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

[Daniel2]

Recognizing same-sex marriage doesn't harm your marriage or family in any way. Concurrently, while prohibiting gays from marrying offers no immediately problems for you, it currently, directly, measurably, and continuously harms me and my family in the here and now.

 

No news item attached to my post today (not yet, at least).

 

As most here know, almost ten years ago, I formally left the church after I came out of the closet.  I have earned a reputation as a “one note wonder” for the themes of my posts here, which almost always center on LGBT issues related to the LDS church, culture, and forays into politics related to “gay rights.” 

 

Because I have been single, my posts have often been conceptual; abstract; related to a world I hoped would someday happen.

 

I’ve alluded in some of my more recent  posts to my current boyfriend and partner.  He and I have been blessed to find one another, and I couldn’t be prouder or more happy to have met an incredible man with whom to share my life.  As returned missionaries born and raised in the church who both eventually married with the best of intentions, had children, and ultimately divorced, we have much in common.  His children and even his ex-wife (who’s now remarried) have welcomed me into the family, and I love everything about him and his children, one of whom lives with us.  My family has struggled more with how to integrate him into their lives; some have accepted him, others utterly reject him.  There is still more growth for us all as we navigate learning how to love and accept one another, despite our differences. 

 

Throughout everything, his love for me, and my love for him, has become an anchor in my life; our north star that guides us to greater compassion and acceptance of others, even those who reject us.  He has brought so many blessings into my life, and I hope he would say the same of me.

 

As you all know, I have been a vocal advocate for equal civil marriage rights.  Earlier this summer, my fight for marriage moved beyond the conceptual and into reality, when he proposed.  Nothing has made us, and his children happier, and many of our friends and family are excited for us to marry.  Although my children know I am gay and we have discussed in on occasion, I have avoided introducing them to any guys I’ve dated, because I believe children of divorce shouldn’t be exposed to a revolving door of boyfriends or girlfriends by either of their parents—straight or gay.  Their mother has not been accepting at all, and continually tries to use “the gay issue” and my non-membership in the church to drive a wedge between my kids and I.

 

Because my children are still younger and not as accepting as my fiancé’s  children are, we decided to wait until marriage is legalized here in our home state here in Utah.  We want my children to understand that we are not doing something abstract and unrecognized; we want them to see, understand, recognize that our government recognizes our relationship as legitimate and real, even though my children’s Faith may not.  Both he and I respect my children’s faith; we do not speak negatively or critically of how the LDS church approaches the issue.  Instead, I focus on the positives my relationship brings.  As we await SCOTUS’s decision, it gives my children and I time to continue to work on their understanding of my relationship with him.

 

In the meantime, I work for a very progressive International company in Salt Lake City.  It is a very diverse environment, which encourages mutual respect for all, regardless of  race, religion, gender, age, or sexual orientation.  In fact, my company allows employees to register their same-sex partner for medical insurance and other shared benefits at the same cost as married couples.

 

This past month, as my fiancé and I compared health insurance benefits, it became clear that my insurance is far superior to the insurance offered by his company, a Utah-based, LDS-owned business (which doesn’t offer health insurance for same-sex spouses, anyway).  So, we agreed to sign he and his two youngest children up on my insurance plan.  It was wonderful to be able to have that option.

 

Today, I received the bad news—one that directly and measurably demonstrates what I was trying to explain to Stargazer: state restrictions refusing to recognize same-sex marriage directly and immediately harm me and my family because we are denied equal benefits that our straight counterparts take for granted.  And here’s how: It turns out that even though my company offers the same benefits at the same cost to both straight and gay families, because Utah refuses to recognize our relationship, I will now be paying $240.00 a month in taxes on the cost of my partner’s health insurance premium—a tax that legally married straight couples do not have to pay.  That amounts to $2,880.00 extra in taxes a year.

 

I was shocked.  Same-sex marriage has always been about equal dignity, to me... About the ability for my government, which I support with my taxes, to accept me, my relationship, and MY deeply-held religious Faith (Unitarian Universalism) as equal as the next person’s would be.  I’ve never personally experienced an actual, concrete, financial impact that directly affects me, my spouse, and our children.  It upsets me and angers me.  And it renews my energy that this is a fight not only about equal dignity, but of equal civil rights.  

