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

[Stone holm]

As I posted above, I think that hold true for Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.  But I believe Kennedy and Roberts care a good deal about the consequences of their votes.

Not sure I can agree.

[Daniel2]

UTAH: Attorney General To Appeal Tenth Circuit Court Ruling To SCOTUS

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pt2ElOPc0DY/U72O0MCdt0I/AAAAAAAC5Pk/T8EvB8OLQFI/s1600/UT10th.jpg

Today was the last day for Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes to ask for an en banc review of last month's decision by a three-judge panel of the Tenth.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QXMdhsRAU68/U72QUONvSCI/AAAAAAAC5Pw/FDNU8lRjCBY/s1600/UTstatement.GIF

Utah to appeal same-sex marriage case to U.S. Supreme Court

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/58165963-219/court-marriage-sex-utah.html.csp

By Marissa lang

The Salt Lake Tribune

 

First Published 31 minutes ago 

Updated 16 minutes ago 

The Utah Attorney General’s Office announced Wednesday that it will appeal the 10th Circuit Court’s decision last month upholding same-sex marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The state will not seek a full-court review by all 12 judges of the 10th Circuit Court, according to a statement from the attorney general’s office.

"To obtain clarity and resolution from the highest court, the Utah Attorney General’s Office will not seek en banc review of the Kitchen v. Herbert Tenth Circuit decision, but will file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United State Supreme Court in the coming weeks," a news release said. "Attorney General Sean Reyes has a sworn duty to defend the laws of our state. Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional unless the highest court deems otherwise."

On June 25, the 10th Circuit Court ruled that states outlawing same-sex marriage are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

By upholding a Utah judge’s decision, a three-member panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver became the first appeals court in the nation to rule on the issue, setting a historic precedent that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process.

But the court immediately stayed the implementation of its decision, pending Wednesday’s anticipated appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 10th Circuit’s two-to-one ruling affirmed U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby’s December decision, which struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage and prompted more than a 1,000 same-sex couples to marry during a 17-day window before the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay, halting all such weddings.

The 10th Circuit split along that same lines that were formed during oral arguments in April, with pointed questions asked by the three judges — Paul J. Kelly Jr., Carlos F. Lucero and Jerome A. Holmes — about marriage studies, jurisdiction and standard of scrutiny.

At that time, Kelly — who was the dissenting judge in Wednesday’s opinion — had asked the plaintiffs’ attorney hard questions about state authority.

[Daniel2]

And on the same day, Colorado legalizes marriage equality...

Adams judge tosses Colorado gay marriage ban but stays ruling

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26118709/adams-judge-tosses-colorado-gay-marriage-ban-but

By Jordan Steffen The Denver Post

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - 3:56 p.m.

Plaintiffs Rebecca Brinkman, right, and her partner Margaret Burd, middle, leave the Adams County District Court in Brighton, on June 16, 2014. A state district court judge heard arguments in two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's gay marriage ban. (Helen H. Richardson, The Denver Post)

An Adams County District Court judge on Wednesday declared Colorado's ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional, but he immediately stayed his ruling.

The ruling makes Colorado the latest in a string of states that have seen their bans on same-sex marriages tossed out by state and federal judges.

The ruling came as another judge in Boulder County considered a request by Attorney General John Suthers to stop a county clerk from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Last week, attorneys filed a federal lawsuitseeking to challenge Colorado's gay marriage ban.

Attorneys for 18 plaintiffs — nine couples — from Denver and Adams counties argued that the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

"We are ecstatic. There is much cheering in our house," said plaintiff Sandra Abbott. She and her partner, Amy Smart, were one of the nine couples in the lawsuit. "We waited a long time for this ruling."

Adams County District Court Judge C. Scott Crabtree issued his 49-page ruling Wednesday afternoon, saying he "heartily endorses" a recent ruling by a Denver-based federal appeals court in a similar case.

"The Court holds that the Marriage Bans violate plaintiffs' due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Crabtree said in his ruling.

"The existence of civil unions is further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples and does not ameliorate the discriminatory effect of the Marriage Bans."

Crabtree also said: "If civil unions were truly the same as marriages, they would be called marriages and not civil unions. If they were the same, there would be no need for both of them."

The judge acknowledged that his court would not offer the final word on the subject. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently tossed out Utah's similar ban on gay marriage.

