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

[Daniel2]

It is with the unexpected joy of a newly equal citizen (rather than the nefarious "glee" previously mischaracterized by Jwhitlock) that I report:

10th Circuit Court denies Utah’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay

http://fox13now.com/2013/12/22/10th-circuit-court-denies-utahs-emergency-motion-for-temporary-stay/

Posted on: 4:57 pm, December 22, 2013

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert filed seeking an Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay following a federal judge’s ruling that struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, and on Sunday the United States Court of Appeals Tenth District denied the motion.

According to court documents, “The Defendants-Appellants ask this court to stay the district court’s order pending the district court’s ruling on a motion for stay pending appeal that is currently pending in that court.”

According to the documents, the filing for an Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay did not address nor satisfy the factors that must be established to be entitled to a stay pending an appeal. The denial is without prejudice if the defendants-appellants file a motion for stay pending appeal that complies with regulations.

Click here for the full document: Emergency Motion to Stay denied http://localtvkstu.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/emergency-motion-to-stay-denied.pdf

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby has scheduled a hearing Monday at 9 a.m. on the state’s request to halt same-sex marriages, and pro same-sex marriage groups in Utah encouraged people to take advantage of the limited window in which marriage licenses were guaranteed to be granted in several counties.

In a post on their Facebook page, Equality Utah said, “Worst case scenario we will only have 1 hour in which marriages can be performed by the respective county clerks.”

In the post titled, “Everything you need to know about getting married tomorrow morning” Equality Utah said they had confirmed that Salt Lake and Weber county clerks would be open and ready to marry people “exactly at 8am”. The post advised couples to download and fill out their applications online ahead of time to expedite the process.

Brandie Balken, Executive Director of Equality Utah, confirmed the details of the posting to FOX 13 News over the phone Sunday.

For all the huffing and puffing in this thread to the contrary, the simple reality is that marriage equality for same-sex couples moves forward.

I cannot describe the feeling of elation that comes from simply knowing that my government truly views me as an equal citizen, and it's not dampened by naysayers and doom-spreaders. My resolve is renewed to continue to extend the hand of fellowship to show that we, our marriages, and our families are not the boogeymen or harbingers of destruction that they irrationally fear.

Should anyone ever attempt to legally force any religion to marry adherents of their Faith against the dictates of said Faith, I remain committed to fight to defend its right to not do so, as I'll reminder the feelings of liberty and justice for all that I've experienced the last 72 hours.

Daniel

[Stone holm]

You misread the meaning of my post.  I am not saying that Mormons think gays should marry in the church, I am only stating that many Mormons are no longer falling for the ridiculous arguments against the political right for gays to marry.  They may not be embracing gay marriage, but they don't think the church has the right to dictate who can and who can't marry.  The belief that gays already have the right to marry is not one that most Mormons buy into any longer.  There are a lot of Mormons that do not think gays currently have the legal right to marry, but should be given that right.

I agree with this. I assume the last sentence refers to the semantical argument that gays have the same right as anyone else, namely the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, which can fairly easily be stood upon its head by saying a man should have the same rights as a woman, meaning the same right to marry a man. But the shift could I guess be stated that people no longer were sympathetic towards the antis. A similar thing happened in the abolition movement, there were a fair number of Northerners who were not sympathetic to the slaves, but they grew to detest the slaveholders. It's a subtle difference, but it is one the gays best understand if they want to avoid a backlash.

[Danzo]

Should we also push for laws enforcing the WOW? How about the law of chastity? If we are allowing people to engage in the sin of fornication, then why are we trying to enforce the Church's view of marriage? Why the inconsistency?

 

I was just explaining the reason we oppose sexual sin was to help people to be happy, that post was not an argument for any specific legislation.

 

However, since you asked . . .

 

Many elements of the word of wisdom have been incorporated into law.

Some examples

Alcohol is highly regulate in most states. There are even some dry counties.

Tobacco is also highly taxed and regulated. There are even laws in place to allocate money specifically to encourage people to follow that aspect of the word of wisdom.

 

Since some aspects of the word of wisdom are already part of the law I do see why it would be unusual to support strengthening of these laws.

