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

[Tacenda]

Good post CB, I'm with you. What is the deal with the need for a vote from the people, for them to be equal? I can see it if you're voting for something like flouride in the water, where everyone partakes.

I think people have it in their heads that a gay marriage serves no purpose, they don't propagate, or some dumb thing. Saw a FB post the other day that said something to the affect of gays willing to adopt a child a heterosexual threw away. (It was stated much better, memory is bad).

Why wouldn't a just God want a gay union to be something sacred. Especially if they were put on the earth like that. Bible passages are often just men speaking.

Too many people are focusing on the gay person's sex life, which is probably a fraction of their relationship as a whole.

[Stone holm]

I have said nothing about denying same sex couples the right to marry.  You define marriage rights differently than I do.  I believe we have a fundamental right to chose who we spend our lives with.  We have a right to form committed loving relationships with whom we chose.  We have a right to have intimacy within those relationships.

 

We do not have a right to demand that others extend tax benefits to subsidize our chosen relationship.  If enough people view our relationship as beneficial and wish to subsidize it then wonderful.  Tax benefits do not rise to the level of an unalienable right in my book.

 

Sexuality does not exist in a bubble, it is strongly affected by our culture.  The more we promote same sex relationships, the more people will enter into them, thus depriving society of the more beneficial heterosexual relationships.

 

I do not think same sex relationships are bad, and they should be provided with some benefits especially when children are involved, but I do not believe they should be treated equally with heterosexual marriage.

 

-guerreiro9

 

NOTICE:  Two threads on same topic have been merged.

Don't you think the definition argument is just a little thin? It has not been that long ago that we were trying to define it as being a man and woman of the same race. And we as a people came rather late to the one man one woman parade.

[Scott Lloyd]

Right - In the USA it is very unlikely that Bishops of the LDS church will ever be forced to perform gay marriages either civilly or in the temples. The constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion is still in place, and the courts would apply that principle should anyone ever try to bring a lawsuit against the LDS church or any other church over this. 

I hope you're right, but time will tell.

 

It is not unprecedented for the Church and its members to be oppressed by the federal government for unpopular beliefs regarding marriage. It happened in the late 1800s.

 

In any event, I expect there to be some persecution flowing from the culture, even if it does not immediately come from the government.

[Stone holm]

I hope you're right, but time will tell.

 

It is not unprecedented for the Church and its members to be oppressed by the federal government for unpopular beliefs regarding marriage. It happened in the late 1800s.

 

In any event, I expect there to be some persecution flowing from the culture, even if it does not immediately come from the government.

Perhaps from the culture. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. We went on the attack, so it is only reasonable to expect that we will get targeted. That is the risk of going political from the pulpit.

[jwhitlock]

I hope you're right, but time will tell.

 

It is not unprecedented for the Church and its members to be oppressed by the federal government for unpopular beliefs regarding marriage. It happened in the late 1800s.

 

In any event, I expect there to be some persecution flowing from the culture, even if it does not immediately come from the government.

 

One big problem with this Federal judge ruling is that he doesn't really have a constitutional right to make that ruling. Laws concerning marriage are reserved to the state, not to the Feds, and this is nothing more than another unconstitutional Federal power grab. If the Supreme Court has any sense at all, they'll over turn this ruling purely on that basis.

 

I'll go out on a limb here, though I don't think it's any particular stretch. The church is going to get sued about one or more of the following: not allowing gay sealings in temples, not hiring and providing benefits for gay married couples, or not recognizing gay marriages when it comes to church disciplinary council proceedings. I hope the outcomes reflect the foundational right of religious freedom that some gay activists are trying to trample, but given the propensity of the courts to make absolutely illogical decisions like the one in the OP, it could go either way.

[jwhitlock]

Interesting that Daniel's gleeful post from the Boston Globe gives us a bit of insight about the real mentality of some GL couples. The one quoted about getting a license in Utah county as the biggest contradiction ever, appears to have quite an in-your-face attitude about sticking it to those "conservatives". Ultimately it's all about political power and foisting an agenda on society which includes forcing the acceptance of homosexual behavior as "normal" - especially on those religious groups who don't see it that way.

