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

[Daniel2]

This is starting to get quite interesting. Here's a bit of a recap of the methodology being used here:

 

Me: Desegregation was problematic and didn't work. People were hurt and the racism it was intended to stop never happened. It was implemented by judicial mandate, which was the worst thing to do and inflamed racial tensions on both sides. People who were looking for conflict on both sides found justification to start that conflict because of the judicial mandates.

 

SSM supporter: Wow, like you're actually questioning desegregation?? Your viewpoints are so obviously absurd that you can't be taken seriously. You're an embarrassment to your church with your viewpoints.

 

Me: SSM presents some potential problems because it's being implemented in a heavy-handed manner by judicial mandate. These include inroads against religious freedom, weakening of legal protections now available in marriage, and the stated willingness of some SSM activists to punish those who oppose SSM once the judicial mandates provide them with enough legal power to do so.

 

SSM supporter: You're actually questioning SSM? Your viewpoints are so obviously laughable that you can't be taken seriously. You're an embarrassment to your church with your viewpoints.

 

Anyone see the parallels?

Indeed--the parallels are quite clear. But to quote Indigo Montoya, "I dunno thinka that means what you think it means." ;-)

D

[jwhitlock]

Yeah, it's really pretty impressive to hear a Christian talk like a Confederate.

 

Confederate? Is that the best you can do? Come on; we all know what a New England liberal like yourself really wants to call someone who's expressed concerns about the effects of desegregation. Go on; give in to the impulse. It will make you feel like you're fulfilling your purpose in life. The mods won't notice at all. Feed that self-righteous indignation.

[Chronos]

Incorrect, jwhitlock, we see all. We hear all. We know a...sorry, force of habit.

 

Stone holm, name calling is against our rules and we mods really don't like it when discussions devolve into just that. As my dear sweet mother use to say, "If you can't post something substantive, go afk". I might be paraphrasing though.

 

~Chronos

[Tacenda]

afk?

[Buzzard]

afk?

Away from keyboard (in other words, take a break)

[rockpond]

This is starting to get quite interesting. Here's a bit of a recap of the methodology being used here:

 

Me: Desegregation was problematic and didn't work. People were hurt and the racism it was intended to stop never happened. It was implemented by judicial mandate, which was the worst thing to do and inflamed racial tensions on both sides. People who were looking for conflict on both sides found justification to start that conflict because of the judicial mandates.

 

SSM supporter: Wow, like you're actually questioning desegregation?? Your viewpoints are so obviously absurd that you can't be taken seriously. You're an embarrassment to your church with your viewpoints.

 

Me: SSM presents some potential problems because it's being implemented in a heavy-handed manner by judicial mandate. These include inroads against religious freedom, weakening of legal protections now available in marriage, and the stated willingness of some SSM activists to punish those who oppose SSM once the judicial mandates provide them with enough legal power to do so.

 

SSM supporter: You're actually questioning SSM? Your viewpoints are so obviously laughable that you can't be taken seriously. You're an embarrassment to your church with your viewpoints.

 

Anyone see the parallels? 

 

I agree that there were problems with desegregation that should not be brushed aside.  But I feel like you are, instead, brushing aside the problems inherent in the previously existing segregation.

 

Similarly, it feels as if you ignoring the problems with continuing to deny marriage equality to homosexual couples.

 

But since you listed the potential problems here, I'll try to respond to those.

1. Inroads against religious freedom.  I have not seen any substantive threat of removing religious freedom by those who advocate for SSM.  There is a perceived threat (forcing churches to marry gay couples) but such an attempt would be halted by the 1st amendment.  On the other hand, our current setup (in the 32 states that don't allow SSM) is an affront to the religious freedom of those who believe God affirms marriage for homosexual couples as only the heterosexual marriages performed by their churches can receive legal recognition.  Last week's ruling in Utah by Judge Shelby was a win for religious freedom, not a loss.
2. Weakening of legal protections now available in marriage.  Which legal protections would be weakened?  How?
3. Stated willingness of some SSM activists to punish those who oppose SSM.  This goes both ways... As I noted before, SSM opponents mounted a (temporarily) successful campaign to remove legal recognition of gay marriage in California.  And unkind words were shared on both sides.  But, just as the constitution is protecting those who should rightfully have marriage equality, it will protect others from any potential retaliation.  However, personally I am not aware of any serious "willingness to punish those who oppose SSM".

