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

[Stone holm]

I agree, Stoneholm. As painful as it was and as damaging as it has been to family relationships, Prop 8 did more to advance marriage equality than any campaign that guys and lesbians could have mounted on their own. The resistance of Prop 8 focused the spotlight and began a national dialogue that has resulted in such rapid change, IMO.

I think it's also fascinating how silent the opposition on this board has become.

I think the dialogue has just run out, I have only been following this to keep up with the various Opinions being handed down. The positions have all been stated. They are simply that the SCOTUS has not yet ruled. The Church leadership has chosen to enter the political arena. Some, probably the majority feel they or their religious views are threatened by a relatively small number of judges and they need to defend themselves and it with legislation. Some, a distinct minority believe that although the idea of SSM is an abomination as far as their religion is concerned, they have no right to legislate their religious beliefs. An even smaller group, not including myself, believe that the Church is wrong about homosexual behavior and that the doctrine will someday change. I believe most concede that SSM is here to stay at least in a growing number of States, but we differ on whether this really is a threat to anyone or any institution. So really what is left to discuss?

[guerreiro9]

So really what is left to discuss?

That is how I feel. We talk past each other on this issue. I've expressed my views. They were never seriously addressed by same-sex marriage proponents. Why continue to repeat the argument over and over and over when all the other person hears is something similar to how adults sound on the Charlie Brown movies.

-guerreiro9

[Stone holm]

That is how I feel. We talk past each other on this issue. I've expressed my views. They were never seriously addressed by same-sex marriage proponents. Why continue to repeat the argument over and over and over when all the other person hears is something similar to how adults sound on the Charlie Brown movies.

-guerreiro9

Agreed

[JAHS]

That is how I feel. We talk past each other on this issue. I've expressed my views. They were never seriously addressed by same-sex marriage proponents. Why continue to repeat the argument over and over and over when all the other person hears is something similar to how adults sound on the Charlie Brown movies.

-guerreiro9

 

Here it is for you:

 

http://soundfxnow.com/soundfx/CharlieBrownTeacherVoice.mp3

[california boy]

Regardless of the SCOTUS opinion, I think that the bans on SSM are pretty much doomed politically.  The backlash against Prop 8 doomed the bans politically out of everywhere except the old Confederacy.  The State's with Constitutional provisions which are hard to modify will linger longer, but as the younger people come online for voting those will be repealed.  It is simply amazing to me how quickly the Prop 8 debacle changed public opinion.

I started a thread on this a while back basically stating that nothing has moved the right for gays to marry more than the passing of Prop 8.  For the next 6 years, both sides got to present their side of the argument to the public on the news regularly as the case wandered it's way towards the Supreme Court.  When the public heard both sides of the legal argument, and realized that there really was no legal reason to deny the rights of gays to marry, then public opinion shifted.  The only group left clinging on to fighting gay rights are the very religious who still cling to that idea mostly because they think it is God's will, an argument that can't be made in the court room.  I basially thanked the church leaders for their involvement in passing Prop 8.  As a result, the moderators shut the thread down and banned me from ever starting a thread again.  I guess I asked the wrong question.

[Stone holm]

I started a thread on this a while back basically stating that nothing has moved the right for gays to marry more than the passing of Prop 8.  For the next 6 years, both sides got to present their side of the argument to the public on the news regularly as the case wandered it's way towards the Supreme Court.  When the public heard both sides of the legal argument, and realized that there really was no legal reason to deny the rights of gays to marry, then public opinion shifted.  The only group left clinging on to fighting gay rights are the very religious who still cling to that idea mostly because they think it is God's will, an argument that can't be made in the court room.  I basially thanked the church leaders for their involvement in passing Prop 8.  As a result, the moderators shut the thread down and banned me from ever starting a thread again.  I guess I asked the wrong question.