[rockpond]

I hope you're right, but time will tell.

 

It is not unprecedented for the Church and its members to be oppressed by the federal government for unpopular beliefs regarding marriage. It happened in the late 1800s.

 

In any event, I expect there to be some persecution flowing from the culture, even if it does not immediately come from the government.

 

Let's remember that we (as members of this church) have also been the persecutors.  Back in 2008, we oppressed a minority for their beliefs regarding marriage.

[rockpond]

One big problem with this Federal judge ruling is that he doesn't really have a constitutional right to make that ruling. Laws concerning marriage are reserved to the state, not to the Feds, and this is nothing more than another unconstitutional Federal power grab. If the Supreme Court has any sense at all, they'll over turn this ruling purely on that basis.

 

I'll go out on a limb here, though I don't think it's any particular stretch. The church is going to get sued about one or more of the following: not allowing gay sealings in temples, not hiring and providing benefits for gay married couples, or not recognizing gay marriages when it comes to church disciplinary council proceedings. I hope the outcomes reflect the foundational right of religious freedom that some gay activists are trying to trample, but given the propensity of the courts to make absolutely illogical decisions like the one in the OP, it could go either way.

 

SCOTUS' decision on Prop 8 doesn't lead me to believe that they will overturn this ruling.

 

Yesterday's ruling in Utah is a move in the direction of more religious freedom.  If we do get taken to court over not recognizing gay marriages, I believe that religious freedom will win once again.

[rockpond]

Interesting that Daniel's gleeful post from the Boston Globe gives us a bit of insight about the real mentality of some GL couples. The one quoted about getting a license in Utah county as the biggest contradiction ever, appears to have quite an in-your-face attitude about sticking it to those "conservatives". Ultimately it's all about political power and foisting an agenda on society which includes forcing the acceptance of homosexual behavior as "normal" - especially on those religious groups who don't see it that way.

 

Right, it was more fun back in the first decade of this century when we could stick it to those "liberals".  Wasn't it?

 

It's a bummer to become the minority viewpoint.  Even more so when, as the majority viewpoint, we weren't very nice about it.

[Stone holm]

SCOTUS' decision on Prop 8 doesn't lead me to believe that they will overturn this ruling.

 

Yesterday's ruling in Utah is a move in the direction of more religious freedom.  If we do get taken to court over not recognizing gay marriages, I believe that religious freedom will win once again.

The Prop 8 decision was based on lack of standing, so it isn't precedent for anything except who can bring appeals. Even DOMA decision is not precedent because the deciding vote was based on notions of Federalism, mainly that Federal legislation could not interfere with State law extending marital law. So we still have no sure knowledge of how SCOTUS will rule.

[guerreiro9]

So you are ok with tax benefits for marriage?  Good to hear.

 

If you are married in this country, you receive the legal rights that come from being married.  There is no criteria on how you behave or what you do in that marriage for ANYONE.  A husband that cheats on his wife, a wife that is an abusive mother, parents that use their children as weapons against each other all receive the same marital benefits.  Married couples do not report to social services before qualifying for those benefits.

 

The judge is simply affirming that the right to marry extends to all Americans.  This is not a complicated concept.  And it is not the first time the courts have made such a declaration.  The Supreme Court has previously ruled 17 times that marriage is a right in this country.  The reason we even have judges is to protect the rights of all Americans guarenteed in the constitution.  Those rights can not be voted away from a minority simply because the majority in Utah wants to withhold those rights.  Is it really any surprise that the judge ruled to uphold the right for equal protection?

 

 

I think marital benefits should be different based upon the value the marriage brings to society.  If a married heterosexual couple chooses not to have children they should not be entitled to the same benefits as those who choose to have children.  Different behaviors produce different results some more beneficial than others, Why would we as a society subsidize all behaviors equally when they do not provide the same return on our investment?  In all these instances everyone is free to engage in the unsubsidized behavior which is their right, but they would not receive the same level of monetary benefit for doing so (which is not a right).