[Buzzard]

Indeed--the parallels are quite clear. But to quote Indigo Montoya, "I dunno thinka that means what you think it means." ;-)

D

Allow me please to interject and interpret. I think it's safe to say that the esteemed Mr. Whitlock is not referring to separate drinking fountains and lunch counters, but probably to forced busing. THAT aspect of racial desegregation was problematic. I had friends who were bused by court order from the suburbs of Los Angeles into the some of the most dangerous schools in the state in the very inner city.  The parents were obviously displeased, and some of my friends carried resentments about they way they were treated after getting off the buses into their adulthood. I don't know what other solution might have worked, but busing sure turned out to be a blunt instrument. 

As for SSM, some of us really are concerned that yes, it WILL affect the way society treats traditional marriage. Maybe not the marriage of an educated, virtuous LDS couple living in the Intermountain West, but just as the extension of welfare benefits to unwed mothers has resulted OVER DECADES in all but removing the economic incentives for working class and poor women to wait for marriage before having children, SSM is another chink in the armor of the family, which will be wounded not by any one blow, but by a thousand cuts. And it will play out in ways that neither SSM advocates nor even traditional marriage defenders can see right now. 

Not the least of which is the dissension being sown in the church. When the brethren come out squarely for man/woman marriage and members of the church come out in open opposition, that's not a good thing. Of course we each have our free agency, but as for me, I always feel safer when I side with the Lord's Anointed. But maybe that's just me. 

[Tacenda]

Away from keyboard (in other words, take a break)

Thanks.

[rockpond]

Allow me please to interject and interpret. I think it's safe to say that the esteemed Mr. Whitlock is not referring to separate drinking fountains and lunch counters, but probably to forced busing. THAT aspect of racial desegregation was problematic. I had friends who were bused by court order from the suburbs of Los Angeles into the some of the most dangerous schools in the state in the very inner city.  The parents were obviously displeased, and some of my friends carried resentments about they way they were treated after getting off the buses into their adulthood. I don't know what other solution might have worked, but busing sure turned out to be a blunt instrument. 

As for SSM, some of us really are concerned that yes, it WILL affect the way society treats traditional marriage. Maybe not the marriage of an educated, virtuous LDS couple living in the Intermountain West, but just as the extension of welfare benefits to unwed mothers has resulted OVER DECADES in all but removing the economic incentives for working class and poor women to wait for marriage before having children, SSM is another chink in the armor of the family, which will be wounded not by any one blow, but by a thousand cuts. And it will play out in ways that neither SSM advocates nor even traditional marriage defenders can see right now. 

Not the least of which is the dissension being sown in the church. When the brethren come out squarely for man/woman marriage and members of the church come out in open opposition, that's not a good thing. Of course we each have our free agency, but as for me, I always feel safer when I side with the Lord's Anointed. But maybe that's just me. 

 

I agree that the growing divide in the church between those that support SSM and those who oppose it is problematic and I think it's something we're going to have to work through as a church over the next decade (I think we're already hearing elements of that in Gen Con addresses).  But, I assume a similar divide grew in the years leading up to OD2, and at some point the scales eventually tipped.  We see evidence of that in the, now public, Elder Stapley & Gov. George Romney letters.  We also see it in Prince's McKay biography.  And, if what everyone says is true... that all rejoiced at the 1978 announcement... than at some point the sentiment obviously had to have made a turn given where it was at in the 19th century and even early 20th century.  So then we ask ourselves... Is it possible to make that change in sentiment without creating a temporary divide?

