the approach is new anyway?
 
2014-01-06 10:00:37 PM

SunsetLament: They can give birth and they can provide a home with both genders.  If you believe that the government has an interest in promoting procreation and in exposing children to guidance of both genders ... then the government can't discriminate because it doesn't this interest.  The Supreme Court didn't even say these weren't compelling state interests; instead they said they didn't believe the various state governments when they said this was the reason for the laws (which, as we all know is BS, but the majority had to defend its decision somehow).


Gays can have biological children. I know plenty that have done so. Just like plenty of heterosexual couples use donors and surrogates.

If you are appealing to history, the idea of having a woman as the head of household is laughable. And there are plenty of options for male and female guidance for children other than their parents (grandparents, aunts, uncles, close friends, etc). That is ignoring the fact that it is BS to begin with because there are tons of mothers better at filling traditional father role than many men and vice versa.

Not to mention I pointed out that marriage laws are not related to children. The state has historically promoted the having of children in a variety of ways, marriage laws were not one of them.

The whole line of argument is fatally flawed. But I suppose it is the best there is.
 
2014-01-06 10:03:59 PM

Girl Sailor: tinfoil-hat maggie: Girl Sailor: Testiclaw: Yay for having so many varying state laws so we can halt progress to wait for the derper states to catch up.

Are you kidding? If you put civil rights up to a vote in some southern states TODAY it'd still be a close call.

Yes, sometimes we who don't live in areas which proudly tout their racism as a badge of honor do enjoy finding fault with what, in retrospect, are terrible ideas.

Yea most people don't realize school segregation is still on the books in Alabama although when it came up in 2012 all of the sane people voted to keep it becuase the way the Republican legislature wrote the new law it didn't guarantee a right any public education for anyone.

/Si

I've heard my Alabama relatives, without a hint of shame, talking about the N's getting uppity again. Not having the slightest idea. How do you explain it to them? How do i explain to my son that his great uncle thinks less of him because of the quantity of melanin in his skin? How do I explain that my uncle believes that his book of truths is so important and infallible that it makes it ok for laws to make other people's actions illegal?


The Bible gives people a guide to be a good person, or a guide that allows people to belittle and demonize others. They have the choice on how to treat others and how they can marry, but they don't want to allow others the same choices.
 
2014-01-06 10:07:16 PM

SunsetLament: SunsetLament:

Explain to me how this modified quote is different from the unmodified one.  Right is right.  Should an injustice be allowed to continue just because it got tackled in a different manner than you deem appropriate?

/and no, I'm not calling you a racist or anything, just food for thought

Sure, the changed quote is advocating discrimination based on ethnicity and the unmodified (my quote) doesn't advocate discrimination based on ethnicity.

And to follow-up ...

I pointed out that for 240 years the country recognized (almost entirely without question) a compelling state interest to promote procreation.

.... and you countered with asking why the state wouldn't have a compelling state interest in promoting racially-pure child birth.  It's a canard for several reasons: (1) there's no such thing as racial purity if you go back far enough in a person's lineage, (2) the country doesn't have a 240 year history of promoting racially-pure child birth that the courts just decided to ignore one day, and (3) regardless of how many ways you jam their genitals together, you're never going to have two men procreate or two women procreate without assistance from someone of the other gender - this is not an issue with people of differing ethnicities and therefore renders your hypothetical mute from the standpoint of determining if there is currently a compelling state interest.


Those that do not no or skip over history are probably trollin'? And How many years years did the US allow importation of African slaves? Also how many years was slavery an option for at least some states? How long was it before non-whites were given full equality? How many years was the US around when they allowed interracial marriage?

/Also how would the answer "a long time" make any of that okay.
 
2014-01-06 10:40:29 PM

nekom: SunsetLament:
I pointed out that for 240 years the country recognized (almost entirely without question) a compelling state interest to promote procreation.

Sure, that much is true.  But there was a time when many states had a fairly long history of keeping slaves "in their place".  That's no longer true, thankfully, and hasn't been for a very long time, but when it was, the basic legal framework was generally the same as it is now.


And that was changed via the appropriate legal avenue ... a constitutional amendment ... not judicial fiat.

All I'm saying is that SOMETIMES (not always) the ends justify the means.

At least you acknowledge that's what is going on here - it's not in any way grounded in law - instead it's simply a handful of people misusing their power because "the ends justify the means".  It's a great way to hasten the eventual collapse of the country.  If you don't respect the laws I like, why should I respect the laws you like?  At that point, all that matters is who is in power and what he can enforce through threat of violence or incarceration.
 
2014-01-06 10:44:01 PM

SunsetLament: nekom: SunsetLament:
I pointed out that for 240 years the country recognized (almost entirely without question) a compelling state interest to promote procreation.

Sure, that much is true.  But there was a time when many states had a fairly long history of keeping slaves "in their place".  That's no longer true, thankfully, and hasn't been for a very long time, but when it was, the basic legal framework was generally the same as it is now.

And that was changed via the appropriate legal avenue ... a constitutional amendment ... not judicial fiat.

