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

[california boy]

Do you think that the divorce rate will go down as a result or this ruling?

I think gay marriage will have zero effect on anyone elses marriage.  Why would it?  The only thing I can be certain will happen is that more gay couples will be living in a committed marriage relationship.  I don't know why I think this way, but to me it is a good thing.  Tell me if I am wrong.

[JAHS]

With a 50% divorce rate, falling interest in getting married by straight couples, increase in adultery, more and more kids growing up in single family homes, rampant ponography, and you point to gay marriage as being the end of the world fulfillment of prophecy? 

 

This is one of the big reasons I have a problem with both the way the church looks at gay marriage and many of the members.  Many seem to view the .01% of the population that wants to get married as being the worst immoral crime in America.  Geeeze.

I only said it was one more sign; along with all the others you mentioned; not the main reason.

[guerreiro9]

Haven't gays been financially subsidizing our marriages for years? Why not return them the favor?

Shouldn't people be allowed to vote to withhold financial support from causes they find objectionable? Do I as a citizen have no voice in what is done with my money?

This has nothing to do with same sex marriage, pick anything you do not wish to support financially. Citizens legally pass laws stating that said activity will not be subsized. The activity can still be performed by anyone wishing to engage in it they simply will not receive tax advantages for doing so. A Federal judge then mandates that you financially support the activity you find objectionable with no possible means of representation on your behalf.

Is this the type of society you would like to live in?

-guerreiro9

[Danzo]

 

You have this ruling because of this.  There is no legal argument against gay marriage.  If you have one, you should speak up, because no one else has found one.

 

 

 

There are plenty of legal "arguments" against gay marriage, and they have been made many times in court.  I think you are referring to "evidence"

 

Evidence, by its very nature will have to come after the legalization of homosexual unions.

[rockpond]

What has always puzzled me, is why there is a need to designate a protected class based on someones behavior or belief.

 

I know we define religious behavior as protected, but sexual behavior? or is it sexual belief?

 

My fear is that once behavior and belief have been elevated to the same protections as religions, it will make it easier to denigrate them both

 

Once everyone is special, no one is.

 

Sexual behavior is just one component of sexual orientation.

[rockpond]

Shouldn't people be allowed to vote to withhold financial support from causes they find objectionable? Do I as a citizen have no voice in what is done with my money?

This has nothing to do with same sex marriage, pick anything you do not wish to support financially. Citizens legally pass laws stating that said activity will not be subsized. The activity can still be performed by anyone wishing to engage in it they simply will not receive tax advantages for doing so. A Federal judge then mandates that you financially support the activity you find objectionable with no possible means of representation on your behalf.

Is this the type of society you would like to live in?

-guerreiro9

 

Yes, we are allowed to vote.  That's what happened with Amendment 3 in Utah.  What you can't do is create laws which violate the U.S. Constitution.

[guerreiro9]

I think gay marriage will have zero effect on anyone elses marriage.  Why would it?  The only thing I can be certain will happen is that more gay couples will be living in a committed marriage relationship.  I don't know why I think this way, but to me it is a good thing.  Tell me if I am wrong.

 

Are you trying to tell me that more gay couples will now be in committed relationships because they get tax benefits for doing so?  Do you really think tax benefits will have any affect on peoples commitment level?

 

-guerreiro9

[Danzo]

 

You have this ruling because of this.  There is no legal argument against gay marriage.  If you have one, you should speak up, because no one else has found one.

 

 

 

 

 

The danger that we see is not to my marriage or your marriage or anyone's marriage in particular.

 

We see a danger to the legal institution of marriage itself.

 

Marriage (in the legal sense) is a collection privileges and responsibilities (not so much these days, but there are still a few). granted by the state.

 

The main reason for marriage is to promote stability in society by encouraging the creation of families.

 

By its very nature it  is discriminatory (If everyone had these privileges and responsibilities there would be no point in having it as a legal institution)  

 

By making it less discriminatory (allowing whoever to enter in to it) it less distinguishable from non marriage, therefore watering down the benefit to society. In the past few years, the responsibilities of marriage has been downgraded legally (no fault divorce, cohabitation and adultery made legal, etc). True, there are still many benefits, but I don't expect them to last very long.  As people see the benefits everyone will demand them, for whoever, whatever reason serves them at the moment.  At a certain point people will ask why don't we give these benefits to everyone. Once everyone has them, we will realize that we cant afford to give them to everyone and then they will be taken away.