 

Many sexual sins are also addressed by current law.  What is wrong with supporting these laws?

 

As to your argument of inconsistency, sometimes, you have to fight the battle that is in front of you, there is a time and place for all battles. Some moral issues can be made into law some are impractical. In general, law is a pretty blunt instrument and is not suited to for may issues.

[california boy]

I was just explaining the reason we oppose sexual sin was to help people to be happy, that post was not an argument for any specific legislation.

 

However, since you asked . . .

 

Many elements of the word of wisdom have been incorporated into law.

Some examples

Alcohol is highly regulate in most states. There are even some dry counties.

Tobacco is also highly taxed and regulated. There are even laws in place to allocate money specifically to encourage people to follow that aspect of the word of wisdom.

 

Since some aspects of the word of wisdom are already part of the law I do see why it would be unusual to support strengthening of these laws.

 

Many sexual sins are also addressed by current law.  What is wrong with supporting these laws?

 

As to your argument of inconsistency, sometimes, you have to fight the battle that is in front of you, there is a time and place for all battles. Some moral issues can be made into law some are impractical. In general, law is a pretty blunt instrument and is not suited to for may issues.

And just what is immoral about allowing gays to marry?  Are gays more moral if they don't marry?  Are straight couples more moral if gays are not allowed to marry?  Just who is more moral if gays are denied the right to marry?  This argument makes absolutely no sense.  The only goal of not allowing gays to marry is oppression.  Not a particular American attitude nor a Christlike attitude.

[Tacenda]

My guess, is people think if gays are allowed to marry, it's an endorsement that being gay and acting on it, is ok.

[Daniel2]

You have to buy into the concept that SSM is benign and cannot have any adverse affects on either our religious belief or our society in order to categorize it as "only supporting individual freedom" as you do. In doing so, you have to dismiss (as you have by ignoring them) the reasons I have put forth as to why I think SSM is problematic. A careful reading of what some SSM advocates are writing, and what the agendas of some gay groups such as Affirmation are should confirm to any clear thinking individual that there are indeed people out there who are going to use SSM as a bludgeon against the church, something they would have done without regard to the church's involvement with Prop 8. A review of legal precedent would also give a clear indication that it is also a possibility that an activist judge will redefine certain current protections as optional, because (as you so casually put it) the expectation of total sexual fidelity in marriage as protection to an innocent spouse is unconstitutional, because it's really only foisting someone's morality on others. And an innocent spouse in a divorce situation that happens because of cheating will no longer have any legal leverage in that divorce.

I am concerned enough about this subject to be willing to research it extensively, which means going to quite a few gay web sites to gauge how the gay community generally views SSM. It involves wading through quite a bit of garbage, but the results are interesting leading to some insight on the full spectrum (which is very divided) about how gays themselves view SSM, and how those who get married view their marriages. Calling it a wholesale redefinition of what marriage means that will eventually entrench itself in our legal system is not an overstatement.

"Bludgeon" is extreme hyperbole. As is often stated, "Freedom of Religion" does not mean "Freedom FROM Religion," and "Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from Criticism."

Affirmation is by far more a religious gay group than a legal, civil rights gay group. While they certainly will try to exert social pressure to attempt to persuade the LDS church to change, such attempts are fully within their right, as protected by their freedom of speech---just as it is Mormons' right to resist such efforts and continue to exercising THEIR freedom of speech to persuade others that homosexuality is sinful and heterosexuality is superior. Such is the nature of freedom of speech. (Full disclosure: I'm not and never have been a member of Affirmation and have little interest in that group).

Social pressure by religious gay groups like Affirmation should not be confused with the government finding any legitimacy to forcing a religion to marry individuals against their religious beliefs. That has never happened (i.e. interracial and mixed Faith marriages), and, I believe, never will.

Daniel

[Stone holm]

My guess, is people think if gays are allowed to marry, it's an endorsement that being gay and acting on it, is ok.