[thesometimesaint]

I'm no lawyer, and don't play on television. However you may have a legal claim under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. The down side is that such appeals to the courts is expensive to make.

[Buckeye]

Daniel,

 

I am very sad to hear about your tax treatment, though I'm not surprised.  FWIW, I do think there is great value is respectfully bringing to light such injustices.  You will not convince everyone.  I'm sure you are already well acquainted with the standard rejoinder that "you are not deprived of anything; the tax treatment is a benefit for those interests the state seeks to advance and your union doesn't advance those interests."  But you will have an impact on some.   Ten years ago, it could have been me.

 

I'm a life-long member of the church who advocated and voted in 2004 for Ohio's amendment defining marriage as solely man-woman.  At the time, I knew of a few gay friends and family members, but I chose to seal myself off from that part of their lives.  Since then I have repented.  I have asked questions and listened quite a lot.  We've shared meals and life.  And because I have opened my eyes and ears my views have changed 180-degrees. 

 

I don't support civil SSM because it is equal (though that is a valid reason).  I support it because it is good.  I've seen the blessing marriage has brought to my SSA friends and family.  It is the very same blessing that comes to me through my heterosexual marriage.  As just one example, a co-worker and good friend recently left our company to live closer to her wife and child.  It was the right decision.  Work had caused them to be separated for too long.  But my friend was quite nervous because she was now going into business for herself.  That takes courage - more courage than I would have.  In speaking with my friend about the transition, all she could say was how blessed she was to have a wife who loves and has faith in her.  It meant everything.  I knew exactly how she feels because my wife is also my rock.

 

Daniel, at the risk of getting too personal, let me just say this.  A few years ago my gay cousin moved to Utah.  I'm sure he's not you.  But for some reason I've always put his imagine forefront in my mind when I read your posts.  It helps with the anonimity of a message board.  My cousin also served a mission for the church and has fought for acceptance his whole life.  He never married or had kids, but he would (and I hope some day will) make a great dad.  And frankly you sound a lot like him.  Know that you have friends near Kirtland who are praying for you and your family. 

 

Good fruit only comes from good trees.  Here's hoping that our country soon recognizes and puts its full faith and support behind yours.  When it does, it will in no small measure be because of the fruit of the life you have lived. 

[Buckeye]

One more thing.  If you didn't know, Bill Watterson grew up in a small town near Kirtland - Chagrin Falls.  Calvin and Hobbes' town is modeled after it. 

[rockpond]

 

No news item attached to my post today (not yet, at least).

 

As most here know, almost ten years ago, I formally left the church after I came out of the closet.  I have earned a reputation as a “one note wonder” for the themes of my posts here, which almost always center on LGBT issues related to the LDS church, culture, and forays into politics related to “gay rights.” 

 

Because I have been single, my posts have often been conceptual; abstract; related to a world I hoped would someday happen.

 

I’ve alluded in some of my more recent  posts to my current boyfriend and partner.  He and I have been blessed to find one another, and I couldn’t be prouder or more happy to have met an incredible man with whom to share my life.  As returned missionaries born and raised in the church who both eventually married with the best of intentions, had children, and ultimately divorced, we have much in common.  His children and even his ex-wife (who’s now remarried) have welcomed me into the family, and I love everything about him and his children, one of whom lives with us.  My family has struggled more with how to integrate him into their lives; some have accepted him, others utterly reject him.  There is still more growth for us all as we navigate learning how to love and accept one another, despite our differences. 

 

Throughout everything, his love for me, and my love for him, has become an anchor in my life; our north star that guides us to greater compassion and acceptance of others, even those who reject us.  He has brought so many blessings into my life, and I hope he would say the same of me.

 

As you all know, I have been a vocal advocate for equal civil marriage rights.  Earlier this summer, my fight for marriage moved beyond the conceptual and into reality, when he proposed.  Nothing has made us, and his children happier, and many of our friends and family are excited for us to marry.  Although my children know I am gay and we have discussed in on occasion, I have avoided introducing them to any guys I’ve dated, because I believe children of divorce shouldn’t be exposed to a revolving door of boyfriends or girlfriends by either of their parents—straight or gay.  Their mother has not been accepting at all, and continually tries to use “the gay issue” and my non-membership in the church to drive a wedge between my kids and I.