 

I am unaware of anyone in this country who is unable to freely enter into a homosexual or heterosexual marriage of their choice.  Polygamist are still not able to freely enter into marriages in many parts of this country (which is a right and was rightly restored in Utah recently).  All are treated equally under the law when the same type of marriage is entered into.  If one prefers one type of marriage to another that does not change the fact that they are still treated equally when engaging in that type of marriage.  One's personal preference does not enter into the equation when deciding how society should respond to the activities they choose to engage in.

 

 

Good post CB, I'm with you. What is the deal with the need for a vote from the people, for them to be equal? I can see it if you're voting for something like flouride in the water, where everyone partakes.

I think people have it in their heads that a gay marriage serves no purpose, they don't propagate, or some dumb thing. Saw a FB post the other day that said something to the affect of gays willing to adopt a child a heterosexual threw away. (It was stated much better, memory is bad).

Why wouldn't a just God want a gay union to be something sacred. Especially if they were put on the earth like that. Bible passages are often just men speaking.

Too many people are focusing on the gay person's sex life, which is probably a fraction of their relationship as a whole.

 

I have said nothing about a gay person's sex life.  There are many reasons why I believe heterosexual marriages are more beneficial to society than homosexual ones and one's personal sexual proclivities do not find there way onto the list.

 

All people are required to be treated equally under the law (and they are as far as I am aware).  All behaviors are not required to be treated equally, people are not their behaviors.

 

I think there is much stronger evidence to suggest that our sexuality (homo, hetero, bi, whatever inadequate label you choose to define yourself with) is more strongly affected by our culture than by the DNA we are born with.  

 

Don't you think the definition argument is just a little thin? It has not been that long ago that we were trying to define it as being a man and woman of the same race. And we as a people came rather late to the one man one woman parade.

 

Any argument made in a paragraph or two on an internet forum will be inherently thin, but the idea behind it is not.

 

There is a fundamental difference between a government discouraging, allowing, and promoting a behavior.  This is a difference many people do not seem able to distinguish.  We as a society have decided that certain behaviors should be fundamentally allowed by our society as a whole.  All people regardless of race, color, etc.., etc.. should be treated equally when engaging in these behaviors.

 

Currently our government through the voice of the people has chosen to extend certain additional benefits to participants in a marriage so as to promote this behavior.  These benefits are not a fundamental right and could be revoked or expanded based upon the perceived benefit of this behavior to society.  In my opinion these benefits have little if anything to do with the definition of a marriage.  Marriages existed long before these benefits were extended and they will exist long after these benefits are rescinded.

 

We do not and should not treat all behaviors the same, and it is the role of the people either directly or indirectly through representation to decide which behaviors are discouraged, allowed, and promoted.

 

I guess the fundamental question is are homosexual and heterosexual (and poly amorous) marriages the same behavior?  I do not believe that they are and have not seen any convincing evidence to the contrary, which I would openly consider if presented to me.

 

-guerreiro9

[california boy]

I think marital benefits should be different based upon the value the marriage brings to society.  If a married heterosexual couple chooses not to have children they should not be entitled to the same benefits as those who choose to have children.  Different behaviors produce different results some more beneficial than others, Why would we as a society subsidize all behaviors equally when they do not provide the same return on our investment?  In all these instances everyone is free to engage in the unsubsidized behavior which is their right, but they would not receive the same level of monetary benefit for doing so (which is not a right).

 

 

Perhaps that would be a better system.  But just how are you going to administer such a system?  Are you going to call couples in to a social workers office and have them plead their case that they provided more benefits to the country than their neighbors?  Do we really need more children in this country?  Should gay couples receive higher benefits when they adopt a child that was thrown away by some straight couple?  If someone is divorced should they never be allowed to marry again?  Do we grade parents like the way we grade teachers?  Maybe test the children to see if they have been taught properly?

 

I see no such system on the horizon, do you??  Until then, is all this country can do is provide everyone with the opportunity to participate in marriage.