I am not sure that hearing both sides of the argument is what was pivotal about Prop 8 . I think what was pivotal was when our Church made a public pitch for it, and then it was publicized that Mormon members from all over donated millions to get it passed. In other words, when we went political we set of a tsunami of a backlash. Public opinion was already turning against the Christian Right which had polling numbers worse than Congress, and then when we stepped in with cash it was like setting of a anti public sentiment bomb. I witnessed the same backlash in Vermont when local Wards (not ours) sent out families with little children putting fliers on cars, and the a Church spokesman unveiled a 12 step program for curing SSA before the legislative panel. All the fence setters and moderates took the opposite side. It reminded me of a political version of the Pope banning a book and thereby making it a best seller. This political approach does not work, it turns people off.

[Daniel2]

In an of itself, the silence represents a good thing, IMO.  If we have finally reach a point where all that is left of acknowledging such a strong issue of impasse is silence, I believe we may finally be approaching a place of tolerating differing points of view.

 

I am grateful for the legislation, judicial decisions, and popular votes that advance the cause of equal civil rights.  While I certainly have my differences of opinion about Mormonism, I believe healthy, constructive, respectful dialogue and even criticism can often be healthy and productive.  It is not my intention to displace one form of discrimination (silencing gays or preventing equal civil rights for LGBT citizens and equal religious liberties for LGBT-affirming Faiths) in favor of another (silencing Latter-day Saints or preventing equal civil rights for LDS citizens and equal religious liberties for non-LGBT-affirming Faiths).

 

My goal has always been one to foster understanding on both sides of this issue, and I'll continue to keep this thread updated on breaking news issues I see relevant to either side, and encourage others to do the same and comment as freely as desired.

 

Daniel 

[rockpond]

That is how I feel. We talk past each other on this issue. I've expressed my views. They were never seriously addressed by same-sex marriage proponents. Why continue to repeat the argument over and over and over when all the other person hears is something similar to how adults sound on the Charlie Brown movies.

-guerreiro9

 

Maybe I should just leave well enough alone but I'm curious... which of your views have not been seriously addressed by SSM proponents?

[rockpond]

Daniel must be busy as he didn't post this yet.  

 

Ohio becomes the next state in which a federal judge has declared the gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional.

 

Interesting tidbits from the article...

 

"Since the landmark 2013 ruling in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that extended federal marriage rights to same-sex couples, every related federal ruling has declared gay marriage bans unconstitutional."

 

and

 

"Gay marriage is legal in 17 states and Washington, D.C. Federal judges recently have struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia, though stays have been issued pending appeals. One of those appeals is likely to make it to the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule on whether states can ban same-sex marriages or whether gay marriage must be equal nationwide."

[Stone holm]

Daniel must be busy as he didn't post this yet.  

 

Ohio becomes the next state in which a federal judge has declared the gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional.

 

Interesting tidbits from the article...

 

"Since the landmark 2013 ruling in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that extended federal marriage rights to same-sex couples, every related federal ruling has declared gay marriage bans unconstitutional."

 

and

 

"Gay marriage is legal in 17 states and Washington, D.C. Federal judges recently have struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia, though stays have been issued pending appeals. One of those appeals is likely to make it to the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule on whether states can ban same-sex marriages or whether gay marriage must be equal nationwide."

 

I thought Ohio case just said that Ohio had to recognize SSMs performed in other States.

[rockpond]

I thought Ohio case just said that Ohio had to recognize SSMs performed in other States.

 

Yes, that's my understanding.  Ohio does not have legal gay marriage but the case before him was a gay couple who had been married in another state and moved to Ohio where they wanted that marriage recognized.  The judge ruled that the state must recognize their marriage.  I'm not clear on what that means for gay marriages being performed in the state of Ohio but the judge was clear in stating that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional.

[Stone holm]

Yes, that's my understanding.  Ohio does not have legal gay marriage but the case before him was a gay couple who had been married in another state and moved to Ohio where they wanted that marriage recognized.  The judge ruled that the state must recognize their marriage.  I'm not clear on what that means for gay marriages being performed in the state of Ohio but the judge was clear in stating that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional.

 

Was that the case where the dying spouse wanted to be shown as married on the death certificate?

[rockpond]

Was that the case where the dying spouse wanted to be shown as married on the death certificate?

 

No.  My understanding is that this case was filed by four couples wishing to have their marriages recognized so that both of them could be listed on their children's birth certificates.