 

Because my children are still younger and not as accepting as my fiancé’s  children are, we decided to wait until marriage is legalized here in our home state here in Utah.  We want my children to understand that we are not doing something abstract and unrecognized; we want them to see, understand, recognize that our government recognizes our relationship as legitimate and real, even though my children’s Faith may not.  Both he and I respect my children’s faith; we do not speak negatively or critically of how the LDS church approaches the issue.  Instead, I focus on the positives my relationship brings.  As we await SCOTUS’s decision, it gives my children and I time to continue to work on their understanding of my relationship with him.

 

In the meantime, I work for a very progressive International company in Salt Lake City.  It is a very diverse environment, which encourages mutual respect for all, regardless of  race, religion, gender, age, or sexual orientation.  In fact, my company allows employees to register their same-sex partner for medical insurance and other shared benefits at the same cost as married couples.

 

This past month, as my fiancé and I compared health insurance benefits, it became clear that my insurance is far superior to the insurance offered by his company, a Utah-based, LDS-owned business (which doesn’t offer health insurance for same-sex spouses, anyway).  So, we agreed to sign he and his two youngest children up on my insurance plan.  It was wonderful to be able to have that option.

 

Today, I received the bad news—one that directly and measurably demonstrates what I was trying to explain to Stargazer: state restrictions refusing to recognize same-sex marriage directly and immediately harm me and my family because we are denied equal benefits that our straight counterparts take for granted.  And here’s how: It turns out that even though my company offers the same benefits at the same cost to both straight and gay families, because Utah refuses to recognize our relationship, I will now be paying $240.00 a month in taxes on the cost of my partner’s health insurance premium—a tax that legally married straight couples do not have to pay.  That amounts to $2,880.00 extra in taxes a year.

 

I was shocked.  Same-sex marriage has always been about equal dignity, to me... About the ability for my government, which I support with my taxes, to accept me, my relationship, and MY deeply-held religious Faith (Unitarian Universalism) as equal as the next person’s would be.  I’ve never personally experienced an actual, concrete, financial impact that directly affects me, my spouse, and our children.  It upsets me and angers me.  And it renews my energy that this is a fight not only about equal dignity, but of equal civil rights.  

 

I'm very sorry to hear this, Daniel.  But, I'm confident that SCOTUS will get this settled next summer.  Hopefully you won't have to live with this injustice for too long.

[Daniel2]

I'm no lawyer, and don't play on television. However you may have a legal claim under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. The down side is that such appeals to the courts is expensive to make.

 

Haha.... thanks, Sometimesaint.   Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until SCOTUS decides for everyone.

 

I appreciate the thoughtful response, Buckeye.  I am glad that your experiences brought you to a new understanding.

 

And thanks, Rockpond.  I agree--hopefully, next summer will bring a positive result and we can put the issue of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples to rest.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................

.........................................

And thanks, Rockpond.  I agree--hopefully, next summer will bring a positive result and we can put the issue of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples to rest.

The issue is much bigger than SSM, and extends to all manner of non-traditional marriage.  In the process, the justices will be revisiting and likely overturning Reynolds v USA.  I am always amazed at how narrowly the general public sees this, and at how the average Mormon thinks traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.  Not so long ago, a good Mormon was expected to have a different sort of "traditional" set of marriages.  The realization of what is at stake has not set in yet.  But it will . . . 

[strappinglad]

I am currently watching a 3 part series called " Prohibition " by Ken Burns. I think it applies to the current legal procedures surrounding SSM. I await , with some trepidation, for the 'law of unintended consequences " to kick in.

[Stone holm]

The issue is much bigger than SSM, and extends to all manner of non-traditional marriage.  In the process, the justices will be revisiting and likely overturning Reynolds v USA.  I am always amazed at how narrowly the general public sees this, and at how the average Mormon thinks traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.  Not so long ago, a good Mormon was expected to have a different sort of "traditional" set of marriages.  The realization of what is at stake has not set in yet.  But it will . . .

