Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JAHS

Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Recommended Posts

Thanks for sharing the poll data.  I'm actually not surprised as the number of active LDS who support gay marriage.  I believe that there are more and more of us every year and we generally keep those views to ourselves because of the LDS culture.  For example, even though I'm in my 40's, married with kids, my parents still get upset when they see me post/like/comment on anything on Facebook that is in support of gay marriage.

 

I'm 63 married with kids and Grandkids, both sets of parents are dead. I think there is a difference between not supporting something, and not able to legally outlaw it.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for sharing the poll data.  I'm actually not surprised as the number of active LDS who support gay marriage.  I believe that there are more and more of us every year and we generally keep those views to ourselves because of the LDS culture.  For example, even though I'm in my 40's, married with kids, my parents still get upset when they see me post/like/comment on anything on Facebook that is in support of gay marriage.

 

I also sense that it is growing, but didn't expect this much - at least among active members in Utah.  Perhaps this sheds light on the recent address by Elder Ballard at BYU urguing students to actively defend traditional marriage (http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/education/college/nelson-stresses-sanctity-of-marriage-at-commencement/article_ece45a1d-2bff-5542-9e49-e836c101eda1.html).  It can't be that LDS members will have much of an effect on the national/world scene.  Perhaps the worry is that wards will start to divide or have hostility over the issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I also sense that it is growing, but didn't expect this much - at least among active members in Utah.  Perhaps this sheds light on the recent address by Elder Ballard at BYU urguing students to actively defend traditional marriage (http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/education/college/nelson-stresses-sanctity-of-marriage-at-commencement/article_ece45a1d-2bff-5542-9e49-e836c101eda1.html).  It can't be that LDS members will have much of an effect on the national/world scene.  Perhaps the worry is that wards will start to divide or have hostility over the issue.

 

You meant Elder Nelson.  And yes, I do see this issue creating division in wards, stakes, and the church in the coming years.  Just look at the discussions here.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. I didn't see you as a guy that believes in this kind of ideas about marriage. Quite frankly I am a but stunned. I thought you were more thoughtful on this subject. I know that you don't support gay marriage , but the gay man can marry a woman or it is like marrying a car??? Really???

And there you go putting words in my mouth. What I said does not translate in any language, except disingenuousness, as comparing gay marriage to marrying a car.

And as to the gay man marrying a woman is concerned, if "marriage" is defined as exclusively between men and women, then by definition obviously a gay man must marry a woman. Jeeze, don't take it any further than I stated it.

You seem to be so passionate about this subject, I would have thought you would have at least read some of the rulings and had a better grasp on what the actual legal issues are being argued. These points are like right wing radio talk show arguments, not alegal defends that would hold up in a court of law.

I know all about the legal arguments decisions and so on, and I understand them, to a point at least. I just disagree with them. If a given argument has been rejected by some judge this doesn't mean that the argument is wrong, it just means that the judge is a tool. I am not a lawyer. I am not a judge. I am a regular guy who programs computers for a living, and the entire set of arguments the judges and lawyers who are pro-SSM are throwing around seem like they were made by "attorneys" -- and as you may know, the word "attorney" originates from the Latin word for "to twist". At one time the Supreme Court decided for all time that black men and women could not be citizens. They were mistaken; they were wrong -- regardless of all the courtly and legal language that they used to describe their decision, they were so wrong it is absolutely incomprehensible to people in these latter days.

The move towards legal gay marriage is, in my view, just as wrong. I can marry a woman; you can marry a woman. We have equal rights on the matter. No rights are being violated in this. But when you want to marry a man then you are not talking about marriage any longer, but an incomprehensibly redefined travesty. And you don't see it. And I cannot help it.

I think it is important to remember ed that BOTH liberal AND conservative judges have ruled meatin favor of gay marriage. You can't ignore their legal reasonings. There must be solid reasons why gay marriage is inot like marrying a car.