[guerreiro9]

Maybe I should just leave well enough alone but I'm curious... which of your views have not been seriously addressed by SSM proponents?

 

Hello rockpond,

 

I would love to seriously be able to debate these issues.  In hopes that an actually discussion will ensue I will present a few of my views on same-sex marriage that I feel have not been adequately addressed.

 

1) Same-sex marriage is already legal in every state in the United States.  The debate is not about whether same-sex couples can legally marry it is about whether their marriages should be promoted through bestowal of certain tax and property benefits.  No one has an unalienable civil right to these benefits.  They are constantly changing and can be revoked entirely or expanded without trampling on someone's civil rights.  In the event that the bestowal of marital benefits (and marriage licenses) is discontinued by the government, marriages and the civil right to marry would still be intact.

 

2) The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment guarantees that all will be treated the same for the same action.  It does not guarantee that all actions will be treated the same.  In every state in the United States all men and women are treated equally with regards to bestowal of marital benefits.  If the state's guidelines are followed regarding issuance of a marriage license all receive identical benefits.  To the best of my knowledge no state makes sexual attraction or even love a requirement for a marriage license.  You can indicate that you hate the person and find them sexually repulsive and a marriage license will still be issued and identical benefits bestowed.

 

3) To the best of my knowledge there is not a single statute on the books whose application is affected by one's personal feelings about it.  As long as the same action results in the same treatment the 14th amendment is not being violated even if you detest the statute while another loves it.  The closest we come to this is with certain religious exemptions.  Even with religious exemptions all religions are treated equally and all are freely able to apply for religious exemptions given they meet the same requirements.  I find it extremely ironic that many same-sex marriage proponents eagerly attack those who refuse to provide services to homosexuals indicating that one's personal feelings and beliefs do not entitle them to different treatment under the law, while simultaneously arguing that homosexuals are being treated differently under the law because their feelings and beliefs about marriage are different than heterosexuals.

 

Let's start with these.  If an actual thoughtful debate ensues we can continue with other issues (possibly in another thread so as not to derail this one).

 

-guerreiro9

[Stone holm]

Hello rockpond,

 

I would love to seriously be able to debate these issues.  In hopes that an actually discussion will ensue I will present a few of my views on same-sex marriage that I feel have not been adequately addressed.

 

1) Same-sex marriage is already legal in every state in the United States.  The debate is not about whether same-sex couples can legally marry it is about whether their marriages should be promoted through bestowal of certain tax and property benefits.  No one has an unalienable civil right to these benefits.  They are constantly changing and can be revoked entirely or expanded without trampling on someone's civil rights.  In the event that the bestowal of marital benefits (and marriage licenses) is discontinued by the government, marriages and the civil right to marry would still be intact.

 

2) The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment guarantees that all will be treated the same for the same action.  It does not guarantee that all actions will be treated the same.  In every state in the United States all men and women are treated equally with regards to bestowal of marital benefits.  If the state's guidelines are followed regarding issuance of a marriage license all receive identical benefits.  To the best of my knowledge no state makes sexual attraction or even love a requirement for a marriage license.  You can indicate that you hate the person and find them sexually repulsive and a marriage license will still be issued and identical benefits bestowed.

 

3) To the best of my knowledge there is not a single statute on the books whose application is affected by one's personal feelings about it.  As long as the same action results in the same treatment the 14th amendment is not being violated even if you detest the statute while another loves it.  The closest we come to this is with certain religious exemptions.  Even with religious exemptions all religions are treated equally and all are freely able to apply for religious exemptions given they meet the same requirements.  I find it extremely ironic that many same-sex marriage proponents eagerly attack those who refuse to provide services to homosexuals indicating that one's personal feelings and beliefs do not entitle them to different treatment under the law, while simultaneously arguing that homosexuals are being treated differently under the law because their feelings and beliefs about marriage are different than heterosexuals.

 

Let's start with these.  If an actual thoughtful debate ensues we can continue with other issues (possibly in another thread so as not to derail this one).