The issue is much bigger than SSM, and extends to all manner of non-traditional marriage.  In the process, the justices will be revisiting and likely overturning Reynolds v USA.  I am always amazed at how narrowly the general public sees this, and at how the average Mormon thinks traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.  Not so long ago, a good Mormon was expected to have a different sort of "traditional" set of marriages.  The realization of what is at stake has not set in yet.  But it will . . .

Actually even under plural marriage, the marriage was between one man and one woman, they were not group marriages. But I agree the logical impact of Hobby Lobby coupled with a possible SCOTUS opinion favoring SSM raises even more grave doubts about US v Reynolds than already existed which were legion. I have always thought that the Church's position on first the ERA and now SSM was motivated in part because of a fear that Reynolds would be overturned and create an extremely awkward Mormon Moment.

[rockpond]

I am currently watching a 3 part series called " Prohibition " by Ken Burns. I think it applies to the current legal procedures surrounding SSM. I await , with some trepidation, for the 'law of unintended consequences " to kick in.

Care to elaborate on what you think the unintended consequences might be?

[thesometimesaint]

I am currently watching a 3 part series called " Prohibition " by Ken Burns. I think it applies to the current legal procedures surrounding SSM. I await , with some trepidation, for the 'law of unintended consequences " to kick in.

 

It is a good series. Though I don't see a direct connection here. Prohibition tried to extend teetotaler actions to everyone. SSM would allow just those that want to marry to marry.

[strappinglad]

Two words , government regulators . I have mentioned this before. Title 9 was a law concerning equal housing. It was about one sentence long. After the busy government bees finished writing regulations pertaining thereto, they had a stack of rules 8 ft. high. Also, as Robert said, the door will be opened for new and exciting marriage forms. I foresee changes in school curriculum . Unintended also includes unknown and unexpected.

[rockpond]

Two words , government regulators . I have mentioned this before. Title 9 was a law concerning equal housing. It was about one sentence long. After the busy government bees finished writing regulations pertaining thereto, they had a stack of rules 8 ft. high. Also, as Robert said, the door will be opened for new and exciting marriage forms. I foresee changes in school curriculum . Unintended also includes unknown and unexpected.

 

I look toward those places that have had gay marriage for some time now and any consequences (intended or otherwise) seem positive to me.

[Daniel2]

Two words , government regulators . I have mentioned this before. Title 9 was a law concerning equal housing. It was about one sentence long. After the busy government bees finished writing regulations pertaining thereto, they had a stack of rules 8 ft. high. Also, as Robert said, the door will be opened for new and exciting marriage forms. I foresee changes in school curriculum . Unintended also includes unknown and unexpected.

 

I don't see how government regulators could be classified as "an unintended consequence," so far as it relates to the government recognizing a civil right to a government-regulated contract.  In this instance, government regulation of said right is kind of the point, isn't it....?

 

The civil right to marry for straight, same-race, law-abiding, domestic couples opened the door to the right to marry for interacial couples.

 

The civil right to marry for straight, same-race, law-abiding, domestic couples opened the door to the right to marry for mixed-faith couples.

 

The civil right to marry for straight, same-race, law-abiding, domestic couples opened the door to the right to marry for non-religious couples.

 

The civl right to marry for straight, same-race, law-abiding, domestic couples opened the door to the right to marry for convicted and imprisoned criminals.

 

The civil right to marry for straight, law-abiding, same-race, domestic couples opened the door to the right to marry for binational couples.

 

The civil right to marry for straight, law-abiding, same-race, domestic couples opened the door to the right to marry for same-sex couples.

 

Those are the consequences of our US Constitution and of equality, which I think are very much intentional.

 

As to other "new and exciting" forms of marriage, time will tell.  Whether there unforseen negative consequences is immaterial to the neccesity to recognize a previously unforseen or long-denied civil right.  Freeing slaves was crippling to the Economy of the South--but it was still the right thing to do, according to Constitutional principles.  Granting women the right to vote decreased their dependance on their husbands--but it was still the right thing to do, according to Constitutional principles.  Allowing both divorce and remarriage created a whole host of social problems--but it was still the right thing to do, according to Constitutional principles.