 

I realize that the threat to families is much bigger than whether same sex people can get married.  But I still think that it takes marriage (as a legal institution) in the wrong direction.

[Danzo]

Yes, we are allowed to vote.  That's what happened with Amendment 3 in Utah.  What you can't do is create laws which violate the U.S. Constitution.

And the US constitution is strangely silent on Same sex marriages.

[Danzo]

Sexual behavior is just one component of sexual orientation.

Isn't it the  definition of sexual orientation?

What other definition is there other than sexual behavior and sexual beliefs?

[guerreiro9]

Yes, we are allowed to vote.  That's what happened with Amendment 3 in Utah.  What you can't do is create laws which violate the U.S. Constitution.

 

There is no constitutional statue stating that your activity of choice (whatever it may be) must receive public subsidization.

 

By the way I fully support the right of homosexuals or any other sexuals to vote to de-subsidize heterosexual marriage.  That is their right and I support that right, and if such laws passed they should be upheld.  They should not be allowed to vote to prohibit heterosexuals from marrying, but that does not mean that they should not be able to vote to remove financial support from such unions.

 

-guerreiro9

[strappinglad]

There are all kinds of things that I disagree with that the State subsidizes . The biggest ones are the constant spending by State and Federal reps on junkets to various places and booking $500+ per night rooms and fancy dinners and drinks. Anybody found a good way to end this? No? .Gay unions should have been approved by the States and the Feds quickly and quietly a decade ago. Now it is just another cause celeb to divide the country and polarize the population. The best would have been to leave marriages to religions and keep the  State out of it . Let the State authorize domestic unions.

[Danzo]

There are all kinds of things that I disagree with that the State subsidizes . The biggest ones are the constant spending by State and Federal reps on junkets to various places and booking $500+ per night rooms and fancy dinners and drinks. Anybody found a good way to end this? No? .Gay unions should have been approved by the States and the Feds quickly and quietly a decade ago. Now it is just another cause celeb to divide the country and polarize the population. The best would have been to leave marriages to religions and keep the  State out of it . Let the State authorize domestic unions.

 

In your view of things, what would be the legal difference between "domestic unions" and what we now call "marriages" other than the name?

[strappinglad]

I think that it boils down to a word and all the connotations of that word. I believe that the majority of citizens would now accept that idea of a domestic union as long as the word marriage was not attached. Trouble is, I don't think that activist gays would now be willing to accept such. The well has been poisoned by nasty rhetoric from both sides.

[jwhitlock]

As has always been clear, this is absolutely not a case of denying gays a right that others have. Gays have always had the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else, and many gays have done just that.

 

The judge's statement that some fundamental right was denied is so out of touch with reality as to eliminate his credibility in this case. All he's doing is parroting the talking points of SSM advocates. Hardly unbiased.

 

Scott's comment about them coming after the church is spot on. It's going to happen, there are going to be lawsuits, and there's going to be some activist judge that decides he/she can override religious freedoms.

 

I'll reiterate again, as I have done before: there are two problems with SSM. The first is that it's going to be used as a weapon against the church. The second is that it puts the final piece in place removing a fundamental expectation of marriage, which is full sexual fidelity. That particular attack against marriage has been going on a long time now (by idiot heterosexuals) and SSM simply makes the concept of "monogamish" a replacement for full fidelity - thus removing the expectation of protection in all marriages for innocent parties in cases of philandering spouses.

[Danzo]

I think that it boils down to a word and all the connotations of that word. I believe that the majority of citizens would now accept that idea of a domestic union as long as the word marriage was not attached. Trouble is, I don't think that activist gays would now be willing to accept such. The well has been poisoned by nasty rhetoric from both sides.

 

So its all about a name.

[guerreiro9]

There are all kinds of things that I disagree with that the State subsidizes . The biggest ones are the constant spending by State and Federal reps on junkets to various places and booking $500+ per night rooms and fancy dinners and drinks. Anybody found a good way to end this? No? .Gay unions should have been approved by the States and the Feds quickly and quietly a decade ago. Now it is just another cause celeb to divide the country and polarize the population. The best would have been to leave marriages to religions and keep the  State out of it . Let the State authorize domestic unions.

 

There is probably not a single thing that is currently subsidized that does not have people who oppose it.  That is expected.  What is not expected is that the people performing the subsidization have no mechanism to vote to remove that subsidization.

 

A society that is not able to effectively promote behaviors that benefit the society and discourage behaviors that hinder the society is doomed to fail.  Promoting all behaviors equally is not an effective method of promoting beneficial behaviors.