All I'm saying is that SOMETIMES (not always) the ends justify the means.

At least you acknowledge that's what is going on here - it's not in any way grounded in law - instead it's simply a handful of people misusing their power because "the ends justify the means".  It's a great way to hasten the eventual collapse of the country.  If you don't respect the laws I like, why should I respect the laws you like?  At that point, all that matters is who is in power and what he can enforce through threat of violence or incarceration.


If your constitution prevents unequal treatment under the law, as it appeared to for the Circuit Court, then it is wholly within their duty and their responsibility to make decisions like this. That is the WHOLE farkING POINT of these courts--otherwise, the legislatures could legislate whateverthefark they wanted and there'd be zero protections for you or me.

Fortunately, sometimes-if you've got the means, we have the judicial branch. This isn't legislating from the bench, it is the judicial branch telling the state's legislature that they've crossed the line.
 
2014-01-06 10:48:32 PM

dywed88: SunsetLament: They can give birth and they can provide a home with both genders.  If you believe that the government has an interest in promoting procreation and in exposing children to guidance of both genders ... then the government can't discriminate because it doesn't this interest.  The Supreme Court didn't even say these weren't compelling state interests; instead they said they didn't believe the various state governments when they said this was the reason for the laws (which, as we all know is BS, but the majority had to defend its decision somehow).

Gays can have biological children. I know plenty that have done so. Just like plenty of heterosexual couples use donors and surrogates.


Sure they can, but not without the participation of a third person (of the opposite gender).  And this in no way changes the judicial standard that lasted for decades (and is still techinically in place, despite the Supreme Court ignoring it this time):  Does the state have a compelling interest in promoting procreation and/or stable nuclear families?  If it does, than it can recognize straight marriage (and confer benefits) legally, without recognizing gay marriage.  End of story.

Anything else just becomes a justification to ignore the law as written and judicial precedent.

Just because a straight couple may not be able to have children, or does not want children, does not (1) remove the compelling state interest, or (2) mean the law is invalid because it doesn't promote the interest in all instances.  These are decisions to be left to the judgment of the legislatures, not the courts - at least, that's how the system is designed and how it has always worked historically.
 
2014-01-06 11:00:03 PM

dr_blasto: SunsetLament: nekom: SunsetLament:
I pointed out that for 240 years the country recognized (almost entirely without question) a compelling state interest to promote procreation.

Sure, that much is true.  But there was a time when many states had a fairly long history of keeping slaves "in their place".  That's no longer true, thankfully, and hasn't been for a very long time, but when it was, the basic legal framework was generally the same as it is now.

And that was changed via the appropriate legal avenue ... a constitutional amendment ... not judicial fiat.

All I'm saying is that SOMETIMES (not always) the ends justify the means.

At least you acknowledge that's what is going on here - it's not in any way grounded in law - instead it's simply a handful of people misusing their power because "the ends justify the means".  It's a great way to hasten the eventual collapse of the country.  If you don't respect the laws I like, why should I respect the laws you like?  At that point, all that matters is who is in power and what he can enforce through threat of violence or incarceration.

If your constitution prevents unequal treatment under the law, as it appeared to for the Circuit Court, then it is wholly within their duty and their responsibility to make decisions like this. That is the WHOLE farkING POINT of these courts--otherwise, the legislatures could legislate whateverthefark they wanted and there'd be zero protections for you or me.

Fortunately, sometimes-if you've got the means, we have the judicial branch. This isn't legislating from the bench, it is the judicial branch telling the state's legislature that they've crossed the line.


In order to believe the federal courts have ruled properly, you'd have to believe either (1) the state has not compelling interest in promoting procreation, or (2) straight marriage laws don't promote procreation, or (2) straight marriage laws were not enacted in order to promote procreation.  This is called "legal analysis" which is the only thing that concerns me.  The Supreme Court said DOMA was #3 - which we all know is bullshiat, but that's what they said.  Once the Supreme Court made their ruling, the lower courts had their roadmap.

This has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone and everything to do with the courts ignoring the law and judicial precedent because they didn't like what was being accomplished legally through legislative means.  It's reprehensible (and very dangerous), but it is what it is.  They did the same thing with abortion and have turned the issue into a major source of strife in this country for forty years.
 
2014-01-06 11:02:00 PM
SunsetLament:
At least you acknowledge that's what is going on here - it's not in any way grounded in law - instead it's simply a handful of people misusing their power because "the ends justify the means".  It's a great way to hasten the eventual collapse of the country.  If you don't respect the laws I like, why should I respect the laws you like?  At that point, all that matters is who is in power and what he can enforce through threat of violence or incarceration.

What matters to me is doing the right thing.  As long as you don't do anything morally wrong to get there, I could care less how we get there.  So we're just going to have to respectfully disagree on that point, no big whoop.
 
2014-01-06 11:03:41 PM

nekom: SunsetLament:
At least you acknowledge that's what is going on here - it's not in any way grounded in law - instead it's simply a handful of people misusing their power because "the ends justify the means".  It's a great way to hasten the eventual collapse of the country.  If you don't respect the laws I like, why should I respect the laws you like?  At that point, all that matters is who is in power and what he can enforce through threat of violence or incarceration.