I don't ignore their reasoning. I just disagree with it. There's a slight difference there.

The car thing is just saying that gay marriage is just as nonsensical as marrying one's car. I would never equate a human being with a car. And by the way, the same imagery has been used to compare and contrast heterosexual marriage with the inordinate affection some guys lavish on their cars. Without, I may add, N.O.W. having a hissy-fit.

I want laws to reflect the truth, not some made-up, twisted, and convoluted distortion of the truth. Marriage is heterosexual. That's all I'm saying.

Sorry if I yanked your chain.

I'll shut up now.

Share this post


Link to post

You meant Elder Nelson.  And yes, I do see this issue creating division in wards, stakes, and the church in the coming years.  Just look at the discussions here.

The only division that I see in the Wards is over whether we should be trying to impose our beliefs via legislation. Those who believe that it should be okay for members to engage in homosexual acts or that the Church should accept SSM in the Church have already gone inactive or relinquished their membership. We had a small wave of people leaving the Church after a young man " came out" at the pulpit during a fast and testimony meeting, after that and after the RS basically told a High Councilor to get out of their meeting when he tried to read an epistle from the former Stake Pres. on trying to get a ban enacted in NH, it all settled down. Our Ward really has low tolerance for mixing right wing politics with religion whether locally generated or emanating from Salt Lake.

Share this post


Link to post

I won't "lambaste" you for saying that but I will point out that recommending mixed-orientation marriage seems counter to protecting the sanctity of marriage.  The success rate of such marriages is not too impressive.

I'm not suggesting it.

All I am saying is that if two men, me and california boy, for instance, both have the right to marry a woman, then we have equal rights. But CB has a partner, and he should stick with him and not go out to find a woman to marry.

I am sure that eventually both Daniel2 and CB will get their wish to be able to contract their relationships with the state and call it marriage. I hope this make them happy, and I am sincere in that hope. I am just opposed to calling it marriage.

Share this post


Link to post

The Virginia AG issues statement supporting SCOTUS issuing a stay, despite agreeing with the 4th Ciruit Court's ruling, and urges SCOTUS to take up the issue ASAP. Via The Washington Post:

Virginia attorney general seeks delay in reversing gay-marriage ban

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/virginia-attorney-general-seeks-delay-in-reversing-gay-marriage-ban/2014/08/18/68f3ec88-271c-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

By Robert Barnes 

August 18 at 9:49 PM  

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) told the Supreme Court on Monday that it should put on hold a lower court’s order that same-sex couples in the state be allowed to marry, beginning this week.

Herring said that he agrees with the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that struck Virginia’s ban as unconstitutional, but that it is better for the Supreme Court to delay the marriages and immediately accept the case for review.

“Although it is painful to keep Virginia’s same-sex couples and their children waiting any longer to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the rule of law requires that this court be afforded the time needed to settle the question,” Herring wrote in a filing to the court.

The groups representing those challenging the ban said the court should not step in to stop the marriages, which would commence Thursday without Supreme Court intervention.

But the groups — the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the American Foundation for Equal Rights — said that if the court grants the stay, it should accept Virginia’s case as a way to settle the question of whether the Constitution requires that the right to marry be extended to same-sex couples.

I respect this man, and can understand his position, even though it would be a huge win for the stay to be denied (which it won't be).

Share this post


Link to post

I’d like to clarify one other thing here, Stargazer.  It is not your “viewpoint that marriage is only for heterosexual couples” or your “standing for the truth of the exclusivity of theological approval of marriage being reserved only for heterosexuals" or your “belief that same-sex relationships are wrong” that directly, measurably, and immediately harms me and my family.  When it comes to “your beliefs” vs. any “harm they afflict” on me, we could paraphrase the old adage: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your viewpoint about marriage doesn’t really hurt me.”

 

It is a victim mentality to walk around and point fingers at others, claiming, “Hey!!!! Your beliefs are hurting me!!!  I demand you change your beliefs I’m not being hurt!”