"The final chapter of this debate will undoubtedly have to be written either in Denver, Colorado or Washington, D.C.," the judge wrote. "While the striking down of laws banning same-sex marriages has been progressing at a rapid rate, it will take time for this issue to be finally resolved."

Crabtree said he was issuing a stay to "avoid the instability and uncertainty which would result" without a stay.

The judge's ruling also dismissed a complaint that alleged that Gov. John Hickenlooper violated plaintiffs' equal protection or due process rights by maintaining the ban.

During arguments last month, Suthers' office defended the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing that 15 state and federal judges who have struck down similar measures in other states were wrong.

But Crabtree mocked the state's argument that Colorado's ban on same-sex marriage protects the "nature of marriage" and the ability to produce children.

The judge also was skeptical of the state's claim that previous judges had erred in their rulings.

"They all got it wrong?" Crabtree asked. "What am I supposed to do then when presented with this? Just punt?"

[Daniel2]

And a member of SCOTUS rejects an appeal to stop same-sex couples from marrying in Pennsylvania today, as well:

Pennsylvania clerk loses bid against gay marriage

http://m.startribune.com/?id=266513801

A U.S. Supreme Court justice has rejected a Pennsylvania county clerk's bid to stop gay marriages in the state while she tries to get standing in a legal case to stop them permanently.

Article by: Associated Press

Updated: July 9, 2014 - 6:21 PM

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Supreme Court justice has rejected a Pennsylvania county clerk's bid to stop gay marriages in the state while she tries to get standing in a legal case to stop them permanently.

Without comment, Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday rejected an appeal by Schuylkill County Orphans' Court Clerk Theresa Santai-Gaffney. The clerk can appeal to another justice, however.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Pennsylvania on May 20 when U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III struck down a state ban against the practice. Gov. Tom Corbett's administration decided not to appeal the decision.

The county clerk, however, then tried to intervene. The federal judge and a federal appellate court rebuffed her attempts, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.

Even in light of the Hobby Lobby ruling, Stoneholm, the sheer quantity of these unanimous rulings make it increasingly harder to imagine a divided 5-4 court ruling in favor. It seems to me that it's becoming an issue of how the SCOTUS would call into question all these judges' ability to make impartial judgments.....

[california boy]

I wider if all of those on this board that asserted Judge Walker was just a gay activist judge for his ruling against Prop 8 still think that. Are there no judges in America that are not activist judges marching to the gay agenda?

Or perhaps there is no gay agenda, just the agenda for equality for every American. And perhaps Judge Walker's ruling was indeed couched in law guaranteed by the constitution

[Daniel2]

More news from Colorado... interesting to see the oft-used LDSism (regarding the constitution) "hanging by a thread"...

Judge: Gay couples can keep marrying in Colorado

http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/colorado-clerk-okd-to-give-gay-marriage-licenses/2014/07/10/b0d11810-0853-11e4-8615-4eddc1f1cffa_story.html

By Associated Press July 10 at 3:33 PM

DENVER — Gay couples can keep getting married in Colorado, even though the state’s gay marriage ban is still in effect, a judge ruled Thursday.

The decision by District Court Judge Andrew Hartman added to the national confusion over same-sex marriage, as he found a county clerk can continue giving marriage licenses to gay couples despite what the state’s attorney general calls “legal chaos” as the issue makes its way to the Colorado and U.S. Supreme Courts.

An hour after Hartman issued his ruling, Denver’s clerk said she will join her counterpart in the liberal college town of Boulder in providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“It’s awesome,” Denver Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson said. “Finally, we can give out marriage licenses to all loving couples.”

Hartman’s decision said Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall can ignore a federal stay on a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which found states cannot set gender requirements for marriage.

The judge said gay marriage is still technically illegal in Colorado but that Hall’s behavior was not harming anyone. However, he said all who receive a license should be warned that the licenses could still be invalid if a court later finds that Hall lacked the authority to issue them.

Hartman also noted that every judge who has considered a gay marriage ban in the past year — including one in Colorado the previous afternoon — has found it unconstitutional. He said Colorado’s prohibition is “hanging on by a thread.”

Hall has issued more than 100 same-sex marriage licenses since the 10th Circuit’s June 25 ruling. Republican state Attorney General John Suthers sued Hall, the only Colorado clerk who defied the federal stay.