 

I certainly hope that our government also overturns the injustice found in Reynolds vs. United States, thus freeing the LDS and other Mormon Faiths to practice polygamy according to the precepts of their religion without persecution from the government. 

 

In fact, given that God can command or recind the practice of polygamy as He sees fit, and given that God gives no commandment to the children of men unless He first prepares as way for His commandment to be followed, this entire ongoing marriage dialogue may the Hand of Providence guiding the United States to return to decriminalizing polygamy so He can prepare the way to return to approving it without His church and chosen people being persecuted...

[thesometimesaint]

Two words , government regulators . I have mentioned this before. Title 9 was a law concerning equal housing. It was about one sentence long. After the busy government bees finished writing regulations pertaining thereto, they had a stack of rules 8 ft. high. Also, as Robert said, the door will be opened for new and exciting marriage forms. I foresee changes in school curriculum . Unintended also includes unknown and unexpected.

 

Title 9 was concerned with far more than just housing. Title 9 No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

 

The dreaded paper stack. I've got an idea; Lets do away with all but one small sentence for the Bible, after all loving God and your neighbor is all we really need. 

[Daniel2]

Today, the 7th Circuit heard appeals cases from two states.  Based on the three judges' questions, predictions are that it will be a 3-0 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, including even the Republican judge nominated by Ronald Regan...
 

Judges blast Indiana, Wisconsin gay marriage bans
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2734785/Judges-blast-Indiana-Wisconsin-gay-marriage-bans.html

By Associated Press18:28 26 Aug 2014, updated 18:29 26 Aug 2014

CHICAGO (AP) — Federal appeals judges bristled Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.

As the legal skirmish over same-sex marriage shifted to the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, more than 200 people lined up hoping to get a spot in the hearing room.

Attorneys general in both states are trying to reinstate bans that were ruled unconstitutional in June. The outcome of the case also could directly affect hundreds of couples who were married after federal judges overturned the bans but before their rulings were put on hold pending appeal.

Gay marriage is currently legal in 19 states as well as the District of Columbia, and momentum is building for more states to recognize it. Advocates have won more than 20 court victories around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage in 2013.

Judge Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, was dismissive when Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson repeatedly pointed to 'tradition' as the underlying justification for barring gay marriage.

"It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away," Posner said. Prohibition of same sex marriage, he said, is "a tradition of hate ... and savage discrimination."

Posner frequently cut off Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fischer, just moments into his presentation and chided him to answer his questions.

At one point, Posner ran through a list of psychological strains of unmarried same-sex couples, including having to struggle to grasp why their schoolmates' parents were married and theirs weren't.

"What horrible stuff," Posner said. What benefits to society in barring gay marriage, he asked, "outweighs that kind of damage to children?"

The answer has to do with "procreation," Fisher answered.

"All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher said. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism."

Some couples whose marriages are in limbo lined up outside the 25th-floor courtroom as early as 5 a.m. Among them was Ruth Morrison, a retired Indianapolis Fire Department battalion chief. She noted that because Indiana won't recognize the woman she married in another state as her wife, she wouldn't be able to pass on pension and other benefits if she dies.

"Now Indiana tells us our promises are only good if our spouses are of the opposite sex," Morrison, wearing a fire department uniform, said during a rally ahead of the hearing Monday night.

Lawyers representing both states, along with attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, a national group working for gay rights, were allotted 20 minutes each to argue their case.

Besides Posner, the judges who heard the case were Ann Claire Williams, a Bill Clinton appointee, and David Hamilton, appointed by President Barack Obama. It's unclear when the court might issue a ruling.

A voter-approved constitutional amendment bans gay marriage in Wisconsin. State law prohibits it in Indiana. Neither state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The lawsuits raise similar arguments on behalf of several gay and lesbian plaintiffs, contending that the bans violate the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

Van Hollen noted that Wisconsin has traditionally defined marriage as a union between a man and woman. Zoeller has maintained that his state has a legitimate interest in promoting traditional marriage as a means of encouraging environments where biological parents raise their children.