What matters to me is doing the right thing.  As long as you don't do anything morally wrong to get there, I could care less how we get there.  So we're just going to have to respectfully disagree on that point, no big whoop.


Whose morals?
 
2014-01-06 11:07:15 PM

SunsetLament: SunsetLament:

Explain to me how this modified quote is different from the unmodified one.  Right is right.  Should an injustice be allowed to continue just because it got tackled in a different manner than you deem appropriate?

/and no, I'm not calling you a racist or anything, just food for thought

Sure, the changed quote is advocating discrimination based on ethnicity and the unmodified (my quote) doesn't advocate discrimination based on ethnicity.

And to follow-up ...

I pointed out that for 240 years the country recognized (almost entirely without question) a compelling state interest to promote procreation.

.... and you countered with asking why the state wouldn't have a compelling state interest in promoting racially-pure child birth.  It's a canard for several reasons: (1) there's no such thing as racial purity if you go back far enough in a person's lineage, (2) the country doesn't have a 240 year history of promoting racially-pure child birth that the courts just decided to ignore one day, and (3) regardless of how many ways you jam their genitals together, you're never going to have two men procreate or two women procreate without assistance from someone of the other gender - this is not an issue with people of differing ethnicities and therefore renders your hypothetical mute from the standpoint of determining if there is currently a compelling state interest.


You know Sunset, you're right. There was no 240 year history of separating races.

It was a 276 year history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation#Laws_banning_miscegenatio n), predating the formation of this country, remaining through it's inception and lasting until 1967 when the Supreme Court decided to ignore it one day when ruled it unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia).

And #3? Guess what? 240 years ago, there weren't cars. Now there are cars. 240 years ago, there was no technology to artificially inseminate. Now we can.
 
2014-01-06 11:08:09 PM
SunsetLament:
Whose morals?

Mine.  Whose else's am I supposed to go by?  And I don't expect you to go by anyone's but your own, thus the difference opinion.
 
2014-01-06 11:25:51 PM

nekom: SunsetLament:
Whose morals?

Mine.  Whose else's am I supposed to go by?  And I don't expect you to go by anyone's but your own, thus the difference opinion.


I was just making sure you weren't conflating your morals with the county's morals (as a whole).
 
2014-01-06 11:46:34 PM

SunsetLament: dywed88:

At the same time gay couples can and do raise children.

They can't give birth and they can't provide a home with both genders at the head of the household.  If you believe that the government has an interest in promoting procreation and in exposing children to guidance of both genders ... then the government can discriminate to further this interest.  The Supreme Court didn't even say these weren't compelling state interests; instead they said they didn't believe the various state governments when they said this was the reason for the laws (which, as we all know is BS, but the majority had to defend its decision somehow).

I'm pro-gay marriage legalization, but I am capable of acknowledging reality and I believe in law (not judicial legislating).  Like abortion, this was five justices who decided they were tired of waiting and were going to do it themselves - not because it was their job, not because the law said they should, but instead because they had the power and they could.  If you want gay marriage, change hearts and minds - don't legislate through unelected judicial fiat.


Fark that, I don't need to change hearts and minds... there are hundreds of thousands of gay veterans who fought for a constitution that guarantees them equal protection under the law, they shouldn't have to fight again because Billy Bob thinks Jesus wants state-enforced religion.
 
2014-01-07 12:30:11 AM

SunsetLament: This has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone and everything to do with the courts ignoring the law and judicial precedent because they didn't like what was being accomplished legally through legislative means.  It's reprehensible (and very dangerous), but it is what it is.  They did the same thing with abortion and have turned the issue into a major source of strife in this country for forty years.


If you really believe this and aren't just trolling then I find it reprehensible and very dangerous.

You might should know of the Triumvirate's our system was very loosely based on but all 3 branches are supposed to be equal but you know this I'll bet and just becuase people need politacal issues and some people really do't like right's doesn't make it okay to deny them.
 
2014-01-07 01:59:17 AM

push3r: qorkfiend: push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?

Jurodan: push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of cit ...



Chiming in late, but here's the relevant info on the "church" in New Jersey that push3r refers to:
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church.  Granted, they have some affiliation with the United Methodist Church, however the controversy was the result of the non-church status of the OGCMA.  That organization, because it is not a church, applied for a "Green Acres" tax exemption via the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The tax exemption required that the OCGMA allow use of its facilities to the public "on an equal basis."
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases08/pr20081229a.html
Because the OGCMA allowed the public to use the pavilion for weddings, and because the  OGCMA voluntarily agreed to make its facilities open to the public "on an equal basis" in exchange for a tax break,  the court ruled that the OCGMA could not exclude same-sex weddings from its pavilion.