 

No…. Your beliefs don’t hurt me or my family.

 

What does directly, measurably, and immediately hurt my family is the denial of the same civil benefits that accompany the marriage contract (health insurance and medical benefits, inheritance rights, tax exemptions and other financial incentives, etc), and the equal dignity afforded by the protections of civil marriage that are only protected by government recognition (i.e. regulations protecting against discrimination in the public sector; business practices, educational institutions, medical facilities, etc).

 

In sum, I am fine with others believing my marriage is immortal or divinely rejected, and I am fine with others’ offering their moral, personal, and theological support only to heterosexual marriages.

 

What I am not fine with is my government treating my marriage and religion (which recognizes and promotes marriage for both straight and gay couples) differently, because the denial of civil marital benefits and social dignity and freedom from discrimination in the public sector is what harms my family.

 

I hope that helps clarify.

That's fine. And believe it or not I do understand and sympathize with your position.

 

In connection with the paragraph of yours above which I have bolded, the state of Washington, where I live, had a law which gave to gay couples all the civil benefits you mention, without calling it marriage.  Other states have had similar provisions.  I was perfectly happy with that.  But since the camel wasn't yet entirely in the tent, it wasn't enough for some people.  Of course, Washington state is one of those which now has full-blown gay marriage, via referendum.  I voted against it, knowing darned well that it was going to succeed.

 

And please don't start telling me that I am comparing gay marriage to a camel -- it's just a metaphor I've extended for the purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post

Those who believe that it should be okay for members to engage in homosexual acts or that the Church should accept SSM in the Church have already gone inactive or relinquished their membership.

 

I would ask for a CFR for this statement but we both know you can't prove it.  It is false.  Demonstrably.  Starting with me (that the Church should accept SSM, not that sex outside of marriage is okay).

Share this post


Link to post

I would ask for a CFR for this statement but we both know you can't prove it.  It is false.  Demonstrably.  Starting with me (that the Church should accept SSM, not that sex outside of marriage is okay).

 

And continuing with Sister Riess (http://janariess.religionnews.com/2014/08/15/mormon-apostle-gay-marriage-homosexuality/)

 

And Sister Pool (http://janariess.religionnews.com/2014/08/15/mormon-apostle-gay-marriage-homosexuality/)

 

And Jon Hunstman Jr., Harry Reid, Steve Young, and a whole lot of youth I know. 

Share this post


Link to post

And there you go putting words in my mouth. What I said does not translate in any language, except disingenuousness, as comparing gay marriage to marrying a car.

And as to the gay man marrying a woman is concerned, if "marriage" is defined as exclusively between men and women, then by definition obviously a gay man must marry a woman. Jeeze, don't take it any further than I stated it.

I know all about the legal arguments decisions and so on, and I understand them, to a point at least. I just disagree with them. If a given argument has been rejected by some judge this doesn't mean that the argument is wrong, it just means that the judge is a tool. I am not a lawyer. I am not a judge. I am a regular guy who programs computers for a living, and the entire set of arguments the judges and lawyers who are pro-SSM are throwing around seem like they were made by "attorneys" -- and as you may know, the word "attorney" originates from the Latin word for "to twist". At one time the Supreme Court decided for all time that black men and women could not be citizens. They were mistaken; they were wrong -- regardless of all the courtly and legal language that they used to describe their decision, they were so wrong it is absolutely incomprehensible to people in these latter days.

The move towards legal gay marriage is, in my view, just as wrong. I can marry a woman; you can marry a woman. We have equal rights on the matter. No rights are being violated in this. But when you want to marry a man then you are not talking about marriage any longer, but an incomprehensibly redefined travesty. And you don't see it. And I cannot help it.

I don't ignore their reasoning. I just disagree with it. There's a slight difference there.

