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 45
    More: Followup, Supreme Court, Utah, opponents of same-sex marriage, Supreme Court halts, U.S. Court of Appeals  
•       •       •

1274 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jan 2014 at 1:35 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-06 02:22:44 PM  
10 votes:
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 03:32:04 PM  
6 votes:

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 02:23:38 PM  
5 votes:
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 02:05:26 PM  
5 votes:
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 04:10:18 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:56:42 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:54:23 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:31:19 PM  
3 votes:
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 04:06:10 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:57:46 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:50:50 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:45:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:16:15 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-01-07 11:00:43 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-06 11:00:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:40:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:42:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:38:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:16:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:36:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:21:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:21:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:18:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:11:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:09:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:51:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:37:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:30:26 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:27:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:26:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:21:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:02:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:58:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:50:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:41:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:38:05 PM  
1 votes:

firefly212: Mainlining mountain dew and mormonism can be dangerous.


You've basically described the modern-day Boy Scouts of America.
2014-01-06 02:26:17 PM  
1 votes:
I firmly disagree with the injunction, the state failed to show any sort of harm at all, let alone irreparable harm.
2014-01-06 02:18:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:11:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:01:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:55:19 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:51:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:49:35 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:33:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:22:12 PM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report