I got the info from here, which is one of the top hits you get when you google "church sued gay marriage".
So, to recap:
-it wasn't a church
-the judge's ruling on incursions into religious freedom had to do with the religious freedom of an organization that had actually requested a public status for tax purposes, and not a church
-there's no real threat to actual churches in any way in America whatsoever

All other cases involving law suits over gay marriage accommodation has to do with private business and the anti-discriminations laws of state/locality for those businesses.  Those laws are part of what the business owner(s) agreed to when they applied to the state/locality to be a business there, so consider it the price of doing business in that area, and plan ahead next time if you want to be a fool and only take certain people's money (protip: it's always green, no matter who hands it to you).

Churches have literally nothing to worry about, because much like a power ranger, all the parts of the first amendment combined protect churches from the evils of gay marriage in all its forms.  No law suit against a church on this issue, in any court in the United States, no matter who brought it, no matter how much money was spent, would ever, ever, ever prevail.  It would fail, probably immediately, because churches have the mighty morphing power of the first amendment.

Things might be different in England, which was the only other real citation push3r provided, but remember that this country was founded, in part, due to religious persecution in England, so suffice to say that we have a radically different approach to religion and government in America.  All the religious exemption clauses in current gay marriage laws are either there to try to calm those who do not understand the power of a fully operational first amendment, or more insidiously, there to provide an opening for businesses to later challenge commerce anti-discrimination laws (similar to the Hobby Lobby/contraception mandate case going before the Supreme Court--"if the churches are exempt we want to be too!").
 
2014-01-07 02:28:39 AM

ckccfa: Chiming in late, but here's the relevant info on the "church" in New Jersey that push3r refers to:
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church.  Granted, they have some affiliation with the United Methodist Church, however the controversy was the result of the non-church status of the OGCMA.  That organization, because it is not a church, applied for a "Green Acres" tax exemption via the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The tax exemption required that the OCGMA allow use of its facilities to the public "on an equal basis."
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases08/pr20081229a.html
Because the OGCMA allowed the public to use the pavilion for weddings, and because the  OGCMA voluntarily agreed to make its facilities open to the public "on an equal basis" in exchange for a tax break,  the court ruled that the OCGMA could not exclude same-sex weddings from its pavilion.


Heh, I knew his story was half truths at best and he was leaving stuff out but tax exemptions so nice : )
 
2014-01-07 02:59:08 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: SunsetLament: This has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone and everything to do with the courts ignoring the law and judicial precedent because they didn't like what was being accomplished legally through legislative means.  It's reprehensible (and very dangerous), but it is what it is.  They did the same thing with abortion and have turned the issue into a major source of strife in this country for forty years.

If you really believe this and aren't just trolling then I find it reprehensible and very dangerous.

You might should know of the Triumvirate's our system was very loosely based on but all 3 branches are supposed to be equal but you know this I'll bet and just becuase people need politacal issues and some people really do't like right's doesn't make it okay to deny them.


First of all, you have been failed tremendously by your own education system - at the time of the founding (and pre-Marbury) there was tremendous debate regarding whether or not all of the branches were intended to be co-equal, or if the judiciary was clearly a lesser branch.  Hamilton (a Federalist) believed it was clearly not as powerful (and not supposed to be) as the executive or legislative branches; Jefferson stated that they were intended to be co-equal and then flipped out after the Marbury v Madison decision ("The Constitution  .  .  . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.") - he said they had become despots; Yates (an Anti-Federalist) did not live long enough to see the Marbury decision, but had predicted that as time went on, the judiciary (as set up in the Constitution) would eventually become more and more dictatorial despite the protests to the contrary of the Federalists ("Perhaps nothing could have been better conceived to facilitate the abolition of the state governments than the constitution of the judicial. They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted; one adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one.").

Second, what you describe is not three co-equal branches; instead, you describe one branch (the judiciary), unelected, who no longer even pretend to follow the Constitution, or their own precedents.  Some, like Ginsburg, are openly and publicly hostile to the U.S. Constitution and even concede (as she has regarding Roe v. Wade) that from time to time the body legislates based on politics, not based on law or the Constitution.

tl;dr:
You don't have a clue what you're talking about, but I don't blame you entirely because the liberals running education over the last 60 years have failed you.
 
2014-01-07 08:50:56 AM
My last comment was (I hope obviously) intended to be sarcastic. The statement regarding religious people getting what they deserve was a reference to people like this:

soporific: Besides, given the amount of crap that gay people have had to deal with, crap done to them by religious people, I'm having a hard time sympathizing now that the tables are turning. And I say this as a Christian myself. (who supports gay marriage)


Poe's law is actually a pretty good call. Unfortunately I've seen that point of view put forward sincerely, although in the case of soporific I don't think that's the case.

Let me try and approach this from a different angle since I'm not being clear. I'll use the NOW.org website since their status as proponents of marriage equality is clearly understood and their position is, imho, well articulated.

According to NOW, Marriage is a civil contract, and entering into this contract provides from 1,049 to 1,138 legal protections. This country seems to have finally realized that denying those protections to some of its citizens is unconstitutional and Federal recognition seems only a matter of time. This is all as it should be.

At the same time, Marriage is also a religious ceremony that confers no legal rights or status unless registered with the State.