The car thing is just saying that gay marriage is just as nonsensical as marrying one's car. I would never equate a human being with a car. And by the way, the same imagery has been used to compare and contrast heterosexual marriage with the inordinate affection some guys lavish on their cars. Without, I may add, N.O.W. having a hissy-fit.

I want laws to reflect the truth, not some made-up, twisted, and convoluted distortion of the truth. Marriage is heterosexual. That's all I'm saying.

Sorry if I yanked your chain.

I'll shut up now.

Yes you really did yank my chain.  So let's drop this nonsense of gay men can marry a woman just like you.  And men will want to marry their cars if we allow gay marriage.  What are your LEGAL reasons for not allowing gay marriage.  That is the reality of what the court decisions are about.  Or do you consider these legal arguments for denying gays equal protection under the 14th amendment.

 

If you are just looking for a reason to be against gay marriage, then religious or personal belief is valid for me.  But if you are making a legal case against gay marriage, you are going to need a bit more than this flawed legal arguments.  It is like saying only Mormons shoud be allowed to marry.  Anyone who is not Mormon can become Mormon if they wish.  They just choose not to.  

Share this post


Link to post

Yes you really did yank my chain.  So let's drop this nonsense of gay men can marry a woman just like you.  And men will want to marry their cars if we allow gay marriage.  What are your LEGAL reasons for not allowing gay marriage.  That is the reality of what the court decisions are about.  Or do you consider these legal arguments for denying gays equal protection under the 14th amendment.

 

If you are just looking for a reason to be against gay marriage, then religious or personal belief is valid for me.  But if you are making a legal case against gay marriage, you are going to need a bit more than this flawed legal arguments.  It is like saying only Mormons shoud be allowed to marry.  Anyone who is not Mormon can become Mormon if they wish.  They just choose not to.

Yes, you're emotional about it, and I understand this. But you really can't apply the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause to this. You and I have equal rights to marriage, that should be plain on its face. What the entire gay marriage thing revolves around is the definition of marriage, not equal rights. Marriage predates the 14th Amendment. It even predates the Constitution. It even predates English Common Law, Roman Civil Law, and any other system of laws which humans have created for themselves. And marriage, for all its history, has been defined as heterosexual, even when polygamy (and for that matter polyandry) was permitted. What SSM advocates are advancing is NOT some equal right, or equal protection notion, but a change in the definition of marriage.

I oppose redefining it. I have given my reasons for that opposition. Of course, some activist judges have disregarded some or all of the arguments I have given. Fine! They're entitled to their opinions, but they're still wrong, and I am still right. We're going to get full-bore gay marriage in this country, and I don't need Daniel2's exultant crowing over every single legal riffle that goes by on the subject to be aware of this. When we get there we will have arrived at a new level of legal illogic.

I have said all I need or want to on the subject. I thank you (and Daniel2) for your mostly reasonable tone in the discussion with me. I wish you both well, now and in the future. Perhaps we will meet again on some other topic here in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't need Daniel2's exultant crowing over every single legal riffle that goes by on the subject to be aware of this...I thank you (and Daniel2) for your mostly reasonable tone in the discussion with me. I wish you both well, now and in the future. Perhaps we will meet again on some other topic here in this forum.

For what it's worth, Stargazer, since this thread began, it's been my intent to include a comprehensive look at how the legal, theological, and social dialogue regarding same-sex marriage unfolds. 

 

Personally, I don't think I've "exultantly crowed over every single legal riffle that gos by on the subject."I have included briefs and rulings from all sides of the issue--both pro and con. Lately, there's been a lot more pro rulings... but I still include the motions, stays, and rulings against it.

 

I will continue to strive to fairly and respectfully represent all sides of this argument, because in the open field of public debate, ideas and judgments are tried and tested, and truth, if it be such, withstands the testing.

Perhaps someday, this thread will serve as a time capsule of events--a snapshot of how this issue unfolded in America, and how it affected the church. 

