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

[Stone holm]

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. 

 

 

Well hope they are better at it than our last Stake President was, after his presentation in a special Ward Priesthood session, we not only lost the one youth that came out of the closet, but the his entire family including his Father who was a former Bishop and his mother who had held about all the high Ward positions a woman can hold. 

[rockpond]

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.

If the classes are going to reiterate what has been taught in the past couple general conferences regarding SSM, it will backfire. Mark my words, no good will come of it and there is potential that it will push good members out the door.

[Gray]

If the classes are going to reiterate what has been taught in the past couple general conferences regarding SSM, it will backfire. Mark my words, no good will come of it and there is potential that it will push good members out the door.

 

Our Stake is planning to try to gently push the issue. I think it will backfire here as well. People in my ward go out of their way to avoid discussing the topic. A lot of faithful members simply aren't on board with the church's position on this issue. Simply reiterating the doctrine will have the opposite of the intended effect. 

[Daniel2]

The last four posts are interesting.

What do you three think WOULD be beneficial for a stake president to share in these potential firesides on SSM?

[rockpond]

The last three posts are interesting.

What do you three think WOULD be beneficial for a stake president to share in these potential firesides on SSM?

 

Might I suggest President Uchtdorf's "two word sermon":  Stop it!

 

We could also take the approach that the Church has taken with respect to the race & the priesthood issue:  We don't know.

 

Until we actually *know* something we ought to just stop preaching about it.  Stop judging people for the positions on it.  Stop getting involved in the political matters of it.  And for all that is good and holy in this world... let just ONE SINGLE GENERAL CONFERENCE occur WITHOUT mentioning or alluding to it in a talk.

 

Just my opinion.  FWIW.

 

Edited to add:  If I were to put together a class on SSM it would be all about how we need to just focus on loving gay people.  Including the absolute purging of stupid phrases like "hate the sin, love the sinner" from our vocabulary.

[Stone holm]

Our Stake is planning to try to gently push the issue. I think it will backfire here as well. People in my ward go out of their way to even discuss the topic. A lot of faithful members simply aren't on board with the church's position on this issue. Simply reiterating the doctrine will have the opposite of the intended effect. 

 

I agree, people know the Church position, there is no point in continually dredging it up -- all it does at this point is cause political contention.  If they want to talk about the evils of homosexual behavior fine, but let go of the political contention over legislation.

[cdowis]

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.

 

The church accepts gay people, but cannot accept immoral behaviour.  Is that so difficult to comprehend?  I really don't think the church is going to relinquish core  principles in order to gain popularity.

 

Finally, I'm sure that there are those who would deny the church's right to speak to the world, including very selective political action on moral issues.  

 

But thanks for your suggestions.

[rockpond]

The church accepts gay people, but cannot accept immoral behaviour. Is that so difficult to comprehend? I really don't think the church is going to relinquish core principles in order to gain popularity.

Finally, I'm sure that there are those who would deny the church's right to speak to the world, including very selective political action on moral issues.

But thanks for your suggestions.

Strawman. I haven't suggested that the Church doesn't have a right to speak to the world, including in the realm of politics. How it exercises that right is what I was discussing.

As for the Church accepting gay people, I believe that you and many feel that it does. I don't see it as acceptance. It's all in how we interpret that word and the actions of the Church.

Finally, I agree that the church will never and should never accept immoral behavior. And I would not suggest that it do such a thing.

[Gray]

The last four posts are interesting.

What do you three think WOULD be beneficial for a stake president to share in these potential firesides on SSM?

 

I'm not sure any discussion of it will help right now, in a chapel setting. You'll either end up offending the more progressive members and/or members under 40, or you'll end up offending the more orthodox and/or older members. If I were SP I wouldn't touch the topic with a ten foot pole, other than to say treat gay people with kindness and love and leave it at that.

[Daniel2]

It appears that Oregon will be next, with some interesting developments: no one will be defending the marriage ban in the courtroom, and the federal judge appointed to the case is, himself, gay:

Openly gay judge, Michael McShane, in spotlight overseeing Oregon case

By Jeff Mapes | jmapes@oregonian.com

on April 17, 2014 at 3:38 PM, updated April 17, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Starting next week, the spotlight on the status of gay marriage in America will shift to the Eugene courtroom of U.S. District Judge Michael McShane – who finds himself in an unusual position.