My problem or concern is that by moving to offer the civil rights to all citizens, there is the possibility that religious rights could be compromised. Based on historical abuse of law by both the government and extremist activists and the current environment I consider this possibility to be very real.

NOW takes issue with the concept of Civil Unions for several reasons, the most important being Portability, Federal Benefits, and the concept of Separate but Equal.

Once the Federal government recognizes same sex partnerships, it's my position that the use of the legal term Marriage should be eliminated and replaced with something else. You could even use Civil Union, whatever. By universally adopting a different legal term across the State and Federal level you ensure equality for anyone who wants to enter into a partnership agreement. This addresses the concerns of Portability, Federal Benefits, and by eliminating "Marriage" as a legal term you no longer have Separate but Equal.

This ensures that the various religions can retain their ceremonies etc. as they wish. Since "Marriage" no longer provides any benefit outside the religion they can choose to marry who they wish, just like some choose not to ordain women to the clergy. (Please note that I don't agree with such policies, but I agree with their constitutional right to such policies)

This keeps the government out of religion while ensuring that everyone (straight, LGBT, whatever) are equal under the law and receive the same partnership benefits, as it should be.

That's all.
 
2014-01-07 09:53:05 AM

push3r: My problem or concern is that by moving to offer the civil rights to all citizens, there is the possibility that religious rights could be compromised. Based on historical abuse of law by both the government and extremist activists and the current environment I consider this possibility to be very real.

 
And again I am going to point out that you are ignoring a CURRENT AND ACTUAL miscarriage of justice for fear of a potential miscarriage of justice.

And you are resorting to a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance. You are asserting that something will happen because we cannot prove it is false because we can't see into the future. For all you know, it could work out fine, but the possibility it does not should not prevent you from action. The United States wouldn't exist if the founders had your attitude, for example. We can't see if breaking off from England could cause more harm than good, and might turn out really bad, so we shouldn't attempt it.

NOW takes issue with the concept of Civil Unions for several reasons, the most important being Portability, Federal Benefits, and the concept of Separate but Equal.

Once the Federal government recognizes same sex partnerships, it's my position that the use of the legal term Marriage should be eliminated and replaced with something else. You could even use Civil Union, whatever. By universally adopting a different legal term across the State and Federal level you ensure equality for anyone who wants to enter into a partnership agreement. This addresses the concerns of Portability, Federal Benefits, and by eliminating "Marriage" as a legal term you no longer have Separate but Equal.


So, just so this is perfectly clear, you want to remove the word marriage from the law? I do not see why this is necessary. The word works fine. And your reasoning for this change is faulty at best.

This ensures that the various religions can retain their ceremonies etc. as they wish. Since "Marriage" no longer provides any benefit outside the religion they can choose to marry who they wish, just like some choose not to ordain women to the clergy. (Please note that I don't agree with such policies, but I agree with their constitutional right to such policies)

And again, I will point out what I have pointed out twice and you have UTTERLY ignored: Freedom of Association. And I will repeat what I said before: IF a court ordered that a church must perform gay marriages despite the church's own convictions then that court is WRONG and any court above it should overturn the ruling and order the judge to re-read Boyscouts of America V. Dale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale).

This keeps the government out of religion while ensuring that everyone (straight, LGBT, whatever) are equal under the law and receive the same partnership benefits, as it should be.

That's all.


The government doesn't even NEED religion to perform marriages. Again, they're civil contracts already, not at all dependent on the church to validate them. You can get married in a court, you can get married in the county clerk's office, you can get married underwater, and you can get married while skydiving for christ's sake. Do you REALLY think you need a church or even religion to get married? Because if you do, you're a bit out of date.

That's all.

/Still waiting to hear back from Sunset Lament about how fantastically wrong he was about miscegenation...
//Not holding my breath
 
2014-01-07 10:10:23 AM

SunsetLament: dywed88: SunsetLament: They can give birth and they can provide a home with both genders.  If you believe that the government has an interest in promoting procreation and in exposing children to guidance of both genders ... then the government can't discriminate because it doesn't this interest.  The Supreme Court didn't even say these weren't compelling state interests; instead they said they didn't believe the various state governments when they said this was the reason for the laws (which, as we all know is BS, but the majority had to defend its decision somehow).

Gays can have biological children. I know plenty that have done so. Just like plenty of heterosexual couples use donors and surrogates.

Sure they can, but not without the participation of a third person (of the opposite gender).  And this in no way changes the judicial standard that lasted for decades (and is still techinically in place, despite the Supreme Court ignoring it this time):  Does the state have a compelling interest in promoting procreation and/or stable nuclear families?  If it does, than it can recognize straight marriage (and confer benefits) legally, without recognizing gay marriage.  End of story.


It doesn't, because at no point did it ever outlaw the elderly or infertile from marrying. Just because you can't have kids doesn't mean your family won't be stable by the way.

Anything else just becomes a justification to ignore the law as written and judicial precedent.