 

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

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. 

 

While I agree that it would be very unlikely that the LDS church will be forced to perform same sex marriages, there are a number of things that are much more likely to happen that will make things very difficult for the church.

 

Tax exempt status could be revoked if the Church refuses to perform same sex marriages.

The ability of the Church to perform legally recognized marriages could be revoked if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

The Church could be denied the ability to purchase property in certain areas if they do not accept same sex marriages.

BYU could be refused admission to any and all national organizations if the Church refuses to accept same sex marriages.

The Church could be denied the right to publicly broadcast any statement written or otherwise stating that same sex marriage is wrong.

 

While none of these directly affect your ability to freely exercise your religion, they could sure make life more difficult.

 

-guerreiro9

[Sevenbak]

SALT LAKE CITY — 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement Friday after a court ruling on same-sex marriage in Utah:

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.

 

[Daniel2]

It's only a matter of time, now, before they come after the Church and try to force it to recognize same-sex marriages if not perform them.

It's already happening with some of the political pressuring that's been going on in this very forum and elsewhere.

Scott,

The prophetic powers of your expectations seem to be... misaligned. Just two "relatively short" months ago, you stated,

I don't expect to see [same-sex marriage] in Utah within my lifetime.

Of course, the term "relatively short time" is, um, relative, and I don't know how you define it.

I expect you'll be as wrong on the former quote as you were on the latter.

Daniel

[california boy]

Are you trying to tell me that more gay couples will now be in committed relationships because they get tax benefits for doing so?  Do you really think tax benefits will have any affect on peoples commitment level?

 

-guerreiro9

I didn't say anything about tax benefits, I was only addressing the fact that now gays will be able to be married and live in a committed relationship rather than just cohabitating.  I personally don't think that marriage is all about tax benefits, perhaps you do.  There are a lot of reasons why couples get married.  I assume most of those same reasons apply to gay couples as well as straight couples. 

 

Any person going into a marriage, whether straight or gay simply for the tax benefits is probably not going to be married for long in my opinion.  

[guerreiro9]

I didn't say anything about tax benefits, I was only addressing the fact that now gays will be able to be married and live in a committed relationship rather than just cohabitating.  I personally don't think that marriage is all about tax benefits, perhaps you do.  There are a lot of reasons why couples get married.  I assume most of those same reasons apply to gay couples as well as straight couples. 

 

Any person going into a marriage, whether straight or gay simply for the tax benefits is probably not going to be married for long in my opinion.  

 

Gays have been able to legally marry in Utah and every other state in the Union for decades now, they simply did not receive tax benefits for doing so.  If you don't think tax benefits will have any effect then I am unsure what proponents of same-sex marriage are fighting for.

 

-guerreiro9

[california boy]

I think that it boils down to a word and all the connotations of that word. I believe that the majority of citizens would now accept that idea of a domestic union as long as the word marriage was not attached. Trouble is, I don't think that activist gays would now be willing to accept such. The well has been poisoned by nasty rhetoric from both sides.

If the Federal Government started calling all marriages civil unions and left marriage to religion, it would not make one bit of difference.  If a gay couple wanted to get married, there are plenty of religions that would gladly marry them.  

 

I think the main reason this idea has not caught on is because it does nothing to change the fact that gay couples deserve every right to be married, or in civil unions or whatever you want to call them as every other American.  

 

The constitution does not talk about gay marriage, but it does talk about equal protection under the law.  Every single time gay marriage comes before the courts, judges are forced to rule in favor of gay marriage because there is no legal evidence that anyone should withhold marriage from them.  Those who have not grasped this concept are going to be continually disappointed in the next couple of years as this nation moves towards gay marriage for all citizens.  If this case makes it to the Supreme Court, it will only hasten the day for that to occur.

 

Personally, I think it is a good thing for the church to have Utah be one of the states that legalizes gay marriage sooner rather than later.  Perhaps it will take away some of the negative image of the church towards gay people.

[Stone holm]

Sounds like a fairly calm reaction, certainly not a call to arms. I had just received an email from a Jewish college roommate who lives in Salt Lake who was rejoicing.

[strappinglad]

We now have the experience of at least 15 countries where gay marriage is the law of the land. Can anyone point to any incident where situations like those outlined by guerrierro9 and others have actually taken place ? If the slippery slope exists , then we should be informed. If it is only a list of hypotheticals then we should know that too.