The ACLU and Lambda Legal have essentially reiterated their equal protection arguments in appeals court filings, arguing that the bans deny gay couples state and federal legal protections and benefits that married straight couples enjoy.

"The freedom to marry is a core aspect of personal liberty for all Americans," the ACLU said in its briefs.

There was some levity during the hearing. As Samuelson struggled to offer a specific reason for how gay marriage bans benefit society, he suddenly noted a yellow courtroom light signaling his allotted time was up.

"It won't save you," Williams told him, prompting laughter in court.

Samuleson smiled, and said: "it was worth a try."

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually even under plural marriage, the marriage was between one man and one woman, they were not group marriages. But I agree the logical impact of Hobby Lobby coupled with a possible SCOTUS opinion favoring SSM raises even more grave doubts about US v Reynolds than already existed which were legion. I have always thought that the Church's position on first the ERA and now SSM was motivated in part because of a fear that Reynolds would be overturned and create an extremely awkward Mormon Moment.

Quite so.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................................   

 

I certainly hope that our government also overturns the injustice found in Reynolds vs. United States, thus freeing the LDS and other Mormon Faiths to practice polygamy according to the precepts of their religion without persecution from the government. 

 

............................................................................   

I strongly doubt that the LDS Church leaders or members hanker for a return to polygyny, although anything is possible.  It is clear, however, that Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons (Pligs) will contract some legal polygynist marriages.  It will be legal for anyone in this country, and even polyandry may become fashionable.

[strappinglad]

Title 9 was concerned with far more than just housing. Title 9 No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Might I suggest a review of the impact of Title 9 from its introduction in the 1970s up to at least 2011. Wikipedia has a reasonable overview. The Church, under Elder Oaks I think, fought hard over some regulations that interpreted equal educational housing to mean that coed housing was to be REQUIRED .There could not be Female housing and Male housing, ie. separate but equal. The Church succeeded in overcoming that " unintended??? " consequence. You will note that the law says nothing specific about sports teams but that area has had major impacts because of Title 9.

[Daniel2]

I strongly doubt that the LDS Church leaders or members hanker for a return to polygyny, although anything is possible.  It is clear, however, that Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons (Pligs) will contract some legal polygynist marriages.  It will be legal for anyone in this country, and even polyandry may become fashionable.

 

I agree--I don't believe polygamy is part of the current church leaders plan for the near future. 

 

It was wrong of our government to force the LDS church to abandon the practice in the 1800's.  And it's still wrong for the government to do so, even though the LDS church currently doesn't condone the practice.

 

But if God is considering His options, legalizing polgaymy removes the previous barrier that caused the church to suffer so much and eventually abandon the practice, at God's command.

 

So, doing away with legal prohibtions would create the conditions such that, if God were ever to command the church restore polygamy, then church leaders and membership could follow suit--and would follow suit, IMO.

 

Additionally, other Mormon churches (of the non-LDS variety) that do believe that God still commands the practice should be free to do so.

 

Having said that, polygamy is a tangent to this thread--I realize I've contributed to the wandering off topic.  If we want to speak more about polygamy, may I suggest another thread be opened so as to keep this one on track?

[Stargazer]

Today, I received the bad news—one that directly and measurably demonstrates what I was trying to explain to Stargazer: state restrictions refusing to recognize same-sex marriage directly and immediately harm me and my family because we are denied equal benefits that our straight counterparts take for granted.  And here’s how: It turns out that even though my company offers the same benefits at the same cost to both straight and gay families, because Utah refuses to recognize our relationship, I will now be paying $240.00 a month in taxes on the cost of my partner’s health insurance premium—a tax that legally married straight couples do not have to pay.  That amounts to $2,880.00 extra in taxes a year.

You didn't need to try to explain it to Stargazer, who, for the record, has stated (on his own initiative, no less) that he was fully supportive of legislation that provided for same-sex (and hetero, for that matter) civil partnership laws that provided for that which you have been denied in Utah. And in fact, Stargazer's home state had a law that provided for exactly that which you have been denied in Utah.  Without calling it marriage (although, of course, that wasn't enough for the activists, so we have full blown SSM now).