Correct, this is ultimately connected to the fact that gay marriage legitimizes homosexual behavior which is seen as encouraging homosexual behavior. The question then becomes the basis for the majority finding homosexual behavior repugnant. Where the anti's have failed is in their ability to articulate or prove a secular justification for their justification. The closest they have been able to come is a reference to higher levels of promiscuity in the gay population and that this is carrying over into concepts of open marriages amongst the gays. Those studies are late coming out of the gate, and seem not to be being used in the Courts although individuals like JWhitlock are using them. The argument that 66% of the people's will should not be ignored, is an argument which has no legitimacy in this context as discussion of the will of the majority has no place in whether an individual's rights have been violated. In all cases where a State's statute or State's Constitution violates the Federal Constitution it can be assumed that when adopted they were the will of the people either by direct vote or via their elected representatives. So such statements are merely political puffery and are of no legal significance.

[Stone holm]

"Bludgeon" is extreme and hysterical hyperbole. Affirmation is a religious gay group, not a legal, civil rights gay group. While they certainly will try to exert social pressure to attempt to persuade the LDS church to change, such attempts are fully within their right, as protected by their freedom of speech---just as it is Mormons right to resist such efforts and continue to exercising THEIR freedom of speech to persuade others that homosexuality is sinful and heterosexuality is superior. Such is the nature of freedom of speech. (Full disclosure: I'm not and never have been a member of Affirmation and have little interest in that group).

Social pressure by religious gay groups likr Affirmation should not be confused with the government finding any legitimacy to forcing a religion to marry individuals against their religious beliefs. That has never happened (see interracial and mixed Faith marriages) and never will.

Daniel

I am sure that JWhitlock is correct that there are some out there who will use the decisions to bludgeon the Church since we collectively have painted a large target on ourselves. Whether this gives us the right to bludgeon the gay/lesbian community in the political arena with the Bible is certainly less clear. The best defense is a good offense may work in basketball and war, not sure it is always the best approach in cultural/religious matters.

[Daniel2]

I am sure that JWhitlock is correct that there are some out there who will use the decisions to bludgeon the Church since we collectively have painted a large target on ourselves. Whether this gives us the right to bludgeon the gay/lesbian community in the political arena with the Bible is certainly less clear. The best defense is a good offense may work in basketball and war, not sure it is always the best approach in cultural/religious matters.

I agree with what your saying, with the exception of the use of the term "bludgeon," which I believe is an unnecessary exaggeration to describe actions by either side in this case (unless you're referring to individual victims of actual, physical bludgeonings because of either people's religion or sexual orientation--in which case, the term is entirely appropriate).

[ERayR]

Yeah, the question is the extent of the self-inflicted wounds.  See post above.  We may well have massively increased the amount of negative impact upon ourselves, and in the process, the general consensus amongst the LGBT community is that by our actions associated with Prop 8 we actually helped their cause.  Sigh.

 

I  hadn't heard that God defined sin by consensus.  His government is not a democracy. 

[ERayR]

 But listening to last general conference it's clear that we are still politically vocal on the matter.

 

As it should be.

[ERayR]

Read it.  And, frankly, the federal judges seem to keep agreeing with my interpretation and not yours.

 

 

 

 

That does not mean it is right it only means they agree.

[ERayR]

I'll leave it up to God to make that judgment as to who is right or who is wrong,

 

He already has.  His decision was delivered by his prophets.

[rockpond]

Frankly, the fact that judges seem to keep agreeing with your interpretation simply means you agree with the concept of governing by judicial fiat, and not by the will of the people. I call that tyranny.

 

As to your second item, it is a fact that gays have the same right to enter into the same types of marriages that I do. The fact that, according to you, fewer and fewer people are buying into it simply means that they aren't thinking particularly deeply beyond the sound bites they're getting fed. That works in your favor, doesn't it.

 

Your third item is an outright lie. You accused those who supported Prop 8 of persecuting and oppressing the minority. That, my boy, is demonizing the opposition for your information. And that claim is indeed, pure rot.

 

Finally your fourth item simply reinforces your methodology of demonizing the opposition when you misrepresent opposition to SSM as "tyranny of the majority". It seems that whenever someone wants a special privilege, it doesn't matter to you whether it may be harmful to society or the rights of others; as long as they can characterize it as being persecuted or oppressed, some judge can properly grant whatever they want.  That's rot.