Hall argued that despite the stay, Colorado’s gay-marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution.

Suthers said Hall’s behavior was causing “legal chaos” while the issue works its way through the courts.

Nancy Leong, a University of Denver law professor, said Hartman’s ruling effectively allows government officials to sometimes disobey state law if they believe it violates the nation’s founding principles.

“I read his opinion to say a certain level of what we may call civil disobedience is permissible under the U.S. Constitution,” Leong said.

She said that, in the abstract, it seemed unlikely a judge would permit a government official to do something contrary to state law. But things play out differently in the notoriously liberal Colorado city known as “The Berkeley of the Rockies.”

“It’s Boulder,” Leong said.

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper appointed Hartman to the bench last year. A spokesman for the governor did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

The decision from a three-judge 10th Circuit panel found states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose partners of the same sex.

The ruling became law in the six states covered by the court: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. However, the panel immediately put the decision on hold pending an appeal.

On Wednesday, the office of the Utah attorney general announced it will challenge the panel’s ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning the nation’s highest court will have at least one same-sex marriage case on its plate when it returns in October.

In Colorado, District Judge C. Scott Crabtree on Wednesday became the 16th judge to strike down a state’s gay marriage ban in the past year, but he also put his ruling on hold pending an appeal.

Crabtree wrote that the provisions in Colorado law clearly violate the state and U.S. constitutions. “There is no rational relationship between any legitimate governmental purpose and the marriage bans,” he wrote.

The ruling will be appealed by Attorney General John Suthers’ office, which defended the ban.

And other counties are following suit:

Denver clerk begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26124588/denver-clerk-begins-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses

By Jon Murray and Kieran Nicholson The Denver Post

Thursday, July 10, 2014 - 12:12 p.m.

Erika Hellgren holds a sign outside the Boulder County Justice Center in Boulder Colo., Wednesday, July 9, 2014, to support Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Hillary Hall. Hall is in court to respond to a suit brought by Attorney General John Suthers. Suthers is suing Hall for ignoring a stay of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against Utah?s gay marriage ban. Hall said she is justified by last month?s 10th U.S. Circuit ruling in Denver. (AP Photo/The Daily Camera, Cliff Grassmick) NO SALES (Cliff Grassmick/AP)

The Denver County clerk's office on Thursday began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, just hours after a Boulder judge rejected a bid by the state to block a similar move there.

The first couple, Samantha Gitman, 33, and Victoria Quintana, 23, got their license shortly before 2 p.m. They were far outnumbered by reporters, photographers and activists.

Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson's decision came after a Boulder County judge said he would allow Boulder's clerk to continue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, rejecting a request from Attorney General John Suthers to issue an injunction.

Johnson said on her Twitter account: "FINALLY! We can issue marriage licenses to ALL loving couples here in CO. Our Office will be issuing licenses till 4:30 pm today."

Earlier Thursday, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock told Post journalists during a meeting that he would back any decision Johnson made about issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

"As a city, we have stood together against injustice and for the rights of all people," Hancock said in a statement. "Today, I fully support Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson in her issuing of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who simply want the freedom to be united with the ones they love. I stand proudly with her as we take another step toward marriage equality for every single resident of this great city."

Just after noon, Denver clerk's spokesman William Porter said no same-sex couple had yet arrived to apply for a license.

When Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Hillary Hall began issuing same-sex marriage licenses on June 25, Johnson had said Denver would hold off until officials felt they had the legal authority to follow suit.

On Thursday, though, Porter said Johnson decided on a change in course in consultation with city attorneys, following the new Boulder ruling and the outcome of another lawsuit naming Johnson. Couples in Denver and Adams counties challenged the state's same-sex marriage ban in Adams County court, anda judge ruled Wednesday that the ban is unconstitutional.

But in that case, Judge C. Scott Crabtree issued an immediate stay in his ruling, pending the state's expected appeal.

The Boulder ruling Thursday gave Denver legal cover, in officials' view.

"Now, thanks to Clerk Hall's bravery, we can issue licenses today," Porter said.

He added: "We view this not only as the legal green light, but we're thankful that we can finally provide this fundamental right. We're one step closer to marriage equality, but this is not the end of the journey."