 

I am unaware of anyone in this country who is unable to freely enter into a homosexual or heterosexual marriage of their choice.  Polygamist are still not able to freely enter into marriages in many parts of this country (which is a right and was rightly restored in Utah recently).  All are treated equally under the law when the same type of marriage is entered into.  If one prefers one type of marriage to another that does not change the fact that they are still treated equally when engaging in that type of marriage.  One's personal preference does not enter into the equation when deciding how society should respond to the activities they choose to engage in.

 

 

Well if you are completely unaware that in some states, a gay couple can not get married legally then yesterdays ruling changes nothing.  Evidently yesterdays ruling was for all of those people who thought it was ok to treat gay couples differently under the law.  The judge simply clarified what you already believed.  We do live in a country where certain rights are given to all Americans.

 

I have said nothing about a gay person's sex life.  There are many reasons why I believe heterosexual marriages are more beneficial to society than homosexual ones and one's personal sexual proclivities do not find there way onto the list.

 

 

 

Maybe you could tell us all how gay marriage is so different that straight marriage?  Do all straight marriages have children?  Do some straight marriages adopt children?  Is there any proof that one type of marriage is better for child rearing?  Do gay couples love their children less?  Go for it.  Tell us just how different the two marriages are.  We would like documentation on your claims however and not just prejudicial opinion.

 

The rest of your post is just repeating what you already stated.

[jwhitlock]

Right, it was more fun back in the first decade of this century when we could stick it to those "liberals".  Wasn't it?

 

It's a bummer to become the minority viewpoint.  Even more so when, as the majority viewpoint, we weren't very nice about it.

 

There is a small, but rather vocal and active minority within the gay community whose goal is to extract revenge and stick it to their opponents should they get the upper hand via SSM as the law of the land. My well founded fear is that there are going to be activist judges out there who are going to be only too happy to assist them in their goals.

 

The framework is being carefully set to portray those in our society who oppose SSM as bigoted, hateful, ignorant, and worthy only of punishment by the "enlightened" legal authorities of the land. While that is not the goal of the vast majority of gays, there are enough out there whose clear intent is to use the law to punish those who oppose them and to force their viewpoints to be accepted. And religious freedom is going to take a back seat, if they have their way.

[jwhitlock]

SCOTUS' decision on Prop 8 doesn't lead me to believe that they will overturn this ruling.

 

Yesterday's ruling in Utah is a move in the direction of more religious freedom.  If we do get taken to court over not recognizing gay marriages, I believe that religious freedom will win once again.

 

Anyone who thinks that the courts' rulings on this subject have been enlightened or logical or consistent with any reasonable constitutional interpretation is simply wrong. The courts are setting disturbing precedents in trampling clear boundaries concerning rights and the will of the people in this matter, and this particular ruling is simply more evidence of that fact.

[jwhitlock]

Let's remember that we (as members of this church) have also been the persecutors.  Back in 2008, we oppressed a minority for their beliefs regarding marriage.

 

Horse apples. This is the kind of inaccurate spin that SSM supporters try to demonize their opponents with. This kind of justification is disturbing in that it eventually leads to rationalizations that religious people need to be legally punished because they were "persecutors" and "oppressors" by opposing a dangerous social agenda disguised as a "right".

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

 

As a Social Worker myself. I don't want that job. I think it should be sliding scale much like it is now. The larger the number of dependents you have the more tax deductions can be claimed. Let's just redefine dependents as people living on the same income source. IE; If you took in and cared for your aged aunt she should qualify as a dependent.

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's remember that we (as members of this church) have also been the persecutors.  Back in 2008, we oppressed a minority for their beliefs regarding marriage.

What rot!

[Stone holm]

Anyone who thinks that the courts' rulings on this subject have been enlightened or logical or consistent with any reasonable constitutional interpretation is simply wrong. The courts are setting disturbing precedents in trampling clear boundaries concerning rights and the will of the people in this matter, and this particular ruling is simply more evidence of that fact.

 

Have you actually read the DOMA and Prop 8 rulings of the SCOTUS?  The Prop 8 decision was a decision not to decide and was based on lack of standing.  The DOMA decision was what was known as a plurality decision -- the 5 vote majority did not have a consensus on the Constitutionality of SSM, the deciding vote was whether the Federal Government could restrict rights and benefits granted by a State -- it too avoided the question of whether SSM was Constitutionally mandated.  So I am not sure where you are coming from on this.  The District Court decision in this case was a new issue and it has yet to be tested by the judiciary appellate process -- but it appears to squarely address the issue.