Unlike the five federal judges who have struck down laws prohibiting same-sex marriages in other states in recent months, McShane won't have anyone in the courtroom defending Oregon's constitutional ban when he holds oral arguments Wednesday.

And, unlike the other judges, McShane also happens to be one of just nine openly gay members of the federal judiciary, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

It's an unusual combination of factors for the 53-year-old jurist, who has served as a federal judge for less than a year.

McShane, citing the sensitivity of the case, declined to be interviewed for this story. But friends say they're confident he'll produce a careful decision while setting aside any personal feelings.

"You don't want to be the lawyer going in saying with a wink, 'I'm the lawyer on the gay-marriage side and he's going to be with me,'" says Lane Borg, who heads Metropolitan Public Defender and has known McShane for decades. "They would be ill-advised to think that just because Michael is gay that he is going to rule that way."

Still, the widespread view is that McShane will follow the lead of other federal judges in ruling that same-sex couples have the right to marry. Backers of a gay marriage initiative are even asking McShane to rule by May 23 so that they don't have to take their fight to the November ballot.

In his courtroom, McShane will face a battery of lawyers all telling him to strike down the 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

That's because Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced earlier this year that she wouldn't defend the law because it violates federal equal-rights protectionsas interpreted by last year's Supreme Court decision.

Several lawyers on both sides of the issue say the lack of opposition will almost undoubtedly lead McShane to strike down Oregon's constitutional prohibition.

"That would appear to make the case a foregone conclusion," says William Duncan, who heads the Marriage Law Foundation, a Utah-based group opposed to same-sex unions.

If McShane decides to strike down the law, his major issue may be whether to stay his decision while appeals are heard from other states – or whether to allow gays and lesbians to begin marrying in Oregon.

McShane's own journey to the federal courthouse in Eugene has been unusual enough.

He grew up in a conservative Catholic family in small-town eastern Washington. After college, he came to Portland with the Jesuit Volunteers Corps and counseled homeless parolees and probationers.

That led him to law school and then work at Metropolitan Public Defender, where Borg and others say he quickly became one of the sharpest and hardest-working trial lawyers in the office.

He became a pro tem judge in 1997 and a full Circuit Court judge in 2001. Around the courthouse, he became known for going to unusual lengths to try to help defendants turn their lives around.

He and his staff held a Friday breakfast club for probationers he knew wouldn't get regular supervision. Once, he offered the shoes off his feet to a bare-footed defendant. Another time, his socks.

He also regularly met defendants for their scheduled early-morning appointments at Hooper Detox, reasoning that they would be more likely to actually show up if they knew McShane was there waiting for them.

"Your only option is to be a disinterested observer and watch a train wreck, or step in," McShane told Willamette Week in a 2010 interview.

For all of that, McShane also earned the respect of prosecutors, who quickly came to see him as evenhanded, says former Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk.

"He's not super-harsh or super-lenient," says Schrunk. "He's fair but not a pushover."

McShane also became known around the courthouse for having a temper. He could be particularly tough on lawyers he saw as unprepared. One prosecutor privately calls him an "equal-opportunity screamer" given to chewing out hapless attorneys.

McShane became part of a four-judge team that handled the county's aggravated murder cases.

For years, McShane collected religious icons and was frequently given pictures of St. Michael.

"I don't think he's a practicing Catholic," says Bergstrom. "But I think it informs his life. ... I think he would say he considers himself a Catholic."

With one longtime ex-partner, McShane adopted a young boy, now 20, who had come from an abusive home. He's now helping rear the 13-year-old nephew of his current partner, Gregory Ford, who has gone back to school to become a nurse.

McShane's sexual orientation may have helped him get a foot in the door to be considered for a federal judgeship. The Obama administration has pressed for a more diverse federal judiciary. The five finalists for the Eugene judgeship that McShane won included three women, one an African-American.

Opponents of gay marriage have stayed away from McShane's court -- declining, for example, to file any "friend of the court" briefs aimed at influencing his thinking. Some say there's little reason to get involved since they don't have standing to appeal. But there's been some grumbling about McShane's involvement in the case.

John Eastman, a constitutional law professor and chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay marriage group, questions whether McShane has a conflict.

"The question is not his sexual orientation," says Eastman, "but whether he is situated identically to the plaintiffs and will benefit from the exact relief he provides to them."