In the Boulder ruling on a temporary restraining order request, Judge Andrew Hartman wrote that the validity of any marriage licenses issued by the Boulder clerk's office to same-sex couples was conditional ultimately upon courts finding Hall had the proper authority.

That likely leaves any marriage license issued to same-sex couples in some legal limbo until higher courts rule on the validity of Colorado's gay marriage ban.

[Buckeye]

From both a PR and ward-unity stance, I think it would be a disaster if this trend continues and then SCOTUS reverses 5-4.  Gay marriage would then become an even bigger issue (if that's possible) as the battle go state-by-state.  Eventually even Utah would adopt SSM democratically (only 60% approved the ban 10+ years ago).  But until that point wards in these battle states would be drawn apart as members line up on different sides.  The best outcome is for the state/church to see this to SCOTUS so that they can say they fought the good fight, but then lose and agree to step down having lost a fair fight. 

[Daniel2]

From both a PR and ward-unity stance, I think it would be a disaster if this trend continues and then SCOTUS reverses 5-4. Gay marriage would then become an even bigger issue (if that's possible) as the battle go state-by-state. Eventually even Utah would adopt SSM democratically (only 60% approved the ban 10+ years ago). But until that point wards in these battle states would be drawn apart as members line up on different sides. The best outcome is for the state/church to see this to SCOTUS so that they can say they fought the good fight, but then lose and agree to step down having lost a fair fight.

You make a good point, and probably are spot on about the Utah AG and governor's determination to see this losing battle all the way through to the Supreme Court, in keeping with the church's round about directive (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-hopes-nations-highest-court-will-uphold-traditional-marriage) for them to see it through to SCOTUS.

It really is the only way "out" for the church or Utah leaders, at this point. So, the best solution would be to have the fight taken away from them through a ruling against their stance, and then they'll be able to say they did all they could.

I think they underestimate the damage it's done (and still doing) from a PR perspective.

[Daniel2]

I wider if all of those on this board that asserted Judge Walker was just a gay activist judge for his ruling against Prop 8 still think that. Are there no judges in America that are not activist judges marching to the gay agenda?

Or perhaps there is no gay agenda, just the agenda for equality for every American. And perhaps Judge Walker's ruling was indeed couched in law guaranteed by the constitution

Indeed, CB.... your post reminds me of this editorial egg-on-the-face gem from the Deseret News...

In our opinion: Judicial tyranny

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865592839/Judicial-tyranny.html

Deseret News editorial

Published: Fri, Dec. 20 11:00 p.m. MST

(Michael Madsen, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The essence of judicial tyranny is when a single, unelected federal judge declares the laws and constitution of an entire state null and void with an opinion clothed in the barest of legal precedent.

Late on Friday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby overstepped judicial bounds, ignored the weight of settled precedent and insulted Utah’s electorate by striking down Amendment 3 to Utah’s Constitution, the provision that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Overreach

How marriage is defined in American society is admittedly one of the great legal and political contests of our day. But in that contest, one would hope for fair play. Friday’s decision was made without the benefit of a trial. Acting on a motion for summary judgment, the decision rests on one judge’s creative interpretation of precedent.

Results-driven creativity from trial courts is nothing new. But given the complex legal and practical consequences associated with this decision, it was utterly irresponsible for Judge Shelby to not simultaneously stay the enforcement of his decision pending the benefit of appellate review.

Efforts to overturn the constitution of a state must involve greater care and deference than pre-trial proceedings. Such a decision, subject to full substantive review by an appellate court, should prudently preserve the status quo until that review is complete.

That would seem to apply even more forcefully in a review of how Utah defines marriage given that the enabling act that permitted Utah to join the union in 1896 specified that our state adopt constitutionally a traditional definition of marriage.

Ignoring precedent

The suit, filed in March by three gay and lesbian couples — including one whose same-gender marriage was performed in Iowa — gained steam after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in June.

That Supreme Court decision, Windsor v. U.S., dealt with the federal definition of marriage.

The Windsor case, however, pointedly did not impact state laws defining marriage.

Indeed, in the Windsor case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, reasoned that “the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage” was a central plank in the Supreme Court’s decision that the federal government could not, through the Defense of Marriage Act, undercut the state of New York’s definition of marriage.

Instead of relying on the reasoning and clear language from the majority opinion from the Supreme Court, Shelby’s opinion relies on Justice Antonin Scalia’s sardonic dissent – which has no precedential value.