 

-guerreiro9

 

I am not sure you can separate the idea of one having a right to be married, from the idea that you cannot discriminate against people exercising that right.  The providing of services gets a little tricky, the governments have long been recognized to have the right to regulate commerce although there has been some dispute as to whether the State has the right or whether a particular form of commerce is interstate commerce therefore vesting the right in the Federal Government.  To the extent that homosexuality can be analogized to race, then it becomes immediately clear that the government can regulate against business discrimination (sitting at lunch counters immediately comes to mind), because of this there has been heavy disputation over whether people are born homosexuals, or whether they are homosexuals by choice.  Unfortunately for those supporting the ban on SSM, they seem to be losing that battle and even the Church seems to be backing away from the its just a choice or addiction situation.  I have never felt that the definitional argument was of any value.  The idea that everybody is entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex, is easily discounted by saying well if a woman is entitled to marry a man, and men have equal rights with women then why isn't a man entitled to marry a man.  Those kind of arguments have little or no substance to them, the real question is whether we want to discourage homosexuality, and that case many Americans, rightly or wrongly, believe turns on whether you are born that way or whether its a matter of choice.  If you are born that way, then people, rightly or wrongly, believe well they have no more choice in the matter than the fact that their skin is a certain color.

 

Mormons religious beliefs are protected in that they can believe as they want about whether homosexual behavior is sinful, and they have the protected right to excommunicate or disfellowship people who believe otherwise.  That does not mean they can go out and transact business which discriminates against gays and lesbians.

[guerreiro9]

the real question is whether we want to discourage homosexuality, and that case many Americans, rightly or wrongly, believe turns on whether you are born that way or whether its a matter of choice. If you are born that way, then people, rightly or wrongly, believe well they have no more choice in the matter than the fact that their skin is a certain color.

I appreciate your response. I don't have time to respond to everything at length now, but one point you hit right on the head is what is quoted above. People's views about the promotion of same-sex marriage are strongly tied to their views on how sexuality is developed. The problem is most present this as a false dichotomy as you have. "My sexuality was either entirely set at birth or I can choose my sexuality at a moments notice.". Neither of these statements is true but I repeatedly hear these statements used as justification for or against promotion of same-sex marriage.

-guerreiro9

[thesometimesaint]

I appreciate your response. I don't have time to respond to everything at length now, but one point you hit right on the head is what is quoted above. People's views about the promotion of same-sex marriage are strongly tied to their views on how sexuality is developed. The problem is most present this as a false dichotomy as you have. "My sexuality was either entirely set at birth or I can choose my sexuality at a moments notice.". Neither of these statements is true but I repeatedly hear these statements used as justification for or against promotion of same-sex marriage.

-guerreiro9

 

Our sexual preferences are set before the age of 5. No one knows exactly why that is so. Genetics and environment play roles, but we don't know how much of which. That being said I agree that we shouldn't  use as it justification for or against same-sex marriage as a civil right.

[guerreiro9]

Our sexual preferences are set before the age of 5. No one knows exactly why that is so. Genetics and environment play roles, but we don't know how much of which. That being said I agree that we shouldn't use as it justification for or against same-sex marriage as a civil right.

What aspects of our sexuality do you think are set by 5? What do you mean by set? If we are not attracted to something at age 5 are you saying we can never become attracted to it?

-guerreiro9

[thesometimesaint]

What aspects of our sexuality do you think are set by 5? What do you mean by set? If we are not attracted to something at age 5 are you saying we can never become attracted to it?

-guerreiro9

 

Our sexual attractions are set by age 5. Which sex you are sexually attracted to. No one is purely attracted just one sex. It is a continuum. 

[rockpond]

Hello rockpond,

 

I would love to seriously be able to debate these issues.  In hopes that an actually discussion will ensue I will present a few of my views on same-sex marriage that I feel have not been adequately addressed.

 

1) Same-sex marriage is already legal in every state in the United States.  The debate is not about whether same-sex couples can legally marry it is about whether their marriages should be promoted through bestowal of certain tax and property benefits.  No one has an unalienable civil right to these benefits.  They are constantly changing and can be revoked entirely or expanded without trampling on someone's civil rights.  In the event that the bestowal of marital benefits (and marriage licenses) is discontinued by the government, marriages and the civil right to marry would still be intact.