[rockpond]

There is a small, but rather vocal and active minority within the gay community whose goal is to extract revenge and stick it to their opponents should they get the upper hand via SSM as the law of the land. My well founded fear is that there are going to be activist judges out there who are going to be only too happy to assist them in their goals.

 

The framework is being carefully set to portray those in our society who oppose SSM as bigoted, hateful, ignorant, and worthy only of punishment by the "enlightened" legal authorities of the land. While that is not the goal of the vast majority of gays, there are enough out there whose clear intent is to use the law to punish those who oppose them and to force their viewpoints to be accepted. And religious freedom is going to take a back seat, if they have their way.

 

Well, I guess we shouldn't have fired the first shot, eh?  There is a small minority of us in the church who were saying, back in 2008, that our involvement was a bad idea.  Five years later, not only is gay marriage legal in CA but now you're claiming that those we offended are going to seek revenge.

 

I'm not really worried... Religious freedom has won the day in two court cases this week in Utah.

[Stone holm]

What rot!

 

Not really.  Nobody was forcing SSM on us, We were the ones that raised the sword with Prop 8, not to defend our own rights, but to deny a privilege to another group. And although many Mormons tried to claim victim status, that was a very tortured illogical claim.  Perhaps it was the sword of righteousness, but it definitely was a sword aimed at a minority.

[Stone holm]

Well, I guess we shouldn't have fired the first shot, eh?  There is a small minority of us in the church who were saying, back in 2008, that our involvement was a bad idea.  Five years later, not only is gay marriage legal in CA but now you're claiming that those we offended are going to seek revenge.

 

I'm not really worried... Religious freedom has won the day in two court cases this week in Utah.

 

I think the size of the minority you are speaking of was perhaps not as small as one might imagine, it was just quieter.  I am just hoping that we do not reap the whirlwind for our Constitutional transgressions.

[rockpond]

Horse apples. This is the kind of inaccurate spin that SSM supporters try to demonize their opponents with. This kind of justification is disturbing in that it eventually leads to rationalizations that religious people need to be legally punished because they were "persecutors" and "oppressors" by opposing a dangerous social agenda disguised as a "right".

 

What was inaccurate about my statement?  Are gay people in CA not a minority?  Did we not fight to remove their ability to be legally married in CA?  Do you not consider that a form of oppression?

[rockpond]

Anyone who thinks that the courts' rulings on this subject have been enlightened or logical or consistent with any reasonable constitutional interpretation is simply wrong. The courts are setting disturbing precedents in trampling clear boundaries concerning rights and the will of the people in this matter, and this particular ruling is simply more evidence of that fact.

 

Keep preaching it Brother Whitlock.  Meanwhile, a SCOTUS ruling and 18 states have decided to let the 14th amendment stand.

 

I'm curious though... Do you really still want to go with the will of the people on this matter?  Cause the polls I've seen are showing that nationally your view is in the minority.

[thesometimesaint]

If we use the Reynolds case, and the Loving case as templates then yes the Feds have a right and obligation to determine not only the public acceptance but constitutionality of State laws regulating marriage.

[jwhitlock]

What was inaccurate about my statement?  Are gay people in CA not a minority?  Did we not fight to remove their ability to be legally married in CA?  Do you not consider that a form of oppression?

 

You need to be accurate here. No one removed their ability or their right to be legally married in California. They had the same right as anyone else, within the same existing structure, and many gays chose to exercise that right in participating in mixed gender marriages. No one was denied any right, so phrasing it in the way you do is inaccurate.

 

Further, to claim as you did that we were persecuting and oppressing people because they wanted an expanded privilege that we felt would be detrimental to society and marriage, and would also be used as a bludgeon against the church, is ludicrous. I've explained those viewpoints earlier on this thread, and you might want to respond directly to those before you continue with this misrepresentation of us as persecutors.