In other words, McShane could also get the right to marry his partner if he strikes down the Oregon prohibition on gay marriage.

Opponents of same-sex marriage unsuccessfully made the same argument in California when they tried to erase U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision striking down that state's anti-gay-marriage initiative.

After Walker retired from the bench, he said publicly for the first time that he was gay and in a long-term relationship.

Walker's successor, Judge James Ware,refused to vacate the decision, saying that the presumption about Walker's state of mind "is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief."

In an initial court hearing with attorneys involved with the current case, McShane made clear his willingness to recuse himself if there were any concerns – and he didn't hear any.

John Parry, a Lewis & Clark law professor, says the court system is based on the belief that judges can set aside their own opinions.

"It's not like straight judges will necessarily be neutral in their thinking," says Parry. Still, he adds, he's sure the judge knows his ruling will attract a lot of attention.

"I would expect," Parry says, "Judge McShane to take extra care with the opinion."

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/04/gay_marriage_openly_gay_judge.html#incart_river%23incart_big-photo

[rockpond]

It appears that Oregon will be next, with some interesting developments: no one will be defending the marriage ban in the courtroom, and the federal judge appointed to the case is, himself, gay:

 

 

Uh-oh... Will we see accusations of bias as we did with the Prop 8 case?

[frank_jessop]

Our Stake is planning to try to gently push the issue. I think it will backfire here as well. People in my ward go out of their way to avoid discussing the topic. A lot of faithful members simply aren't on board with the church's position on this issue. Simply reiterating the doctrine will have the opposite of the intended effect.

Do report after the meeting.

I think a "gentle push" is possible. Gods law of marriage; people don't choose homosexual desire; laws of man do not convert Gods law from a sin to acceptable; sexual desires are not sin, but acting on them is.

[Stone holm]

Do report after the meeting.

I think a "gentle push" is possible. Gods law of marriage; people don't choose homosexual desire; laws of man do not convert Gods law from a sin to acceptable; sexual desires are not sin, but acting on them is.

 

What exactly would be the point, do they think there are some people who are still clueless about any of those items?  Why do a special Stake presentation now?

[Daniel2]

Uh-oh... Will we see accusations of bias as we did with the Prop 8 case?

I am sure we will. I think the article makes a good case that such criticisms won't be viewed as legally sound or valid.

The Associated Press has an interesting blurb indicating the Oregon Attorney General believes it's a foregone conclusion, before it's even gotten to trial...

New Oregon marriage licenses available for same-sex couples

http://www.katu.com/news/local/New-Oregon-marriage-licenses-available-for-same-sex-couples-255713561.html?mobile=y

By Associated Press

Apr 17, 2014

In light of the Oregon attorney general's decision to not defend the state's ban on gay marriage, Oregon is now revising its marriage licenses to include forms for same-sex couples.

Previously, when people applied for a marriage license, they were asked either to identify as a "bride" or "groom." Now, the new form designates as "Party A" and "Party B." Applicants can also choose to be identified as "bride," "groom" or "spouse."

Another change to marriage licenses: eliminating the term "maiden name." Instead, applicants will be asked to provide their "name at birth."

Most of Oregon's counties use an electronic version of the marriage form. Clerks are in the process of working with a software vendor to update the online forms.

Given the above, the trial seems like a formality and the judge's sexual orientation seems like a footnote.

[Daniel2]

What exactly would be the point, do they think there are some people who are still clueless about any of those items? Why do a special Stake presentation now?

In answer to your question, I think Gray hit the nail on the head:

A lot of faithful members simply aren't on board with the church's position on this issue.

I think even the gentlest of gentle, special firesides on the matter is an indication of concern that members aren't on board and need correction--or at least sandbagging.

[Daniel2]

It appears that Oregon will be next...

I take it back. To quote The Little Mermaid, "Zut alore! I have MISSED one....!"

It appears Arkansas may beat Oregon to the punch...

JUDGE TO RULE ON ARKANSAS’ SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN WITHIN TWO WEEKS 

By John Lyon

Arkansas News Bureau

jlyon@arkansasnews.com

LITTLE ROCK — A Pulaski County circuit judge said Thursday he will issue a ruling within two weeks in a challenge to Arkansas’ ban on same-sex marriage.