[Stone holm]

Allow me please to interject and interpret. I think it's safe to say that the esteemed Mr. Whitlock is not referring to separate drinking fountains and lunch counters, but probably to forced busing. THAT aspect of racial desegregation was problematic. I had friends who were bused by court order from the suburbs of Los Angeles into the some of the most dangerous schools in the state in the very inner city.  The parents were obviously displeased, and some of my friends carried resentments about they way they were treated after getting off the buses into their adulthood. I don't know what other solution might have worked, but busing sure turned out to be a blunt instrument. 

As for SSM, some of us really are concerned that yes, it WILL affect the way society treats traditional marriage. Maybe not the marriage of an educated, virtuous LDS couple living in the Intermountain West, but just as the extension of welfare benefits to unwed mothers has resulted OVER DECADES in all but removing the economic incentives for working class and poor women to wait for marriage before having children, SSM is another chink in the armor of the family, which will be wounded not by any one blow, but by a thousand cuts. And it will play out in ways that neither SSM advocates nor even traditional marriage defenders can see right now. 

Not the least of which is the dissension being sown in the church. When the brethren come out squarely for man/woman marriage and members of the church come out in open opposition, that's not a good thing. Of course we each have our free agency, but as for me, I always feel safer when I side with the Lord's Anointed. But maybe that's just me. 

 

Well possibly, but what I have seen here in Vermont is that it has had only one impact, some of the traditional gay community resent that "family values" are now infiltrating the gay community and affecting the former gay community lifestyle.   So the only impact that I have heard of or witnessed is that the gay community is cleaning up its act.  Having visited my brother at Fire Island when he had a place there, there were complaints that the straights would come to the island and since it had a reputation as a gay community would engage in wholly innappropriate public sexual activity with their other sex companions.  There may be some evidence that SSM is somehow adversely affecting traditional marriage -- but right now we apparently have to take that on faith, because the evidence is not seen.  The family whether straight or gay is under attack, but it is because of the social/economic developments over the past three decades or so.  Attacking the gays with false accusations or questionable allegations, instead of attacking the real systemic economic problems afflicting the middle-class and cohesive communities is part of the problem.

[Calm]

Allow me please to interject and interpret. I think it's safe to say that the esteemed Mr. Whitlock is not referring to separate drinking fountains and lunch counters, but probably to forced busing. THAT aspect of racial desegregation was problematic. I had friends who were bused by court order from the suburbs of Los Angeles into the some of the most dangerous schools in the state in the very inner city. The parents were obviously displeased, and some of my friends carried resentments about they way they were treated after getting off the buses into their adulthood. I don't know what other solution might have worked, but busing sure turned out to be a blunt instrument.

.

The kids that were bused to my school were the reverse, semiinner city going to suburban....and I never heard one positive thing said by the bused kids and tons of negatives. Even the black teachers weren't happy about it. I was quite surprised. This was in the Bay Area. There was very little actual mixing at school anyway, save a few that were active in sports (few were due to the time involved in traveling, the other clubs didn't have enough draw to have the kids spend their own time and money on traveling).

I have no clue if long term benefits resulted....not sure how one could demonstrate that as so many variables to be controlled for, but it was very sad to see short term at least for the vocal individuals that it was highly disliked by those who were bused even if the rest were much more positive about though not feeling anything was actually changing...

[california boy]

So much love.  So much joy.  So much happiness.  If wickedness never was happiness, it really makes you wonder how wicked gay marriage is.

 

AFER looks back on historic year for gay marriage.

 

This article appeared at almost the exact same time.  The contrast between the two is stark.

 

LGBT Ugandans fearful in wake of anti=gay bill's passage

[Calm]

I agree that the growing divide in the church between those that support SSM and those who oppose it is problematic and I think it's something we're going to have to work through as a church over the next decade (I think we're already hearing elements of that in Gen Con addresses).  But, I assume a similar divide grew in the years leading up to OD2, and at some point the scales eventually tipped.  We see evidence of that in the, now public, Elder Stapley & Gov. George Romney letters.  We also see it in Prince's McKay biography.  And, if what everyone says is true... that all rejoiced at the 1978 announcement... than at some point the sentiment obviously had to have made a turn given where it was at in the 19th century and even early 20th century.  So then we ask ourselves... Is it possible to make that change in sentiment without creating a temporary divide?