 

I am sorry that Utah is hurting you, but it is manifestly not my fault.

 

[Buckeye]

Today, the 7th Circuit heard appeals cases from two states.  Based on the three judges' questions, predictions are that it will be a 3-0 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, including even the Republican judge nominated by Ronald Regan...

 

 

I worked for Judge Posner during law school.  He is as brilliant as his reputation holds.  I expect that his written opinion in this case will be one for the ages.

 

No one should be surprised that Judge Posner would be skeptical of gay marriage bans today.  What you might not know, though, is that because he is so well published there is a good record showing the evolultion of his views.  Consider the following few examples:

 

http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5151&context=journal_articles  (1997) (arguing that courts should not find a constitutional right to gay marriage and expressing concern that insufficient research has been done on the welfare of children raised in SS families)

 

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/05/homosexual-marriageposner.html (2012) (in a co-blog with Gary Becker, expressing serious concern that opposition to gay marriage is nothing more than religious bigotry)

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113816/how-gay-marriage-became-legitimate (2013) (giving a history of the nation's acceptable of gay marriage, including his own evolution)

 

 

PS - Of interest to this board, Judge Posner has a tendancy to hire lots of mormon law students to work for him.

[tonie]

No. And I cite Abraham and Sarah.

Au contraire. Reproduction is almost the only reason for marriage. It has ancillary purposes, but reproduction is the core. And then, after childbreaing most parents become grandparents and frequently help to rear their descendants, and are sometimes extremely important in the survival of their descendants.

I can't say this strongly enough. There is no bloody point to getting married unless children are the intent. You can be as shacked up as you want, with no interest in having children at all, and stay shacked up for a hundred years, and marriage isn't at all needed for that to work out just fine. Marriage is intended to protect the woman in the bearing and raising of children, otherwise there is no point to it. If the couple are not fertile, then that is sad, but they can adopt and achieve what they might have achieved if they were fertile. And they SHOULD adopt, if only to help fulfill their purpose.

How much of the view on marriage has to do with religious teachings that sex outside of marriage is sin? And how much of society still looks down at couples who are "shacked up"?

I do have a clarifying question, Do you support same-sex couples having all the same legal rights as traditional married couple, except that same-sex couples can not use the word marriage to describe their union? If this is your position, what is the point? If same-sex have all the same legal rights (childbearing, adoption, child rearing, taxes, benefits, etc) as traditionally married couples, what is being protected by restricting the word marriage? The "institution" traditional of marriage certainly isn't protected under what separate but equal system. The two institutions (same-sex, traditional) are identical but for name only.

[Daniel2]

You didn't need to try to explain it to Stargazer, who, for the record, has stated (on his own initiative, no less) that he was fully supportive of legislation that provided for same-sex (and hetero, for that matter) civil partnership laws that provided for that which you have been denied in Utah. And in fact, Stargazer's home state had a law that provided for exactly that which you have been denied in Utah. Without calling it marriage (although, of course, that wasn't enough for the activists, so we have full blown SSM now).

Stargazer, it appears that my previous post came across as something personal against you. For that, I apologize. That wasn't my intention. Similarly, everything else I am about to say, below, is not meant as a personal attack on you, but by way of general explanation about the views you're describing, and which many others also share:

Yes, you did explain that you support civil partnership laws, while lamenting that such weren't good enough for LGBT supporters, resulting in full marriage equality in your state. And I certainly appreciate any effort that moves anyone from a lack of any type of civil support for same-sex partnerships to at least some type of partial support.

However, gay and lesbian citizens never would--nor should, IMO--be happy with only partial recognition/status, for a couple of reasons:

First, granting gays and lesbians access to a civil union/domestic partnership, but denying them the universal familiarity, respect, and dignity that comes from the term "married," is an unnecessary and unequal designation that demeans LGBT relationships. If gays and lesbians are deserving of all the rights and priviledges of 'marriage,' and there are many religions that actually designate the unions of their LGBT members as 'marriage,' there is no compelling reason why the government can refuse to recognize LGBT relationships as marriage. As has often been said, seperate but equal is not equal.