Just because a straight couple may not be able to have children, or does not want children, does not (1) remove the compelling state interest, or (2) mean the law is invalid because it doesn't promote the interest in all instances.  These are decisions to be left to the judgment of the legislatures, not the courts - at least, that's how the system is designed and how it has always worked historically.


Not wanting or not having children doesn't remove the compelling state interest, but, because there are half a dozen other compelling interests that don't involve procreation, I argue that you're wrong about that being the sole interest because, again, women who were elderly and known to be infertile (due purely to age) were allowed to marry. And if you think that two men or two women don't make up a nuclear family I suggest you look up what the term actually means (two parents and their children doesn't specify anything more than that).

As for your last comment, I'll point out (again) how wrong you were about miscegenation which I'm VERY sure some parts of the country felt were VERY compelling right up until the supreme court looked at them and realized how arbitrary and stupid they were.

/Just like they'll eventually do for laws against Gay Marriage
 
2014-01-07 10:37:25 AM

push3r: My last comment was (I hope obviously) intended to be sarcastic. The statement regarding religious people getting what they deserve was a reference to people like this:

soporific: Besides, given the amount of crap that gay people have had to deal with, crap done to them by religious people, I'm having a hard time sympathizing now that the tables are turning. And I say this as a Christian myself. (who supports gay marriage)

Poe's law is actually a pretty good call. Unfortunately I've seen that point of view put forward sincerely, although in the case of soporific I don't think that's the case.

Let me try and approach this from a different angle since I'm not being clear. I'll use the NOW.org website since their status as proponents of marriage equality is clearly understood and their position is, imho, well articulated.

According to NOW, Marriage is a civil contract, and entering into this contract provides from 1,049 to 1,138 legal protections. This country seems to have finally realized that denying those protections to some of its citizens is unconstitutional and Federal recognition seems only a matter of time. This is all as it should be.

At the same time, Marriage is also a religious ceremony that confers no legal rights or status unless registered with the State.

My problem or concern is that by moving to offer the civil rights to all citizens, there is the possibility that religious rights could be compromised. Based on historical abuse of law by both the government and extremist activists and the current environment I consider this possibility to be very real.

NOW takes issue with the concept of Civil Unions for several reasons, the most important being Portability, Federal Benefits, and the concept of Separate but Equal.

Once the Federal government recognizes same sex partnerships, it's my position that the use of the legal term Marriage should be eliminated and replaced with something else. You could even use Civil Union, whatever. By universally ad ...


"Marriage," as both a term and a contract, is something controlled by the states.  That's why the state issues licenses, and why you have to have one to be considered legally "married."  That the states choose to extend to (various) clergy the privilege of witnessing/officiating the entering into of the contract does not change the fundamental, legal nature of marriage--it is, before the eyes of the law, a contract that the state oversees.  And not all states allow all clergy to officiate--for example, I am ordained through the Universal Life Church so that I could officiate at the weddings of some friends, but my ordination through that church is not considered valid in every state (in other words, there are some states where I can sign the contract in the role of officiant, and some where I can't).  So states don't even fully embrace the rights of all religions to do this--they pick and choose who they extend the privilege of marrying other people to, which means that marriage, in America, is something that state governments control.  Of course, the states are bound, as in all things, to follow the federal constitution, but with the relevant part of DOMA gone, the federal government is once again bound to follow whatever the states decide marriage is (within the bounds of the federal constitution).

It is nice that most religions have their own versions of marriage, and ceremonies to go with it, but for the state, marriage is a civil contract that confers sets of state and federal level benefits and protections to two people who want to combine their public/civil selves in a legal way.  Did the states originally copy a religious procedure in doing this?  Yes, yes they did, but the 200 some odd years of history and law have made it into, for the state, a civil contract that the state oversees.

So while I'm sorry that some religious people don't like using the same word for something they don't like, it is practically a legal impossibility to do what you are suggesting.  It would simply be untenable to have to change, for every state, county, town, city, borough, state agency, insurance company, and federal agency, the entire language surrounding a common civil contract that millions of people have already entered into and millions more will continue to enter into even as they try to change the wording.  It would also entail monumental costs to make this happen.
Our legal system is based on precedent and the specificity of language--you cannot do what you're suggesting and have a fair system without going back and altering every single law, statute, and regulation that uses the word "marriage," otherwise you will see even more wrangling, more of a morass, and more lawsuits than are happening now.  Changing the gender specificity of the word "marriage" is much, much easier because most uses of the word "marriage" assume that gender specificity rather than mention it outright, and so fewer laws have to be changed.  It seems stupid, but just opening the definition of marriage a little is, legally speaking, a far easier prospect than trying to change the word entirely.
In case you're wondering, by the way, why states that already had plain old laws banning gay marriage also amended their constitutions to ban it with extremely gender specific language, it is because they knew that having both in place and with that specificity of language would make undoing either more arduous--there's difference procedures for undoing a law versus an amendment, and both have to take place in those cases, and the gender issues must be addressed.