 

2) The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment guarantees that all will be treated the same for the same action.  It does not guarantee that all actions will be treated the same.  In every state in the United States all men and women are treated equally with regards to bestowal of marital benefits.  If the state's guidelines are followed regarding issuance of a marriage license all receive identical benefits.  To the best of my knowledge no state makes sexual attraction or even love a requirement for a marriage license.  You can indicate that you hate the person and find them sexually repulsive and a marriage license will still be issued and identical benefits bestowed.

 

3) To the best of my knowledge there is not a single statute on the books whose application is affected by one's personal feelings about it.  As long as the same action results in the same treatment the 14th amendment is not being violated even if you detest the statute while another loves it.  The closest we come to this is with certain religious exemptions.  Even with religious exemptions all religions are treated equally and all are freely able to apply for religious exemptions given they meet the same requirements.  I find it extremely ironic that many same-sex marriage proponents eagerly attack those who refuse to provide services to homosexuals indicating that one's personal feelings and beliefs do not entitle them to different treatment under the law, while simultaneously arguing that homosexuals are being treated differently under the law because their feelings and beliefs about marriage are different than heterosexuals.

 

Let's start with these.  If an actual thoughtful debate ensues we can continue with other issues (possibly in another thread so as not to derail this one).

 

-guerreiro9

 

1)  So your claim here is that we provide the legal rights to opposite-sex marriages to promote those marriages?  Why are we promoting those marriages?

 

2)  If the action is "legally recognized marriage" you are not discriminating by gender of those who desire to enter into that contractual arrangement.  I would also argue that for the majority of individuals, marriage is born of love and commitment.  By restricting it to only be available to those who have the innate attractions of the majority, you have violated the 14th amendment for the minority (homosexuals).

 

3) I agree that individuals should be able to deny services and association with anyone, for any reason.

[thesometimesaint]

1)  So your claim here is that we provide the legal rights to opposite-sex marriages to promote those marriages?  Why are we promoting those marriages?

 

2)  If the action is "legally recognized marriage" you are not discriminating by gender of those who desire to enter into that contractual arrangement.  I would also argue that for the majority of individuals, marriage is born of love and commitment.  By restricting it to only be available to those who have the innate attractions of the majority, you have violated the 14th amendment for the minority (homosexuals).

 

3) I agree that individuals should be able to deny services and association with anyone, for any reason.

 

1. The state shouldn't be promoting marriage period. What it should do is protect the right to make contract.

 

2. Agreed

 

3. Disagree. As a private person you're entitled to make or not make contract as you desire. The minute state authorization is required you can no longer refuse to make contract because of several factors.

[Stone holm]

1. The state shouldn't be promoting marriage period. What it should do is protect the right to make contract.

 

2. Agreed

 

3. Disagree. As a private person you're entitled to make or not make contract as you desire. The minute state authorization is required you can no longer refuse to make contract because of several factors.

 

The problem with your answer to 3 is it could send us back to the Lochner era, which some ultra libertarians like -- but most probably wouldn't if they actually lived in a society where there were no safety laws in the work place, no weekends, no overtime pay, etc. etc.

[Daniel2]

Daniel must be busy as he didn't post this yet.

Ohio becomes the next state in which a federal judge has declared the gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional.

Interesting tidbits from the article...

"Since the landmark 2013 ruling in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that extended federal marriage rights to same-sex couples, every related federal ruling has declared gay marriage bans unconstitutional."

and

"Gay marriage is legal in 17 states and Washington, D.C. Federal judges recently have struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia, though stays have been issued pending appeals. One of those appeals is likely to make it to the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule on whether states can ban same-sex marriages or whether gay marriage must be equal nationwide."

Thanks for picking up my slack, Rockpond! ;-) I have my kids this week, so it's been busier, for sure.