“I’ve already got an idea where I’m going, but I’m still drifting,” Judge Chris Piazza said after a three-hour hearing on motions for summary judgment in the case.

Twenty-one same-sex Arkansas couples — and one woman seeking a divorce from a woman she married in New York — allege in a lawsuit that Amendment 83 to the Arkansas Constitution, which was approved by voters in 2004 and defines marriage as between one man and one woman, violates rights guaranteed under both the state and federal constitutions.

The state attorney general’s office maintains that banning same-sex marriage preserves state interests and does not violate any fundamental rights.

Jack Wagoner, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said during Thursday’s hearing that since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in the U.S. v. Windsor case last year, 18 federal and state court decisions have been issued addressing the issue of equality based on sexual orientation, and all have been decided in favor of equality.

“I love coming to court when the facts are all on my side,” Wagoner said.

Assistant Attorney Colin Jorgensen argued that in the Windsor ruling, the Supreme Court addressed federal law only and did not block states from defining marriage as they wish.

“The federal government has no interest in regulating marriage,” Jorgensen said. “The federal government has no business regulating marriage. It’s up to the states.”

Jorgensen also argued that because Amendment 83 is part of the Arkansas Constitution, it cannot violate the Arkansas Constitution. He said the state does not concede that there is any conflict between the amendment and the state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection, but if there is a conflict, he said, the more recent change to the constitution should be given more weight.

Cheryl Maples, another of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, argued that both the state and federal constitutions guarantee rights that cannot be taken away by popular vote. She said the only basis for Amendment 83 and related state statutes is “pure animus” against gays.

“There is no rational basis, no compelling reason why these laws exist,” she said.

Jorgensen cited several court rulings that upheld same-sex marriage bans, including the 2006 decision in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, in which the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St . Louis upheld Nebraska’s voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Wagoner and Maples said the rulings Jorgensen cited came before the Windsor ruling.

“Mr. Jorgensen is living in a pre-Windsor world,” Wagoner said.

Maples became emotional as she told the judge that her daughter is a lesbian and said that if she falls in love and wants to get married, “I want her to have that right.”

Jason Owens, attorney for several county clerks who are named as defendants in the suit, asked Piazza to stay his decision if he rules in favor of the plaintiffs, noting that recent rulings overturning same-sex marriage bans in other states are all under stays while the rulings are appealed.

Wagoner told reporters later a stay would be likely if the plaintiffs prevail, since the suit only targets clerks in certain counties and since an appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court is expected.

David Fuqua, attorney for Pulaski County Circuit and Court Clerk Larry Crane, also a defendant in the case, asked Piazza to rule only on the state constitutional claims if he rules for the plaintiffs.

Wagoner said Fuqua was trying to avoid the possibility of having to pay the attorneys’ fees of the plaintiffs. He asked the judge to rule on both the state and federal constitutional arguments so questions would not be left unanswered that could lead to another lawsuit.

Several of the plaintiffs were in the courtroom Thursday, including Greg Bruce and William Smith of Little Rock, who have arranged to have a child via surrogate mother. They said after the hearing that under current Arkansas law, Bruce, the biological father, will be named on the birth certificate but Smith will not — although when a heterosexual couple uses a surrogate mother, both parents’ names go on the birth certificate.

“It protects his right as the father of the child for health care issues and potential school issues” to be on the birth certificate, Bruce said.

“It’s a part of both of us. I feel like I should be on there as a parent,” Smith said.

Bruce said he is confident the case will be decided ultimately in the plaintiffs’ favor.

“That’s the way the nation is turning. Ideas have changed,” he said.

- See more at: http://m.arkansasnews.com/news/arkansas/judge-rule-arkansas-same-sex-marriage-ban-within-two-weeks#sthash.1VBPnOnt.dpuf

[Daniel2]

Another wrinkle in the Utah case.... will the court dismiss the appeal--leaving Shelby's ruling mandating civil same-sex marriage recognition in place--because the opponents lack standing to appeal.....?

Utah same-sex marriage opponents hope case not undone by technicality

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57836336-219/utah-case-court-county.html.csp

The question of whether the suit targeted the appropriate officials may become an issue.