 

Additionally, I have learned a lot about the workings of what happens to the rights of a minority group when our legal system clashes with deeply-held religious beliefs of the majority by watching this, an issue that directly affects me, my children, and our family.  It's been a great civics lesson, and I hope readers of this thread enjoy learning some of the same.

I've appreciated both the respectful dialogue with you, and and your contributions to the thread, and welcome you to continue to contribute, as often as you see fit.

Share this post


Link to post

Daniel, et al,

 

You should find interesting some recent polling conducted on Utah residents regarding SSM and Issue 3.  Bottom line take away: most Utahns oppose SSM and support the state's decision to defend Issue, but most Utahns are also resigned to the likelihood that they will lose. 

...

It seems that 12% of active members favor SSM, along with 40% of "somewhat actives" and 48% of non-actives.  That suggests to me that somewhere between 1/3 and 40% of all LDS support SSM - much higher than I had thought.  Even 12% for active members is higher than I supposed.  That would mean that, on average, 1-2 members of each stake high council, 1 member of each ward council, and a few of the temple staff in each temple, currently support SSM.  A few caveats, though - the poll does not specify a definition for active vs. somewhat active vs. non-active, and the poll responders alone decide their activity rate.

 

Fascinating stuff, Buckeye... Thanks for sharing.

 

I wonder if the numbers would be different, if the poll wasn't being conducted trough Zion's bank...  or even if that came into play.

 

I think it's true that a growing number of Latter-day Saints are accepting the legal reality of same-sex marriage, and also supporting the separation of religion's definition of marriage vs. a civil definition of marriage, and therefore accepting and even supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage on the basis of the principles of the 14th Ammendment.  I think that trend will continue--even as a majority maintains their belief that same-sex marriage is religiously prohibited by God and the LDS church.  As I believe I've said previously, that's a stance I can respect, even though I don't share the same belief.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems like there's almost a daily news item to report... This time, the AGUS asking for an extension regarding the marriages of those couples that were civilly married before the stay was granted:

Utah asks for more time to file in same-sex marriage benefits case

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/58310323-219/utah-state-sex-case.html.csp

By Jessica Miller

The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Aug 18 2014 04:26 pm

Last Updated Aug 18 2014 10:17 pm

The Utah Attorney’s General Office has asked for an extension to file its appeal of a judge’s order that requires the state to offer spousal benefits to same-sex couple who were married in Utah last December.

According to a brief filed Monday with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, state attorneys are asking to have until Oct. 22 — a month extension from the previous Sept. 22 deadline set by the court — to file its appeal in the Evans v. Utah case.

Attorneys are asking for the extension due to the fact that the case is "factually and legally complex" and that the attorneys on the case already have a busy workload, according to the brief.

The state notes in its brief that he plaintiffs oppose their motion for an extension.

The suit was brought by four couples who were married in the immediate aftermath of the historic Dec. 20 decision by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby that overturned Utah’s voter-approved ban on same-sex unions.

After the U.S. Supreme court halted all same-sex weddings to allow Utah an opportunity to appeal the case, the state refused to extend spousal benefits to those gay and lesbian Utahns who had married, saying the stay ensured the state could continue to operate under its previously established "status quo."

But U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball disagreed. He ordered Utah in May to extend the same in-state benefits to those gay and lesbian couples married in Utah as their opposite-sex counterparts receive.

The couples have yet to receive those rights, as any movement was again halted by the U.S. Supreme Court last month, pending the outcome of the state’s appeal. Until the appeal is resolved, more than 1,200 same-sex marriages have been placed on hold.

Meanwhile, Utah also continues to defend its right define marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the separate Kitchen v. Herbert case.

Earlier this month, the state asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case in an attempt to revive a same-sex marriage ban. Virginia and Oklahoma have also filed similar petitions, with other states expected to also ask to have their cases heard when the nine justices reconvene in October.