 

Basically, what I have from you is a shallow dismissal of the significant problems that can and probably will come with SSM. There is not attempt to address those concerns; there never has been by those who support SSM. That doesn't invalidate the concerns; it just makes it clear that those of you who support SSM don't really care about running roughshod over the rights of others.

 

Perhaps you'd like to address my concerns about why SSM is problematic directly, instead of presenting this kind of "gays have been persecuted by denying them SSM" fantasy. I've posted them previously on this thread, for your convenience.

 

Just to be clear... it's okay for you to demonize a sub-group of gays by claiming that it's their goal to take away our religious freedom but it's wrong for me to correctly state that our church's efforts in support of Prop 8 removed legally recognized gay marriage in California?  And to correctly identify that as oppression of a minority?

 

What you call judicial fiat is actually just an interpretation of the constitution that differs from your own.

 

I have not seen where you have demonstrated that SSM is problematic.  If you'd like to point me to your concerns, I'll respond.

[Stone holm]

I  hadn't heard that God defined sin by consensus.  His government is not a democracy. 

 

God does not define sin by consensus, and his government is not a democracy.  However, this is not an argument about what constitutes "sin", this is an argument about whether we have the right to design legislation based primarily on our definition of what constitutes sin -- even if our definition is God's definition.  In addition, we are not arguing about how God will govern in Zion, we are talking about how we govern in the United States.  I should note that it is not completely true that God does not take consensus into account when considering sinful behavior.  I consider "racism" to be sinful and apparently the Church does as well, yet God tolerated it for a century in order to allow for consensus to build.

[rockpond]

Perhaps its too fine a distinction to you, but it's fairly clear that SSM is something designed only to appeal to a very small demographic group, which makes it a privilege. The availability of it to people who would never engage in it because it is biologically abhorrent to them is irrelevant, and is only designed as a smokescreen to say "see - everyone now has the same right".

 

Are you willing to stand by this argument if someone chose to apply it to LDS temples?

 

Temple marriage is something designed only to appeal to a very small demographic group, which makes it a privilege.  Temple worthy Mormons could still be married in any other church like the rest of the population.  Therefore, we shouldn't have legally recognized temple marriages.

 

You look at SSM and see a demand for a special privilege.  I see a minority asking for the equality of being able to legally marry the person they love.  Something I took for granted when I dated and, ultimately, took my wife to the temple.

[Tacenda]

God does not define sin by consensus, and his government is not a democracy.  However, this is not an argument about what constitutes "sin", this is an argument about whether we have the right to design legislation based primarily on our definition of what constitutes sin -- even if our definition is God's definition.  In addition, we are not arguing about how God will govern in Zion, we are talking about how we govern in the United States.  I should note that it is not completely true that God does not take consensus into account when considering sinful behavior.  I consider "racism" to be sinful and apparently the Church does as well, yet God tolerated it for a century in order to allow for consensus to build.

I'm going out on a limb here but would like to put it out there....that if the church embraced gay marriage, they would probably triple in growth.  Maybe God would see fit to utilize this mechanism, or stand back and let it happen, as some on here believe he did with the ban on the blacks holding the Priesthood.  Let it happen because the people weren't ready for the truth.  ETA: whatever truth that would be I'm not sure.      

[ERayR]

God does not define sin by consensus, and his government is not a democracy.  However, this is not an argument about what constitutes "sin", this is an argument about whether we have the right to design legislation based primarily on our definition of what constitutes sin -- even if our definition is God's definition.  In addition, we are not arguing about how God will govern in Zion, we are talking about how we govern in the United States.  I should note that it is not completely true that God does not take consensus into account when considering sinful behavior.  I consider "racism" to be sinful and apparently the Church does as well, yet God tolerated it for a century in order to allow for consensus to build.

 

No it is an debate about thee importance of marriage as defined by God in maintaining the stability of society. 

[thesometimesaint]

"Bludgeon" is extreme hyperbole. As is often stated, "Freedom of Religion" does not mean "Freedom FROM Religion," and "Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from Criticism."