And instead of following the one Supreme Court case that has dealt squarely with a constitutional challenge to a state’s prohibition against same-sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson), Shelby’s opinion creatively stitches together “doctrinal developments” to ignore what arguably should bind this lowest of federal courts.

It is true that state efforts to restrict marriage on the basis of race have run afoul of the federal constitutional protections against racial discrimination. But as we scour the legal landscape, we find no 10th Circuit or Supreme Court precedent that prevents Utah from adhering to a traditional definition of marriage. Nonetheless, Judge Shelby’s blithe mix-and-match approach to legal argumentation has, for the time being, created a new class of same-gender applicants deemed “married” under the Utah Constitution.

Ignoring rational arguments

Furthermore, the decision’s approach to the application of federal equal protection standards takes a remarkably condescending tone toward Utah’s Constitution. Admitting that a strong presumption in favor of constitutionality should apply, the decision goes on to say there is no rational basis for Utah’s Amendment 3.

It deems Amendment 3 to be an act of “sex discrimination” even though there is no difference between the way men and women are treated under Utah marriage law.

It entertains the argument that “Utah citizens voted for Amendment 3 out of a dislike of gay and lesbian individuals.”

Because this was decided without the benefit of a trial of the facts, the court feels free to dismiss as irrational the state’s contention (and by extension the voters’ contention) that there are prudential reasons for moving cautiously when adjusting the marital norms that have served society for millennia, that there may be something uniquely important for the benefit of children about supporting the biologically intact family, that religious liberties might require special consideration given the role of marriage in religious teaching and practice.

Gays and lesbians are not deprived of any rights they are due in a liberal democracy when a state, like Utah, through open democratic processes insists that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Utah Attorney General’s Office said it would seek an “emergency stay pending the filing of an appeal.”

In order to maintain legitimacy, unelected judges must demonstrate that they are acting with prudence, discretion and with proper regard to the fabric of our state’s and our nation’s tradition of ordered liberty, their fundamental laws, their constitutions and the settled precedents that enforce them. In our opinion, Friday’s decision to redefine marriage in Utah has failed to maintain this trust.

The legal and judicial landscape has certainly changed since just this past December... I wonder if any of the scribes who wrote the above have had a change of heart...

[Daniel2]

A surprising late-night update in the Utah case this evening:

 

UTAH: Tenth Circuit Court Denies Request For Permanent Stay, "Go To SCOTUS"
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/07/breaking-tenth-circuit-court-rules-that.html?m=1#disqus_thread

Via press release from the ACLU of Utah:

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denied Utah's request to suspend a lower court's ruling ordering the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who were legally married after a federal court struck down a state ban, but before the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted additional marriages from taking place. Over 1,000 same-sex couples married in Utah during that time period. In May, a federal court ordered the state to recognize those marriages as legally valid, but Utah had asked that the lower court's order be suspended as the appeals process continued. Today's ruling denies that request, but does give the state 10 days to decide to seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The couples are represented by American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Utah, and Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC, who sought the preliminary injunction for the marriages to be recognized while their lawsuit continues. "It's a relief to our clients and the 1,000 other lawfully wedded same-sex couples in our state that their marriages will be recognized throughout this process," said John Mejia, legal director of the ACLU of Utah. "We continue to fight to ensure that these loving and committed couples get the permanent recognition they deserve."

"The court of appeals has granted these families the peace of mind of knowing that they will not be excluded from the protection and dignity that only marriage can provide," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. "We're grateful that these couples will be able to move forward with their lives as this case moves forward in the courts."The lawsuit is separate from the original federal case challenging Utah's marriage ban, which was recently also struck down by the 10th Circuit. That case was brought by the law firm of Magleby & Greenwood on behalf of three other couples. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in that case.

Tonight's ruling was issued with a temporary 10-day stay to give the state time to appeal the US Supreme Court. The stay expires on July 21st.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes says he will rush to SCOTUS.

"In response to the United States Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit denial of stay in Evans v. Utah, the state is prepared to file an Application for Stay before the United States Supreme Court in the coming days to avoid uncertainty," according to a statement from the attorney general’s office. "The State recognizes that pending cases regarding same-sex marriage in Utah impact the lives of many individuals and families and is diligently seeking uniform certainty through proper and orderly legal processes until Kitchen v. Herbert is resolved."