Share this post


Link to post

Another federal judge issues a ruling from Indiana. Note the inclusion of the stay in his ruling:

INDIANA: Federal Court Rules State Must Recognize Out-Of-State Gay Marriages

Via press release from the HRC: 

On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Richard L. Young ruled inBowling v. Pence that Indiana’s law prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions is unconstitutional. The decision was stayed, pending an appeal. Judge Young previously struck down the state’s marriage ban in a ruling on a case known as Baskin v. Bogan, which was consolidated with two other cases for an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit in that case will hear arguments on Tuesday of next week. “Where you live should never determine your ability to have your marriage recognized,” said Human Rights Campaign Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. “These discriminatory bans only serve to harm LGBT families, and they should be erased from our nation’s laws once and for all.”

In his previous ruling in the Baskin case striking down the state’s marriage ban, Judge Young ruled that Indiana Governor Mike Pence was not a proper defendant in these marriage cases, as he did not have the authority to permit or deny marriage rights under the law. Hundreds of couples across the state began marrying until the Seventh Circuit stayed the ruling following a request from the state. Gov. Pence later announced the state would not be recognizing the same-sex marriages that took place during that window. With Judge Young’s latest ruling last night, he has reversed course. He writes, “The court, after witnessing the Governor do what he claimed he could not do, reverses course and finds him to be a proper party to such lawsuits. The court wishes to reiterate that it finds the Governor’s prior representations contradicting such authority to be, at a minimum, troubling.”

Yesterday's ruling was the 20th consecutive pro-marriage decision by a federal court.

Share this post


Link to post

SCOTUS grants the stay in Virginia:

Same-Sex Marriages On Hold In Virginia After Supreme Court Weighs In

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/20/341944611/same-sex-marriages-on-hold-in-virginia-after-supreme-court-weighs-in

by NINA TOTENBERG

August 20, 2014 3:35 PM ET

The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in to block a federal appeals court ruling that would have allowed gay marriages to begin in Virginia on Thursday.

The decision was widely expected and tells little about how the high court will ultimately rule on the issue. It merely preserves the status quo.

Indeed, while Virginia officials urged the Supreme Court to strike down the ban on gay marriage, they also urged the court to put a hold on the immediate issuing of marriage licenses.

In asking the court to grant the stay, Virginia officials noted that one of the factors the court traditionally considers is whether failure to temporarily block the lower court ruling would result in "a likelihood of irreparable harm." In a brief filed with the court, state officials acknowledged that the loss of the right to marry, "even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitute irreparable injury." On the other hand, the state said, if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the ban, those same-sex couples seeking to marry would have lost nothing, and Virginia would suffer irreparable harm by having been forced to permit same-sex marriages that violate state law.

Virginia estimated that "hundreds of thousands" of marriages would take place, in the months before a Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, and if the court were to uphold the Virginia statute all of those marriages "would be rendered doubtful." Indeed, that is precisely the situation facing Utah, where 1,700 same-sex marriages took place before the Supreme Court granted a stay to temporarily prevent further marriages there.

Virginia also contended that if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the state's ban on gay marriage, the children of same-sex couples would be irreparably harmed. More than 2,500 same-sex couples in Virginia are raising more than 4,000 children, and officials said that had the court failed to issue a stay, there was the possibility that many of the children who are the biological children of one parent and would have been adopted by the other parent after marrying, would have to be "un-adopted" if the marriages are ultimately ruled illegal.

Similarly, employers and insurers who pay benefits to same-sex spouses of employees might seek restitution should the Supreme Court uphold the ban.

For all these reasons, the state urged the Supreme Court to take the step it did today in temporarily blocking implementation of the lower court decision, which struck down the ban on gay marriage and permitted same-sex marriages to take place.

The state also asked the justices to decide the gay marriage constitutional question "as quickly as possible."

The first opportunity for the court to take action would be when it meets Sept. 29 for its first conference of the new term. But even if the court decides to go ahead and take the Utah case, which likely will be the first one there, the timetable for filing briefs would put the argument at mid to late January at the earliest.