I'm sorry that a lot of religious people will get their feelings hurt by having to watch gay people enjoy a contract that the churches have no actual authority over.  I really am sorry that some people are so distressed by the personal, civil lives of others.  But marriage, in America, is a civil contract first and a religious procedure second, and there's no real, meaningful, legal reason to change the word.  The anti-gay religious will just have to learn to get along the same way all the racists did after the civil rights act, or after Loving v. Virginia, or the way the misogynists did after the 19th amendment was passed--they'll just have to learn to accept that the laws of this country and the promise of equality before those laws is greater than them, or they'll become embarrassing social relics.

As for the comparison to the backlash to Roe v. Wade that I often hear in regards to gay marriage--I find those to be completely different things.  Abortion is a far more complex issue (and the ruling on it much more open) than allowing two people regardless of gender to enter into a civil contract, and while there will be plenty of people upset by gay marriage, far more people, and far far more young people, are comfortable with gay marriage than with abortion.  This will be much more like Loving v. Virginia--some spiteful busybodies will be upset for a while, but most people will, ultimately, learn to deal.
 
2014-01-07 11:00:43 AM

SunsetLament: tinfoil-hat maggie: SunsetLament: This has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone and everything to do with the courts ignoring the law and judicial precedent because they didn't like what was being accomplished legally through legislative means.  It's reprehensible (and very dangerous), but it is what it is.  They did the same thing with abortion and have turned the issue into a major source of strife in this country for forty years.

If you really believe this and aren't just trolling then I find it reprehensible and very dangerous.

You might should know of the Triumvirate's our system was very loosely based on but all 3 branches are supposed to be equal but you know this I'll bet and just becuase people need politacal issues and some people really do't like right's doesn't make it okay to deny them.

First of all, you have been failed tremendously by your own education system - at the time of the founding (and pre-Marbury) there was tremendous debate regarding whether or not all of the branches were intended to be co-equal, or if the judiciary was clearly a lesser branch.  Hamilton (a Federalist) believed it was clearly not as powerful (and not supposed to be) as the executive or legislative branches; Jefferson stated that they were intended to be co-equal and then flipped out after the Marbury v Madison decision ("The Constitution  .  .  . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.") - he said they had become despots; Yates (an Anti-Federalist) did not live long enough to see the Marbury decision, but had predicted that as time went on, the judiciary (as set up in the Constitution) would eventually become more and more dictatorial despite the protests to the contrary of the Fede ...


This government, and its judiciary, are not frozen in time, nor are they wholly dependent upon the philosophical writings of some of their founders.  The true genius of the founders was in creating a system with both the flexibility and the stability to survive enormous expansion and change in, historically speaking, a remarkably short period of time.  So while those writing federalist papers might have had their own debate about the role of government and the judiciary, the federal judiciary, under the language set out in the federal constitution (which, ultimately, is the only document that matters, federalist papers or no) is a body that determines the constitutionality of laws and actions from the legislative and executive branches.  That is how it has been used in this country, both historically and legally, and it is a necessary function considering the size and diversity of the United States.  A judiciary has always been called for in the constitution, and as the nation and government has grown, so has it.  The judiciary stands, in many cases, as the final refuge of the minority against the will of the majority, which is a key protection that was lacking from past democratic attempts at governing.  Part of the greatness of this nation is this very function of the judiciary--it is how we have achieved some of our best work as a people, gotten closer to our "more perfect union", and that you denigrate it is offensive to me as an American.

As for the "unelected" part--this country is a federal presidential representative democracy under a constitutional republic, meaning that our form of democracy is distilled through representation.  We vote for various representatives at various levels, who then make various decisions and appointments of other government actors for us.  So, elected officials choose those judges, and confirm them, under the power given to them by the voting public.  So this is not a grave miscarriage of representation, but the functioning of a system designed to overcome much of the chaos and caprice inherent in the fully democratic approach.

I'll say it again--this country is a federal presidential representative democracy under a constitutional republic, and it continues to work largely as intended (more slowly than ever before, but the fever will break someday).  It is an incredible system of governance, one the world had never seen before its creation, and one that makes an extraordinary amount of change and equality possible in very little time (historically speaking).   I'm sorry you do not like it; I'm sure there are other countries with systems more suited to your tastes.
 
2014-01-07 04:43:07 PM

Jurodan: It doesn't, because at no point did it ever outlaw the elderly or infertile from marrying. Just because you can't have kids doesn't mean your family won't be stable by the way.


That's a decision to me made by the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.  And in the opinion of the legislative branches (stated and federal), to date, they disagree with you.

Not wanting or not having children doesn't remove the compelling state interest, but, because there are half a dozen other compelling interests that don't involve procreation, I argue that you're wrong about that being the sole interest because, again, women who were elderly and known to be infertile (due purely to age) were allowed to marry.

I didn't say it was the "sole" interest.  I said it was the interest the government(s) were addressing when they recognized marriage and conferred benefits ... and further, it's a compelling interest.  You're making an emotional argument; Im making a legal argument.

And if you think that two men or two women don't make up a nuclear family I suggest you look up what the term actually means (two parents and their children doesn't specify anything more than that).