[rongo]

california boy and Daniel2:

 

If the  gay marriage juggernaut continues to roll, and gay marriage is decisively legalized in all U.S. states and territories, do you support (think it is just and right, etc.):

 

a) legal penalties/sanctions against the LDS Church for bishops refusing to perform civil marriages for gay couples

 

b) legal penalties/sanctions against the LDS Church for not allowing gay sealings to be performed in temples

 

I'm curious as to whether your answers are different for a and b, or the same.

 

Regardless of what you personally feel about a and b, what do you think will be the actual long-term effect of decisively legalized gay marriage on the Church's ability to refuse to perform gay civil or temple marriages? That is, if you think it would be wrong to punish the Church, do you think it will happen anyway? Or, do you think these concerns are completely unfounded?

 

Thanks in advance!

[thesometimesaint]

california boy and Daniel2:

 

If the  gay marriage juggernaut continues to roll, and gay marriage is decisively legalized in all U.S. states and territories, do you support (think it is just and right, etc.):

 

a) legal penalties/sanctions against the LDS Church for bishops refusing to perform civil marriages for gay couples

 

b) legal penalties/sanctions against the LDS Church for not allowing gay sealings to be performed in temples

 

I'm curious as to whether your answers are different for a and b, or the same.

 

Regardless of what you personally feel about a and b, what do you think will be the actual long-term effect of decisively legalized gay marriage on the Church's ability to refuse to perform gay civil or temple marriages? That is, if you think it would be wrong to punish the Church, do you think it will happen anyway? Or, do you think these concerns are completely unfounded?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

The Church is a private organization. It doesn't have to accept anyone for membership it doesn't want to.

[rongo]

But what about when government deems private organizations' criteria to violate basic human/civil rights, etc.?

 

Persecution of the Church for refusing to perform gay marriages has nothing to do with forcing the Church to accept anyone for membership it doesn't want to (that would be forcing the Church to baptize practicing homosexuals, which isn't a concern). It has to do (in the United States) with the fact that marriages performed by LDS ministers are recognized by the state, potentially giving the government say in punishing/sanctioning "discriminatory" actions.

[rongo]

thesometimessaint:

 

Hypothetically, if the government were to punish the Church for refusing to perform gay civil or temple marriages (even though you say this can never happen), would you be angry about this? Or, would you say that the Church is just going to have to toe the line?

[Daniel2]

california boy and Daniel2:

 

If the  gay marriage juggernaut continues to roll, and gay marriage is decisively legalized in all U.S. states and territories, do you support (think it is just and right, etc.):

 

a) legal penalties/sanctions against the LDS Church for bishops refusing to perform civil marriages for gay couples

 

b) legal penalties/sanctions against the LDS Church for not allowing gay sealings to be performed in temples

 

I'm curious as to whether your answers are different for a and b, or the same.

 

Regardless of what you personally feel about a and b, what do you think will be the actual long-term effect of decisively legalized gay marriage on the Church's ability to refuse to perform gay civil or temple marriages? That is, if you think it would be wrong to punish the Church, do you think it will happen anyway? Or, do you think these concerns are completely unfounded?

 

Thanks in advance!

I agree with Sometimesaint.

I would also add:

No, of course the government will NO force clergy from ANY religion (including LOS bishops) to marry anyone that doesn't meet said religion's requirements. For example: the government doesn't force Catholics or Mormons to marry mixed-religion couples, divorces, etc. The government doesn't force religions to marry interracial couples contrary to any Faith's beliefs.

The same is true of temples, synagogues, chapels, mosques, etc. Government has never forced any religion to admit citizens that don't qualify for entrance contrary to said religion's values.

Religions are and will continue to be free to discriminate based on their own religious values.

And that's how it should be.

Social pressure will cause the most change within the church to eventually accept gays and lesbians. Such social pressure will manifest itself as declining membership and tithing (especially among increasingly LGBT-inclusive LDS youth), decreasing convert baptisms and retention rates, exclusion from sports leagues and professional and scholastic accreditation, and increasing gulf between BSA and the church (widening the gap between Mormonism and social relevancy), etc.

[Daniel2]

But what about when government deems private organizations' criteria to violate basic human/civil rights, etc.?

This is a good example of a strawman argument.