By Marissa Lang

| The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Apr 18 2014 08:58 pm • Last Updated Apr 18 2014 09:59 pm

There’s a small concern lurking beneath the surface in Utah’s same-sex marriage case, a quiet question that some experts say could derail the state’s push to permanently ban gay and lesbian unions.

Although few believe it poses a serious threat to the case’s trajectory — likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court by summer — the question persists:

Could Kitchen v. Herbert be thrown out on a technicality?

On Tuesday, Utah’s lead counsel Gene C. Schaerr drew attention to a question posed to both sides by a three-judge panel at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals last week regarding whether the lawsuit targeted the appropriate state and county officials.

The technical term is Article III standing. What it means is according to constitutional standards the court must consider, "at an irreducible minimum" the party seeking to sue must have suffered injury that can be traced to the action of the defendant in the case.

In the Utah lawsuit, the three couple plaintiffs represented by Peggy A. Tomsic and James E. Magleby named the governor, the attorney general and the Salt Lake County clerk in the case.

They allege these three officials are responsible for same-sex couples being denied marriage licenses and for out-of-state marriages remaining unrecognized in Utah.

Schaerr’s letter insists this belief is accurate.

Why would Utah’s lead attorney be volunteering to the court that the governor and attorney general are, in fact, the proper people to sue?

If the court finds that they’re not, the appellate judges may decline to rule in the case, leaving Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling to stand as law in Utah.

That’s what happened with California’s Proposition 8 and the lawsuit Hollingsworth v. Perry that took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — after hearing the case, five out of nine justices voted to dismiss the appeal for its lack of jurisdiction, thereby leaving the decision of the lower district court to stand.

"It’s the kind of legal technicality that could screw up the case," said Carl Tobias, judicial appointment expert and professor at the University of Richmond School of Law. "There’s always a possibility, but courts tend to be reluctant to base a decision entirely on jurisdictional issues when it’s a case like this. I think they’re reluctant. It sounds like these judges want to get to the merits."

During Utah’s arguments last week, Judge Jerome A. Holmes — widely considered to be the "vote to get" in the case — asked Tomsic to explain why the defendants her plaintiffs had singled out were appropriate.

Further, he asked whether the state continued to have the right to appeal the case, given that Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen declined to appeal Judge Shelby’s Dec. 20 decision to overturn Utah’s same-sex marriage ban.

"You sued the clerk of court," Holmes said, referring to Swensen. "But the clerk of court is not on the appeal, and, it would seem to me that creates a fundamental basis for concern about where jurisdiction lies in this case. "

Tomsic argued that because the governor and the attorney general have authority over the county clerks in Utah — unlike in other states where clerks who issue marriage licenses are members of the judicial branch of government — they are, ultimately, the proper authorities.

Immediately after Shelby overturned Utah’s marriage amendment, county clerks were inundated with requests for marriage licenses from gay and lesbian couples.

Some, like Salt Lake County, began issuing them without hesitation. Others took days to begin handing out marriage licenses to all couples — regardless of their gender.

Utah County’s clerk, Bryan Thompson, took nearly a week to begin issuing licenses, prompting threats of a lawsuit from a lesbian couple who had been previously denied.

The explanation several Utah county clerks gave was they were waiting on direction from the attorney general or governor’s office as to handle the situation.

This, Schaerr states in his letter to the court, is further proof that with or without the Salt Lake County clerk, the governor and the attorney general are within their jurisdiction to appeal the case to the 10th Circuit and, perhaps, beyond.

"Utah marriage licenses are issued by county clerks [...] not by court clerks," Schaerr wrote. "Plaintiffs’ suit thus satisfied the demands of Article III standing."

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, consisting of Judges Carlos F. Lucero, Paul J. Kelly and Holmes, will likely address the question of jurisdiction in their decision.

It is not known when this decision may be issued, though experts estimate it could take anywhere from one to three months.

Should the court rule on the merits of the case and side with — or oppose —the lower court’s decision, its ruling would effectually extend to all states in the 10th Circuit, including Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

[rockpond]

Another wrinkle in the Utah case.... will the court dismiss the appeal--leaving Shelby's ruling mandating civil same-sex marriage recognition in place--because the opponents lack standing to appeal.....?

I think that would be an appropriate ruling, to say to people: legally recognizing gay marriage does not impact you in any way so you have no grounds to appeal.

To me it is similar to the frequent judicial opinions stating that gay marriage bans are born of animus.