Are you assuming with this logic that the ban on SS relationships will also be removed?

Part of the movement for the Priesthood....at least in the areas where I lived....was a belief that it would be lifted in time, nor was there any attachement of sin (at least in the here and now) to the Priesthood ban. This made it very easy to look at the lifting as a positive, natural event.

It seems to me to be no comparison. It is closer, IMO, to believing that adultery will removed as a forbidden behaviour just because plural marriage was accepted in the past because we are talking not about a limitation that had nothing to do with behaviour, but a "thou shalt not" that has everything to do with behaviour in most members' mind.

[jwhitlock]

Allow me please to interject and interpret. I think it's safe to say that the esteemed Mr. Whitlock is not referring to separate drinking fountains and lunch counters, but probably to forced busing. THAT aspect of racial desegregation was problematic. I had friends who were bused by court order from the suburbs of Los Angeles into the some of the most dangerous schools in the state in the very inner city.  The parents were obviously displeased, and some of my friends carried resentments about they way they were treated after getting off the buses into their adulthood. I don't know what other solution might have worked, but busing sure turned out to be a blunt instrument. 

As for SSM, some of us really are concerned that yes, it WILL affect the way society treats traditional marriage. Maybe not the marriage of an educated, virtuous LDS couple living in the Intermountain West, but just as the extension of welfare benefits to unwed mothers has resulted OVER DECADES in all but removing the economic incentives for working class and poor women to wait for marriage before having children, SSM is another chink in the armor of the family, which will be wounded not by any one blow, but by a thousand cuts. And it will play out in ways that neither SSM advocates nor even traditional marriage defenders can see right now. 

Not the least of which is the dissension being sown in the church. When the brethren come out squarely for man/woman marriage and members of the church come out in open opposition, that's not a good thing. Of course we each have our free agency, but as for me, I always feel safer when I side with the Lord's Anointed. But maybe that's just me. 

 

That clarification is, of course, correct. I thought it would be clear that I was talking about desegregation in the context of what happened in schools, but evidently I had to be specific about forced busing.

 

Good post.

[Damien the Leper]

Good times!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

[rockpond]

Are you assuming with this logic that the ban on SS relationships will also be removed?

Part of the movement for the Priesthood....at least in the areas where I lived....was a belief that it would be lifted in time, nor was there any attachement of sin (at least in the here and now) to the Priesthood ban. This made it very easy to look at the lifting as a positive, natural event.

It seems to me to be no comparison. It is closer, IMO, to believing that adultery will removed as a forbidden behaviour just because plural marriage was accepted in the past because we are talking not about a limitation that had nothing to do with behaviour, but a "thou shalt not" that has everything to do with behaviour in most members' mind.

 

I personally believe that the ban on SSM will eventually be removed.  Just a personal belief.

 

I know a lot of people who don't see it as a comparison.  My point is that there was, at some point in time, a divide among the church membership with respect to race.  There is currently a divide among membership with respect to marriage equality for gay couples.  Without trying to debate the inherent rightness/wrongness of either side, I wonder where people see the membership perspectives heading with regard to SSM.  It seems to me that there is a movement among church members toward more acceptance and legal recognition for gay couples.  I assume that will continue to grow but will, at some point, have to either be quashed or church policy has to change to accommodate it.

 

Regarding the comparison (your last paragraph), if one looks at homosexuality as solely a behavior, then I agree:  no comparison.  But, if one sees sexual orientation as an innate, immutable the comparison makes more sense as it gives them the opportunity to fully live the law of chastity.

[california boy]

Are you assuming with this logic that the ban on SS relationships will also be removed?

Part of the movement for the Priesthood....at least in the areas where I lived....was a belief that it would be lifted in time, nor was there any attachement of sin (at least in the here and now) to the Priesthood ban. This made it very easy to look at the lifting as a positive, natural event.

It seems to me to be no comparison. It is closer, IMO, to believing that adultery will removed as a forbidden behaviour just because plural marriage was accepted in the past because we are talking not about a limitation that had nothing to do with behaviour, but a "thou shalt not" that has everything to do with behaviour in most members' mind.