No one has a civil or basic right to be a member of or be admitted into a church or as a member of any religion. The U.S. constitution protects religions' freedom from government establishment or control.

 

Persecution of the Church for refusing to perform gay marriages has nothing to do with forcing the Church to accept anyone for membership it doesn't want to (that would be forcing the Church to baptize practicing homosexuals, which isn't a concern). It has to do (in the United States) with the fact that marriages performed by LDS ministers are recognized by the state, potentially giving the government say in punishing/sanctioning "discriminatory" actions.

The same principle you correctly identify as government having no power to force a church to baptize non-members applies to preserving religion's right to only marry people according to the dictates of their religion.

Civil marriage equality is exactly that---a civil matter. All couples have an equal civil right to get civilly married. NO ONE has ever had a constitutionally-protected right to get married in whatever religion they want to.

[rongo]

Hypothetically, though . . .

 

If government were to force churches to perform gay civil marriages, are you telling me that gay marriage advocates/activists would speak out against it?

 

With a straight face?

[california boy]

california boy and Daniel2:

If the gay marriage juggernaut continues to roll, and gay marriage is decisively legalized in all U.S. states and territories, do you support (think it is just and right, etc.):

a) legal penalties/sanctions against the LDS Church for bishops refusing to perform civil marriages for gay couples

b) legal penalties/sanctions against the LDS Church for not allowing gay sealings to be performed in temples

I'm curious as to whether your answers are different for a and b, or the same.

Regardless of what you personally feel about a and b, what do you think will be the actual long-term effect of decisively legalized gay marriage on the Church's ability to refuse to perform gay civil or temple marriages? That is, if you think it would be wrong to punish the Church, do you think it will happen anyway? Or, do you think these concerns are completely unfounded?

Thanks in advance!

I adamantly and passionately believe the government has no right to impose penalties

/sanctions against the LDS Church in either case.

The issue isn't about gay marriage for me. It never has been. For me it has always been about civil rights and treating people equally under the law. No religion has the right to dictate to someone else who they should and shouldn't marry.

I feel just as passionate that no gay group has the right to define what a religion should believe or practice. If such a movement started I would be on gay boards passionately defending the churches right to practice their religions as it chooses.

In my opinion, the church made a grave mistake in believing that it should impose its beliefs on others. Perhaps we one day will see the citizens of a state vote to force churches to impose their pro gay marriage beliefs on churches It is unlikely but we have seen the public vote to take away the constitutional rights of a minority before haven't we. What defense does the church now have if others now want to impose their beliefs on the church?

I am confident the courts will protect the guaranteed rights of them as well.

Long term effects on the church when gay marriage is legalized? The effect has already happened. Unfortunately because of Prop 8 the church will be thought of as a bigoted church that is unwelcoming to gays. That will only increase as acceptance of gay marriage increases. We have seen it all happen before when blacks were also more accepted by churches and society. If you were a member in the 60's and 70's you already know what is coming.

[california boy]

Dupe sorry

[california boy]

Hypothetically, though . . .

If government were to force churches to perform gay civil marriages, are you telling me that gay marriage advocates/activists would speak out against it?

With a straight face?

Some would. I definitely would.

I am sure there would also be those that believe the church was getting what it deserved. Others forcing their beliefs on the church.

[california boy]

Social pressure will cause the most change within the church to eventually accept gays and lesbians. Such social pressure will manifest itself as declining membership and tithing (especially among increasingly LGBT-inclusive LDS youth), decreasing convert baptisms and retention rates, exclusion from sports leagues and professional and scholastic accreditation, and increasing gulf between BSA and the church (widening the gap between Mormonism and social relevancy), etc.

I disagree with you. It is not social pressure that is changing churches or the BSA. It is the realization that a Christian and BSA value is inclusion. It is not a sin to have sex within the bonds of marriage. It is the right thing to do. The alternative is to encourage gay couples to live outside the marriage vows. Forcing celibacy is also not a Christian value.

[Daniel2]

Hypothetically, though . . .

If government were to force churches to perform gay civil marriages, are you telling me that gay marriage advocates/activists would speak out against it?

With a straight face?

Absolutely.

While I don't doubt there would be some gay individuals who would express their delight and relish at the thought of such unjust government force (as would be said individuals' right to freely express their opinion), I firmly believe that no politically-mainstream marriage equality group would lobby for or support such government imposition on religious freedom.