[Daniel2]

I think that would be an appropriate ruling, to say to people: legally recognizing gay marriage does not impact you in any way so you have no grounds to appeal.

To me it is similar to the frequent judicial opinions stating that gay marriage bans are born of animus.

Any ruling that would have Shelby's ruling stand as is would be a positive one, IMO, although (of course) a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage on the merits would be a larger win and provide swifter resolution for marriage equality throughout the nation.

[frank_jessop]

What exactly would be the point, do they think there are some people who are still clueless about any of those items? Why do a special Stake presentation now?

I should have also added to the list of the respectful disagreement. Postings on this board are a good indicator that individual members need more counsel from Priesthood leaders.

Why presentations now? Presentations have been occurring for years. I attended a "presentation", over a decade ago, and the local presiding authority stated was he instructed to hold the presentation. The intended results of that presentation has now been nullified by a Federal Judge.

[Buckeye]

I should have also added to the list of the respectful disagreement. Postings on this board are a good indicator that individual members need more counsel from Priesthood leaders.

Why presentations now? Presentations have been occurring for years. I attended a "presentation", over a decade ago, and the local presiding authority stated was he instructed to hold the presentation. The intended results of that presentation has now been nullified by a Federal Judge.

 

I'm doubtful additional counsel is going to change anyone's views on the underlying issue of SSM.  My guess is that any new push (and I think one is happening) will focus on the following points: (i) the church is not changing its view, (ii) the church is largely resigned to the fact that society is changing its view, (iii) the church expects members to be respectful in their disagreement with others, and (iv) the church really wants members to stay engaged on the issue. 

 

In my judgment, absolutely no one should be surprised by #1, most members have already come to understand #2, any members listening to conference in the past 5 years should be aware of #3.  To the degree anything is "new," it will be found in #4.  I get the sense that there is serious concern within church leaders that not only society is changing its view, but substantial numbers of members and in particular youth.  The feeling is that a concerted engagement must be kept up in order to avoid losing the battle within the church.  As I've said before, that is where the battle is now.

[Daniel2]

In an interesting turn of events, both sides of Pennsylvania's marriage lawsuit have asked to forgo a trial:

The ACLU today reports that "both sides have agreed" that there is no need for the scheduled June trial in their Pennsylvania marriage equality lawsuit:

A trial became unnecessary after the commonwealth stated that it will not call any experts to counter the plaintiffs’ argument that there is no rational reason why lesbian and gay couples are excluded from marriage, nor does it plan to dispute the specific harms caused to the plaintiffs by the marriage ban. All legal papers in the case will be filed by May 12, meaning a ruling could come at any time after that date.

“We are pleased that this case will be moving forward quickly. Our clients have waited long enough for the state to recognize the love and commitment that these couples have for each other,” said John S. Stapleton, of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller.

Along with the motion, today’s filing included written testimony from six experts, including a report on the legal disadvantages that same-sex couples face in estate planning, taxes, health care, and family law in Pennsylvania because they cannot marry or have their marriages from other states respected by Pennsylvania. The motion also includes another expert report about the economic harms to the state’s economy and businesses caused by the commonwealth’s failure to allow same-sex couples to marry or to recognize their marriages from other states.

More here: http://www.aclupa.org/news/2014/04/21/timetable-accelerated-aclu-and-hangley-aronchick-challenge-p

So in the upcoming Oregon lawsuit, no one will be representing the same-sex marriage ban at trial, and now, in the upcoming Pennsylvania lawsuit, counsel on both sides have petitioned to forgo a trial altogether....

Are we seeing the beginning of a new trend?

[Daniel2]

The feeling is that a concerted engagement must be kept up in order to avoid losing the battle within the church. As I've said before, that is where the battle is now.

I believe "the battle within the church" will change, with time.

For a short while, members will struggle with how to accept the weddings of their gay family members, friends, coworkers, bosses, neighbors, etc. They will struggle with concerns that attending such marriages will seem as if they are condoning or promoting homosexuality.

With time, most will start attending marriages of their gay family members, friends, coworkers, bosses, neighbors, etc, even though the church disagrees with it.

Shortly thereafter, members will become increasingly uncomfortable with the church's stance against gay folks and their families.

Increasingly, more will leave the church.

Convert baptisms will decrease.

The greatest losses the church will experience will be among youth.