Two things to consider.  The first is, that while the priesthood was eventually to be given to blacks, that event was suppose to happen after every single other person in the world that will ever be born had the chance first.  I also find this kind of statement odd. Did Brigham Young speak for God when he apparently introduced this doctrine or was it just his own personal bias?  If it was just his own opinion, then wouldn't the "eventual lifting of the ban" also his own personal opinion?  Just asking.

 

Your second statement about sin only works if Mormons abandon the idea that sex within the bounds of marriage is acceptable to God.  Current policy sees homosexuality sinful both within the bonds of marriage and without.  Is it possible for the church to move to a position that the law of chastity is defined by sex within the bounds of marriage regardless of that legal marriage?  Current position will become less defendable as gay marriage becomes a normal part of every day life in America. It only took 130 years to finally allow the blacks to be married in the temple.  Hey, maybe it will only take half that amount of time for gays to be allowed to marry in the temple.  I guess we will see in another 65 years how things pan out.

[thesometimesaint]

I live in Alabama in the 1960's. Everyone rode in a school bus. The white kids were bused to the white school and the black kids were bused passed the white school to a very inferior black school. Separate But Equal were not equal.

[Calm]

Wasn't making that argument....was talking about how busing outside of their local school was viewed by the kids that participated in my school. Wasn't arguing for or against it even.

[Buzzard]

Two things to consider.  The first is, that while the priesthood was eventually to be given to blacks, that event was suppose to happen after every single other person in the world that will ever be born had the chance first.  I also find this kind of statement odd. Did Brigham Young speak for God when he apparently introduced this doctrine or was it just his own personal bias?  If it was just his own opinion, then wouldn't the "eventual lifting of the ban" also his own personal opinion?  Just asking.

 

Your second statement about sin only works if Mormons abandon the idea that sex within the bounds of marriage is acceptable to God.  Current policy sees homosexuality sinful both within the bonds of marriage and without.  Is it possible for the church to move to a position that the law of chastity is defined by sex within the bounds of marriage regardless of that legal marriage?  Current position will become less defendable as gay marriage becomes a normal part of every day life in America. It only took 130 years to finally allow the blacks to be married in the temple.  Hey, maybe it will only take half that amount of time for gays to be allowed to marry in the temple.  I guess we will see in another 65 years how things pan out.

Please see several other threads dealing with the theological contortions required to shoehorn SSM into the Plan of Salvation. Same issues still and will exist going forward. 

[thesometimesaint]

Wasn't making that argument....was talking about how busing outside of their local school was viewed by the kids that participated in my school. Wasn't arguing for or against it even.

 

OK; But my experience with kids of all races living in the same local school district was a bit different.

[rockpond]

Please see several other threads dealing with the theological contortions required to shoehorn SSM into the Plan of Salvation. Same issues still and will exist going forward. 

 

I'm an active member of the church and don't need to do any theological contortions to fit SSM into the Plan of Salvation.  For me, it's the only way it works.

[ERayR]

I'm an active member of the church and don't need to do any theological contortions to fit SSM into the Plan of Salvation.  For me, it's the only way it works.

 

In my fathers house are many mansions.

[Stone holm]

I agree that the growing divide in the church between those that support SSM and those who oppose it is problematic and I think it's something we're going to have to work through as a church over the next decade (I think we're already hearing elements of that in Gen Con addresses).  But, I assume a similar divide grew in the years leading up to OD2, and at some point the scales eventually tipped.  We see evidence of that in the, now public, Elder Stapley & Gov. George Romney letters.  We also see it in Prince's McKay biography.  And, if what everyone says is true... that all rejoiced at the 1978 announcement... than at some point the sentiment obviously had to have made a turn given where it was at in the 19th century and even early 20th century.  So then we ask ourselves... Is it possible to make that change in sentiment without creating a temporary divide?

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. I don't think there is a growing divide as to whether SSM should be supported within the Church, I think there may be a growing divide as to whether we should be fighting against SSM outside the Church. That is a much different question.