Affirmation is by far more a religious gay group than a legal, civil rights gay group. While they certainly will try to exert social pressure to attempt to persuade the LDS church to change, such attempts are fully within their right, as protected by their freedom of speech---just as it is Mormons' right to resist such efforts and continue to exercising THEIR freedom of speech to persuade others that homosexuality is sinful and heterosexuality is superior. Such is the nature of freedom of speech. (Full disclosure: I'm not and never have been a member of Affirmation and have little interest in that group).

Social pressure by religious gay groups like Affirmation should not be confused with the government finding any legitimacy to forcing a religion to marry individuals against their religious beliefs. That has never happened (i.e. interracial and mixed Faith marriages), and, I believe, never will.

Daniel

 

Freedom Of religion is freedom From religion. The state can't force you to believe or not believe any religion.

 

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

― Thomas Jefferson

 

 

[ERayR]

I'm going out on a limb here but would like to put it out there....that if the church embraced gay marriage, they would probably triple in growth.  Maybe God would see fit to utilize this mechanism, or stand back and let it happen, as some on here believe he did with the ban on the blacks holding the Priesthood.  Let it happen because the people weren't ready for the truth.  ETA: whatever truth that would be I'm not sure.      

 

If the Church embraced adultery, fornication, alcoholism, drug use, etc we would have a surge in baptisms.

[Daniel2]

10 Circuit denies a stay for the second time:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/193293254?width=360

[Daniel2]

Freedom Of religion is freedom From religion. The state can't force you to believe or not believe any religion.

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

― Thomas Jefferson

I agree with you, SS, insofar as government coercion is concerned. My intent was to suggest that my freedom of religion doesn't mean they my religious freedom is being violated by being exposed to other religious ideas (and potentially criticism) in the public/social realm. My religious freedom is not being violated if someone wishes me Merry Christmas, or tells me that God says homosexuality is a sin, or that God says homosexuality is fine. In a social sense, freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from other people expressing their religious beliefs, including criticism of mine, and even encouraging me (within reasonable limits) to change mine--which is what both LDS missionaries AND members of Affirmation do.

[Danzo]

I'm going out on a limb here but would like to put it out there....that if the church embraced gay marriage, they would probably triple in growth.  Maybe God would see fit to utilize this mechanism, or stand back and let it happen, as some on here believe he did with the ban on the blacks holding the Priesthood.  Let it happen because the people weren't ready for the truth.  ETA: whatever truth that would be I'm not sure.      

 

You are on a limb here.  I predict that the church would shrink.

Compare our growth with Church of Christ growth (for one example)

[Daniel2]

This just in from Ohio:

Narrow ruling rejects Ohio gay marriage ban

AMANDA LEE MYERS Associated Press 09:08a.m. Dec 23, 2013

CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal judge has declared in a ruling that applies only to death certificates that Ohio's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

In his decision Monday, Judge Timothy Black orders state officials to recognize such unions on death certificates. Although his ruling applies narrowly, his statements about Ohio's gay-marriage ban are sweeping and expected to incite further litigation challenging the law.

In his lengthy decision, the Cincinnati-based judge says that "once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away."

He says the U.S. Constitution recognizes the right to remain married as a fundamental liberty.

Black's decision stems from a lawsuit filed in July by two gay Ohio men whose spouses recently died and wanted to be recognized on their death certificates as married.

[rockpond]

This just in from Ohio:

Narrow ruling rejects Ohio gay marriage ban

AMANDA LEE MYERS Associated Press 09:08a.m. Dec 23, 2013

CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal judge has declared in a ruling that applies only to death certificates that Ohio's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

In his decision Monday, Judge Timothy Black orders state officials to recognize such unions on death certificates. Although his ruling applies narrowly, his statements about Ohio's gay-marriage ban are sweeping and expected to incite further litigation challenging the law.

In his lengthy decision, the Cincinnati-based judge says that "once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away."

He says the U.S. Constitution recognizes the right to remain married as a fundamental liberty.

Black's decision stems from a lawsuit filed in July by two gay Ohio men whose spouses recently died and wanted to be recognized on their death certificates as married.

 

Why is nobody able to successfully make JWhitlock's argument in front of these judges?  Crazy activists and their insistence on constitutional liberties.