Buckeye's excellent list of links, above, are a great read. Here's a clip from the third link, in which Judge Posner directly address this point:

After Lawrence, homosexuals could live together openly as couples anywhere in the United States without fear of prosecution. And if they had a right to cohabit, why not to marry? It began to seem arbitrary to deny them such a right, especially as some states—Vermont was the first, in 2000—were allowing homosexuals to form “civil unions” with all the rights of married couples except the right to call their relationship “marriage.” The denial of that right was equivalent to a state telling blacks that they could cohabit with whites and enjoy all the same rights as racially unmixed couples except the right to call their relationship “marriage.” That would be the purest, though not the most harmful, form of bigotry.

Second, and obviously the most tangible, is that civil unions/domestic partnerships are not portable. Although one state may have a sweeping civil unions law granting every available right to that state's residents that marriages have, there is no universal civil union law--and the passage of such a universal law is simply logisitically impossible.

When a gay couple "civilly unites" in one state, then accepts a job transfer to a state that has a different patchwork of civil union laws, parental rights, tax breaks, incentives, and benefits--or no civil union law, at all--such gay couples immediately loose the rights they had in their home state.

Though it sounds good to hypothetically suggest a 'compromise' that gays should settle for civil unions instead of marriage, trying to get all 50 states to legislative agreement to a universal civil union law would be a pipe dream.

Consider this analogy:

What if the majority of the United States citizens, through a democratic vote, singled out adherents of a specific religion, race, or ethnic heritage as too "different" than the rest of it's citizens, because of either their radical beliefs about God, or because of the color of their skin, or because of their particular country of origin.

However, the U.S. still decided to grant all the members of said religion/race/ethnicity most (or even all) of the rights, responsibilities (including equal taxation), and benefits of citizenship, but refused to designate them by the name, "citizens" or givd them an actual passport. Instead, the government decided to call them "stewards," and issued them a "steward ID," insisting it was just as good as a passport.

Unfortunately, "steward" papers weren't universally accepted throughout the world. In some areas, should the "stewards" travel across a border into a territory or country that didn't recognize "stewardship status," they forfeited the rights that actual U.S. citizens have when travelling abroad.

Should the Mormons, or Jews, or Hispanics, or Asians, or Irish, or Italian, or Israeli residents of the United States that were designated as 'stewards," instead of "citizens," be satisfied with their alternate designation and paperwork, because they were allegedly granted "all the rigths, priviledges, and responsibilities" of citizenship, in all but name....?

And since those "rights" were not transferable when traveling abroad, is their alternate-to-citizenship truly "equal" to citizenship...?

Would such a designation survive Constitutional muster, even though the Constitution doesn't specifically mention a "civil right to citizenship"?

Would you be satisfied with such a status...?

This is what LGBT supporters mean when we say we will not be content to be 2nd Class Citizens, when it comes to the inability for our shared government to equally recognize our unions.

I am sorry that Utah is hurting you, but it is manifestly not my fault.

I appreciate your sympathy. Of course it's "not your fault," and I haven't accused you, or any other individual, for being singularly responsible for the injustice we are facing.

I would be content if everyone stopped and reflected about how our actions, views, votes, etc. contribute to such a condition, whether or not such treatment is just according to constitutional principles, and then decide to do what each of us can to affect any change we may feel would be necessary.

[thesometimesaint]

Might I suggest a review of the impact of Title 9 from its introduction in the 1970s up to at least 2011. Wikipedia has a reasonable overview. The Church, under Elder Oaks I think, fought hard over some regulations that interpreted equal educational housing to mean that coed housing was to be REQUIRED .There could not be Female housing and Male housing, ie. separate but equal. The Church succeeded in overcoming that " unintended??? " consequence. You will note that the law says nothing specific about sports teams but that area has had major impacts because of Title 9.

 

Actually BYU does have co-ed housing. It's call Married Student Housing. Title 9 doesn't not require co-ed housing for non married students. Never did

 

Title 9 Fair Play

SEE http://www.avca.org/includes/media/docs/Play-Fair-Final.pdf