[Daniel2]

Same-sex couples shatter marriage records in Utah

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57310957-219/sex-county-marriages-couples.html.csp

Three quarters of the more than $49,000 spent on marriage licenses in the first week same-sex marriage was legalized came from gay and lesbian couples.

By Marissa Lang

The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Dec 26 2013 02:46 pm

Updated 25 minutes ago

In the week since a federal judge overturned Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, the number of weddings in the state has skyrocketed, shattering records and accruing thousands of dollars for Utah’s 29 counties.

As of close of business Thursday, more than 1,225 marriage licenses had been issued in Utah since last Friday, according to numbers obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune. Of those, at least 74 percent were issued to gay and lesbian couples.

That’s more than 905 same-sex couples who received marriage licenses in a week punctuated by holidays and limited — in some counties — by when their clerk began to adhere to U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s order.

Marriage licenses in Utah cost between $30 and $50, depending on the county.

With an average marriage license costing $40, counties in Utah made a grand total of more than $49,000 in the three-and-a-half days most county clerk’s offices were open this week.

About three-quarters of that money came from gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses.

"It’s been really dramatic," said Weber County Clerk Ricky Hatch, who doled out 144 marriage licenses since Monday in an office that typically averages about eight per day. "I would guess on Monday we were seeing 90 percent same-sex couples. It’s dropping back now to where it’s a lower percentage."

Salt Lake County had the most marriages in the state this week, which is typical. But the numbers themselves were anything but.

Shattering a previously held record of 85 marriages in a given day, Salt Lake County handed out 353 on Monday — their first full day of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Since last Friday, Salt Lake County gave out about 705 certificates, of which more than 90 percent were same-sex couples, said Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen, who estimated that the majority of opposite-sex couples on the books were served before Judge Shelby’s ruling came down late Friday afternoon.

Davis County issued the second-largest amount of marriage licenses in the state this week — 150 total licenses — but officials said they were not tracking how many went to same-sex versus opposite-sex couples.

"It’s definitely more than we usually see," said Brian McKenzie, Davis County’s elections director who estimated the office would typically see between 45 and 60 couples in the same amount of time near the holidays. "We’re not counting same-sex couples any differently than opposite-sex couples. We treat them all the same: Enter their names into the computer and then move on and help the next couple in line."

But not all counties saw a crush of couples seeking marriages.

Several of Utah’s smaller counties had no takers at all for licenses this week. Beaver, Daggett, Emery, Piute, Rich and San Juan County — which only began accepting marriage license applications from same-sex couples on Thursday — reported zero marriage licenses this week.

"We’ve literally had no one, zero," said Vicky McKee, the clerk of Daggett County, population 1,090. "There’s certainly no run on marriage licenses here."

One worker in Sevier County, which has a population of 20,700, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, marveled at how slow the clerk’s office has been.

"We’ve been offering same-sex licenses since Tuesday, but I don’t think we’ve done a single one," said the man, who asked not to be identified. "I don’t know why."

Piute, a small county of about 1,500 people in the center of the state, was the one county Thursday not granting licenses to same-sex couples.

The county wasn’t giving licenses to opposite-sex couples either.

County Clerk Valeen Brown was on vacation until Monday, officials said. So, Piute officials suspended all marriage license activity until Brown returns.

Workers in the office doubted it would make much difference.

The chances of couples breaking down the door to get married in Piute are slim to none, they said. Piute has seen only one marriage license request in the past three months, said county worker Lisa Tenney.

Utah County — which made national news this week when Shelly Eyre and her partner Cheryl Haws declared that they would sue its clerk for denying gay and lesbian couples licenses in the immediate aftermath of U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling that overturned a statewide ban on same-sex marriages — was doling out certificates Thursday to all.

According to Bryan Thompson, the county’s clerk and auditor, about 25 couples came in Thursday seeking marriage licenses. Of those, five were same-sex couples, all of whom were granted the certificates.

"Moving forward, we probably won’t keep track of how many same-sex couples versus opposite-sex couples we issue licenses to," Thompson told The Tribune. "I don’t see any reason to differentiate between them."

mlang@sltrib.com