Many court specialists believe the justices will go ahead and take either the Utah or Virginia case early in the term. Other experts think the justices may want to wait for a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, where the panel at argument this month sounded as though it would uphold the ban on gay marriage. That would provide a conflict in the lower courts for the Supreme Court to resolve.

To date there have been 37 pro-gay marriage rulings in state and federal courts since the Supreme Court last year struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law barred federal recognition of marriages performed in states where such unions are legal, and set the stage for a nearly unanimous set of rulings in the lower courts issued by both Republican and Democratic appointees.

Nineteen of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, currently allow same-sex marriage.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I don't think I've "exultantly crowed over every single legal riffle that gos by on the subject.

Well, perhaps I was being a bit oversensitive on it, because it has not been "every single legal riffle", but in several cases you were definitely cheering lustily. :D And I don't blame you, actually.

Thanks for your attention to the matter!

Share this post


Link to post

Well, perhaps I was being a bit oversensitive on it, because it has not been "every single legal riffle", but in several cases you were definitely cheering lustily. :D And I don't blame you, actually.Thanks for your attention to the matter!

I agree--I was joyful when the ruling in Utah came down, because it finally meant something to and for me and my family. I'm glad you can understand why, as well. I am sorry if my joy has ever come across as antagonistic--it's never meant to have been such.

Share this post


Link to post

Earlier today, Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) posted on their blog to raise additional funds, proclaiming, "the tide is turning"...:

"After winning many lawsuits in lower federal courts presided over by hand-picked, liberal, activist judges, the momentum behind the marriage redefinition agenda is waning. Remember, in addition to the Supreme Court's intervention in Utah and Virginia, federal judges in states like Wisconsin are taking notice and issuing stays on their own decisions to allow the legal process to play out. Much, much more importantly, we recently won a case at the lower level in Tennessee! You might not know about it because the media is doing everything it can to ignore the facts. The rush to judgment declaring marriage to be unconstitutional is not only premature — it's flat out wrong! Won't you please give a generous donation today to help NOM continue fighting to defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?"

http://www.nomblog.com/

This afternoon, after three rulings by local Florida judges that applied only to their districts, today we receive notice from the first ruling from Florida by a federal judge that applies state-wide. Of course, it includes a stay:

BREAKING: Federal Judge Strikes Down Florida's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage, Issues Stay On Ruling

Via the ACLU of Florida:

Today, a federal district court judge in Tallahassee held that Florida’s discriminatory marriage ban cannot be enforced in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The ruling applies both to the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Florida and the recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples performed outside of the state.

The judge’s ruling comes as a result of two separate lawsuits including one brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida. The ACLU of Florida’s lawsuit challenges the ban on marriage recognition on behalf of eight married same-sex couples, a Ft. Myers woman whose wife recently passed away, and SAVE, the largest LGBT-rights organization in South Florida. The lawsuit with which the ACLU of Florida’s lawsuit has been consolidated was filed by Jacksonville attorneys William Sheppard and Samuel Jacobson on behalf of two couples—one seeking to get married and another seeking to have their marriage recognized in Florida.

“I am overjoyed that the state we made our home in will soon recognize that what Carol and I had was marriage,” stated Arlene Goldberg of Ft. Myers, a plaintiff whose wife and partner of 47 years, Carol Goldwasser, passed away.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle held that by denying the plaintiffs fundamental right to marry, Florida’s marriage ban violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He also held that the state’s rationale for denying recognition of the marriages not only had no rational basis, but would fail even a higher level of scrutiny, stating that “[t]he undeniable truth is that the Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice,” and that “moral disapproval alone cannot sustain” a ban restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Judge Hinkle: "Liberty, tolerance, and respect are not zero-sum concepts. Those who enter opposite-sex marriages are harmed not at all when others, including these plaintiffs, are given the liberty to choose their own life partners and are shown the respect that comes with formal marriage."