As with the race-based priesthood ban, social pressure will be exerted on the church, primarily through academics (BYU's) and athletic programs.

Eventually, the BSA will accept gay leaders, as well as scouts, pressure will increase, and Mormons will like face severing ties with the scouts.

Many members who stay will begin petitioning local and world leadership to inquire of the Lord whether he still disapproves of same sex unions.

Once older members of the 12 pass away, younger and emerging apostles will be faced with increased social awareness, decreasing church activity, and worsening retention rates, and will be more open to the idea of inquiring of the Lord about accepting active gays and lesbians into full fellowship.

And by then the Lord will have prepared His church, and the apostles will find themselves at the threshold of revelation.

I predict this will happen more swiftly than any of us would have expected.

[Storm Rider]

I believe "the battle within the church" will change, with time.

For a short while, members will struggle with how to accept the weddings of their gay family members, friends, coworkers, bosses, neighbors, etc. They will struggle with concerns that attending such marriages will seem as if they are condoning or promoting homosexuality.

With time, most will start attending marriages of their gay family members, friends, coworkers, bosses, neighbors, etc, even though the church disagrees with it.

Shortly thereafter, members will become increasingly uncomfortable with the church's stance against gay folks and their families.

Increasingly, more will leave the church.

Convert baptisms will decrease.

The greatest losses the church will experience will be among youth.

As with the race-based priesthood ban, social pressure will be exerted on the church, primarily through academics (BYU's) and athletic programs.

Eventually, the BSA will accept gay leaders, as well as scouts, pressure will increase, and ties will likely be severed.

Many members who stay will begin petitioning local and world leadership to inquire of the Lord whether he still disapproves of sames ex unions.

Once older members of the 12 pass away, increased social awareness, decreasing church activity, and worsening retention rates, emerging apostles will be more open to the idea of inquiring of the Lord about accepting active gays and lesbians into full fellowship.

And then the Lord will have prepared His church, and the apostles will find themselves at the threshold of revelation.

 

Daniel, I only wish you could receive the desires of your heart. I just wish the rest of us did not have to go along for the ride.  Perversion, philosophies that can go no further than self, are not the panacea for civil society regardless of religion.  

 

One of the things I know is that there is a judgement.  I pray that you receive as much mercy as the rest of us.  The challenge is for those who knowingly love darkness and reject light; for these poor souls there is no mercy because they do not seek it or want it.  They have chosen to bask in the love of evil and their master is their reward.  

 

No need for revelation, no need to scratch those with itching ears.  God is their judge and frightful will be the day of their damnation.  

[Buckeye]

I believe "the battle within the church" will change, with time.

For a short while, members will struggle with how to accept the weddings of their gay family members, friends, coworkers, bosses, neighbors, etc. They will struggle with concerns that attending such marriages will seem as if they are condoning or promoting homosexuality.

With time, most will start attending marriages of their gay family members, friends, coworkers, bosses, neighbors, etc, even though the church disagrees with it.

Shortly thereafter, members will become increasingly uncomfortable with the church's stance against gay folks and their families.

Increasingly, more will leave the church.

Convert baptisms will decrease.

The greatest losses the church will experience will be among youth.

As with the race-based priesthood ban, social pressure will be exerted on the church, primarily through academics (BYU's) and athletic programs.

Eventually, the BSA will accept gay leaders, as well as scouts, pressure will increase, and Mormons will like face severing ties with the scouts.

Many members who stay will begin petitioning local and world leadership to inquire of the Lord whether he still disapproves of same sex unions.

Once older members of the 12 pass away, younger and emerging apostles will be faced with increased social awareness, decreasing church activity, and worsening retention rates,and will be more open to the idea of inquiring of the Lord about accepting active gays and lesbians into full fellowship.

And by then the Lord will have prepared His church, and the apostles will find themselves at the threshold of revelation.

I predict thus will happen more swiftly than any of us would have expected.

 

This is largely what I had in mind when I said "battle within the church."  I'm not sure it will go as you predict, especially the speed of things, but I'm confident that same-sex issues will leave a deeper and longer scar on the church than the church ever will on SSM.  I will not be at all surprised to see the church cut ties with scouting or to have BYU's academic reputation downgraded as our society comes to fully embrace SSM.  Both of those things will sadden me greatly.