Sure, if you redefine the term to suit what you want it to be.  The term ("nuclear family") pre-dates 1950 and meant (as it means now) a husband, a wife, and their minor offspring all cohabiting in the same residence.  Just because you're trying to alter the meaning of the term in hopes of being politically correct and suit your purposes does not mean I have to pretend your not changing the original definition.

As for your last comment, I'll point out (again) how wrong you were about miscegenation which I'm VERY sure some parts of the country felt were VERY compelling right up until the supreme court looked at them and realized how arbitrary and stupid they were.

Again, you're making an emotional argument, not a legal argument.  Don't feel bad, the Supreme Court does this now too.
 
2014-01-07 04:47:36 PM

ckccfa: I'll say it again--this country is a federal presidential representative democracy under a constitutional republic, and it continues to work largely as intended (more slowly than ever before, but the fever will break someday).


Almost every word of every sentence you wrote is wrong, but the highlighted portion of this sentence is the most wrong (of all the wrong things you typed, which amounts to almost everything).

I'll leave it at that.
 
2014-01-07 05:58:32 PM

SunsetLament: Jurodan: It doesn't, because at no point did it ever outlaw the elderly or infertile from marrying. Just because you can't have kids doesn't mean your family won't be stable by the way.

That's a decision to me made by the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.  And in the opinion of the legislative branches (stated and federal), to date, they disagree with you.


That doesn't mean that it is right. Jim Crow laws were made by the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, but they were eventually removed largely (almost universally in fact) because of the judicial branch reviewed the laws during lawsuits and found them to be unconstitutional. That's part of what the judiciary does.

If you think that's not what it should do, I'll point to your own statement about Thomas Jefferson. Just because he was flummoxed by their rulings doesn't mean that his original conception of the branches being equal is wrong. And, while it has never (successfully) happened, the legislature can, if need be, impeach a justice of the supreme court and expel him or her from their august rank.

Not wanting or not having children doesn't remove the compelling state interest, but, because there are half a dozen other compelling interests that don't involve procreation, I argue that you're wrong about that being the sole interest because, again, women who were elderly and known to be infertile (due purely to age) were allowed to marry.

I didn't say it was the "sole" interest.  I said it was the interest the government(s) were addressing when they recognized marriage and conferred benefits ... and further, it's a compelling interest.  You're making an emotional argument; Im making a legal argument.


I'm going to backstep here and post why I used the word sole when you didn't:  Does the state have a compelling interest in promoting procreation and/or stable nuclear families?

And the answer is: probably. Obviously we need future generations. But, taking that into account your statement is still flawed. The courts will not dissolve a marriage because someone is shown to be infertile, meaning that is not purely about promoting procreation. If it were purely about promoting procreation then infertility would lead to invalidation of a marriage. The second is that of a Stable Nuclear Family. I'm going to get your argument about nuclear in a minute, but do you really believe that a gay couple cannot be stable? Is THAT your argument? Because if it is, I'm going to have to laugh at you. That's why I dismissed it before, saying that procreation was the "sole" interest.

It is the sole compelling interest different from any other marriage, isn't it? What else is different, really? Inheritance rights? And, much like many cases of infertility, we can now solve a problem of gay men and women procreating (and have been able to for some time) that "sole" interest is wearing very thin. If there are no compelling interests, none that I can see at this point being the tiniest of nitpicks, wouldn't the law that prevents gay marriage be unjustly discriminatory in nature?


And if you think that two men or two women don't make up a nuclear family I suggest you look up what the term actually means (two parents and their children doesn't specify anything more than that).

Sure, if you redefine the term to suit what you want it to be.  The term ("nuclear family") pre-dates 1950 and meant (as it means now) a husband, a wife, and their minor offspring all cohabiting in the same residence.  Just because you're trying to alter the meaning of the term in hopes of being politically correct and suit your purposes does not mean I have to pretend your not changing the original definition.


As for your comment about the Nuclear family (I said I'd get to it) I went with the definition on the wikipedia page. It'll be true soon enough regardless. And if you don't think words change meaning over time, haha... boy are you in trouble. I was incontinently aroused to find you ejaculate those words, finding them most queer indeed. I wish you a gay day, sir. (Those sentences make perfect sense with older definitions)

As for your last comment, I'll point out (again) how wrong you were about miscegenation which I'm VERY sure some parts of the country felt were VERY compelling right up until the supreme court looked at them and realized how arbitrary and stupid they were.

Again, you're making an emotional argument, not a legal argument.  Don't feel bad, the Supreme Court does this now too.


I pointed out the legal issue in a previous post. There were laws on the books that said that there marrying someone of a separate skin color was illegal. States found these interests compelling enough to enact laws, that existed from the creation of the colonies, continued after the United States itself came into existence, were created in states that later joined the Union (meaning that this is not a fluke, this was not some archaic rule that was never removed, because these were parts of state laws) and collectively remained on the books until the 1960's when the courts ruled that those laws were illegal. That is part of what the courts are for, to look at the laws that the legislatures make and, on occasion, slap their hands away because they done farked up.
 
Displayed 150 of 150 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report