Here's an interesting story from today about the Pro-Prop 8 lawyer who defended it before SCOTUS:

Lawyer who defended Proposition 8 at Supreme Court says his views on gay marriage evolving

http://www.brandonsun.com/lifestyles/breaking-news/lawyer-who-defended-proposition-8-at-supreme-court-says-his-views-on-gay-marriage-evolving-255654191.html?thx=y

By Julie Pace, The Associated Press

Thursday, Apr. 17, 2014

WASHINGTON - The lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court in favour of upholding California's ban on gay marriage learned while he was handling the case that one of his children is gay and now is helping her plan her wedding with another woman.

Attorney Charles Cooper says his view of same-sex marriage is evolving after having argued in court that gay unions could undermine marriages between a man and a woman.

The revelation is an unexpected footnote in the years-long debate over Proposition 8, the California measure struck down by the Supreme Court last year. It is also offers a glimpse, through the eyes of one family, of the country's rapidly shifting opinions of gay marriage, with most public polls now showing majorities in favour of allowing the unions.

Cooper learned that his stepdaughter Ashley was gay as the Proposition 8 case wound its way through appellate court, according to a forthcoming book about the lengthy legal battle. And with the Supreme Court ruling now behind him, Cooper cast his personal opinion on gay marriage as an evolving process.

"My views evolve on issues of this kind the same way as other people's do, and how I view this down the road may not be the way I view it now, or how I viewed it ten years ago," Cooper said in journalist Jo Becker's book "Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality."

Cooper's words are reminiscent of the language President Barack Obama used throughout his first term to describe his "evolving" views on gay marriage. In 2012, Obama announced publicly that he did, in fact, support the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

Other politicians have also voiced support for same-sex marriage after learning that their own children were gay, including former Vice-President **** Cheney, whose position was at odds with President George W. Bush. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, reversed his opposition to gay marriage last year, saying that his gay son had caused him to think about the issue differently.

In June, Cooper's daughter plans to marry her partner in Massachusetts, one of 17 states plus the District of Columbia where same-sex marriage is legal. In a statement to The Associated Press, Cooper said his family "is typical of families all across America."

"My daughter Ashley's path in life has led her to happiness with a lovely young woman named Casey, and our family and Casey's family are looking forward to celebrating their marriage in just a few weeks," he said.

California voters backed the Proposition 8 marriage ban in 2008, but the measure quickly faced legal challenges. Cooper was hired to defend the law by the organization ProtectMarriage.com, eventually taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Throughout the case, Cooper kept a lower public profile than the two lawyers he argued against at the Supreme Court: David Boies and Ted Olson, the political odd-couple who were on opposite sides of the 2000 presidential recountfight but came together to add bipartisan credibility to the push for gay marriage rights.

Olson cast Cooper's evolving views on the issue as part of a broader cultural shift.

"Every day, people around the country are looking at the marriage issue afresh and challenging their long-held assumptions," Olson said.

As the marriage ban's legal battle weaved through the court system, Becker writes that Cooper's family began to consider the plaintiffs in the case, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, as an inspiration for their daughter.

"We were so moved to hear of the Cooper family's constant love and support of their own daughter, even as the Perry case was in full swing and Mr. Cooper was spending his days planning Prop 8's defence," Perry and Stier said in a statement to AP. "Some may find this contrast between public and private jarring, but in our opinion, loving an LGBT child unequivocally is the single most important thing any parent can do. We are overjoyed for Ashley and her fiance, and we wish them the very best."

[rockpond]

Thanks for picking up my slack, Rockpond! ;-) I have my kids this week, so it's been busier, for sure.

Here's an interesting story from today about the Pro-Prop 8 lawyer who defended it before SCOTUS:

This is one of the main reasons why the church will face the decision to either change current policies or face declining membership. Gay people have stopped hiding in the closet. And as more and more church members and prospective church members come to know their gay loved ones for who they really are, they will change their views just like this attorney.

[Buckeye]

This is one of the main reasons why the church will face the decision to either change current policies or face declining membership. Gay people have stopped hiding in the closet. And as more and more church members and prospective church members come to know their gay loved ones for who they really are, they will change their views just like this attorney.

 

This is the real battle now.  It's already begun in earnest.  In my stake the bishops have been instructed to hold special classes as soon as practicable with each of the HP, EQ, RS, YW, and YM in order to address SSM.  It will be interesting to see what is discussed, particularly in the youth classes.