The full ruling can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/237438005/4-14-cv-00107-74-Florida-Preliminary-Injunction

It appears to me that the flood of rulings will continue, held up by stays that have become the norm, until the supreme court breaks the dam one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post

Salient excerpts from the ruling:

"Indeed, defending the ban on same-sex marriage on the ground that the capacity to procreate is the essence of marriage is the kind of position that, in another context, might support a finding of pretext. It is the kind of argument that, in another context, might be 'accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity.'"

"Every court that has considered the issue has concluded that the intervening doctrinal developments — as set out in Lawrence, Romer, and Windsor — have sapped Baker’s precedential force."

"In short, the notion that procreation is an essential element of a Florida marriage blinks reality."

Share this post


Link to post

Statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect. This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court."

— Cody Craynor, spokesperson for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=28099570#wIy6yXS9XAZgJ4hb.99

Though I can not be a member any longer, I support the church in most areas, and I stay out of the SSM issue. However people and the church must realize that certain issues that they constantly beat the drum on are painful to some of us, so we either suffer to the point of self destruction or leave.

 

The "Families are Forever" harping point, is very painful to someone whose family has blown up into a hundred fragments and none of the factions yeild to principles of forgiveness.

 

Being a Missionary, and a dozen other issues are painful to a person who is not allowed to participate in them.

 

The church has this highly stereotyped body of ideals about how one should live their lives and those who can not meet them, owing to no wrong doing on their part,  suffer, and most are ignorant and seemingly uncaring about that.

Share this post


Link to post

Though I can not be a member any longer, I support the church in most areas, and I stay out of the SSM issue. However people and the church must realize that certain issues that they constantly beat the drum on are painful to some of us, so we either suffer to the point of self destruction or leave.

 

The "Families are Forever" harping point, is very painful to someone whose family has blown up into a hundred fragments and none of the factions yeild to principles of forgiveness.

 

Being a Missionary, and a dozen other issues are painful to a person who is not allowed to participate in them.

 

The church has this highly stereotyped body of ideals about how one should live their lives and those who can not meet them, owing to no wrong doing on their part,  suffer, and most are ignorant and seemingly uncaring about that.

 

I'm very sorry Ellen.  I hope that the church will someday reach the point where you feel welcome.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm very sorry Ellen.  I hope that the church will someday reach the point where you feel welcome.

Don't be sorry. Just taking some measures to protect myself. Greatly admire the church and wish I measured up. Some can just be smug about it all.

 

It hurts because a few think I have back slidden and gone over to satan.  Did not have to give up anything to come to the church, except they wanted me out of my Hijab. They even talked about that issue over in the women's section but there does not seem to be any facility to comment. It is just another pulpit for the church to downwardly communicate, but not up.

 

Bye

Share this post


Link to post

The 10th Circuit extends their stay, following SCOTUS's lead:

Tenth Circuit stays same-sex marriages in Colorado

Aug 21st, 2014 @ 02:58 pm

Scottie Thomaston

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an order granting a stay in a federal challenge to Colorado’s same-sex marriage ban. The order notes that the Tenth Circuit has issued stays in other marriage cases, and says “n the interest of consistency” this case will be stayed as well.

A federal judge had issued a preliminary injunctionagainst enforcement of the ban in July. The court then halted proceedings in the case, pending issuance of the mandate in Kitchen v. Herbert, the challenge to Utah’s same-sex marriage ban in the Tenth Circuit. A request to halt the injunction was denied, but a temporary stay, until August 25, was granted so that the state could ask the appeals court for a stay pending appeal.

Without this new stay, marriages could have begun in Colorado on August 25.

The Utah case is in the Supreme Court, and the Justices are likely to have their first opportunity to grant review during their conference on October 10. The mandate in the Kitchen case wouldn’t issue until the Supreme Court denies review or rules on the merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...