When considering groups such American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Campaign, Equality Utah, Equality California, American Foundation for Equal Rights, etc., I am confident any such LGBT-inclusive organizations (that are actually taken seriously in the public realm) would speak out in defense of religious liberty.

In fact, I have proof that such will be the case, because a similar situation occurred just last month:

Even though the ACLU is a passionate defender of marriage equality, it defended LDS organizers' right to exclude "Mormons Building Bridges" (a non-official, LDS, LGBT-inclusive group) from marching in the Days of 47 parade, defending against government interference compelling the inclusion of Mormons Building Bridges (as has been reported and discussed elsewhere on this board). It specified that such unjust government interference is a "bridge too far" it cannot and will not support:

ACLU tells SLC Council to back off pushing gay rights group into Days of ’47 parade

http://fox13now.com/2014/06/03/aclu-tells-slc-council-to-back-off-pushing-gay-rights-group-into-days-of-47-parade/

POSTED 10:02 AM, JUNE 3, 2014, BY BEN WINSLOW

SALT LAKE CITY — The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah is telling the Salt Lake City Council to back off from sending a letter to organizers of the annual Days of ’47 parade in support of a gay rights group.

The Salt Lake City Council is considering sending a letter to organizers of the annual Pioneer Day parade, encouraging them to allow the group “Mormons Building Bridges” to march. So far, parade organizers have said no.

In a letter sent to the Salt Lake City Council and obtained by FOX 13, ACLU of Utah executive director Karen McCreary cautioned the Council against it, saying “we believe it is a bridge too far for a governmental entity to use official tactics, like sending a letter on Council letterhead that mentions municipal code, in its attempt to influence private parade organizers to alter the makeup of their parade.”

[Daniel2]

It is not social pressure that is changing churches or the BSA. It is the realization that a Christian and BSA value is inclusion. It is not a sin to have sex within the bonds of marriage. It is the right thing to do. The alternative is to encourage gay couples to live outside the marriage vows. Forcing celibacy is also not a Christian value.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote above and don't feel it contradicts anything I wrote, but I accept you are free to disagree with my wording, as is your right. ;-)

[california boy]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote above and don't feel it contradicts anything I wrote, but I accept you are free to disagree with my wording, as is your right. ;-)

I know I am just being nit picky

[Daniel2]

The US Attorney General from the Department of Justice weighs in:

DOJ Set to Fight Gay-Marriage Bans in Supreme Court

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/doj-set-fight-gay-marriage-bans-supreme-court/story?id=24537941

By PIERRE THOMAS (@PierreTABC) , MIKE LEVINE (@mlevinereports) , JACK DATE (@JackDate) and JACK CLOHERTY (@jjclo)Jul 13, 2014, 9:00 AM

The Justice Department is set to urge the Supreme Court to uphold a lower-court ruling and block states from banning same-sex marriage, Attorney General Eric Holder said.

The nation's top law enforcement official's remarks come just days after Utah officials announced they will ask the Supreme Court to overrule a lower court that concluded gay couples can legally marry in the state.

Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that a state ban on gay marriage, approved by Utah voters in 2004, was unconstitutional, finding that states cannot keep two people from marrying simply because they are of the same sex.

Now the state of Utah is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in, as several other federal appeals courts across the nation consider similar cases that could make their way to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear any of those cases, the Justice Department will file a brief with the court that "will be in support of same-sex marriage," Holder said in a rare interview, sitting down with ABC News' Pierre Thomas.

Holder said the brief would be "consistent with the actions that we have taken over the past couple of years." The Justice Department has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and its legal efforts to extend federal benefits to same-sex couples have been successful.

Those efforts, Holder said, were "vindicated by the Supreme Court," which ruled last year that same-sex couples must receive the same federal benefits as other married people. That ruling in the so-called "Windsor decision," however, did not specifically address whether gay marriage is a constitutional right.

The Supreme Court could rule on that question if it takes up Utah's appeal or any of the similar cases.

Holder said he believes banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and he's confident the nation's highest court will agree.

"I think a lot of these measures that ultimately will come before the court will not survive a heightened scrutiny examination," he said.

Holder recently called the struggle for gay rights "a defining civil rights challenge of our time," adding that the gay and lesbian community is waiting for an "unequivocal declaration that separate is inherently unequal."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.