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

[rockpond]

Have you read the anti-Mormon sentiments expressed by gays during the Prop 8 debate and then after it? I would challenge you to find anything equivalent from the LDS side.

 

You seem to think that it's ok for your agenda to be supported via judicial fiat, but it's not fair for the people to express their will in correcting that fiat. I fail how you can stretch your claim of persecution and oppression of a minority when judges provide special privileges above the rights of others to a minority group, and civic minded people then try to reassert appropriate direction to the government through a referendum. Given what really happened your mis-characterization of us as oppressors and persecutors is simply unfounded and hyperbolic.

 

Judicial fiat is a judge overruling the will of the people in any particular case. It's happening quite often in this country now as judges dictate law in defiance of the clear constitutional separation of duties. "Interpretation of the constitution" has been extensively abused by them to the point that the constitution has been effectively shredded as a document; it only means what some judge "interprets" it to mean, which often bears no connection to reality.

 

Otherwise, read the thread. My original comments are back on the second page, if I remember. I've been fairly clear about my concerns, and no one from the SSM cheerleading side has made any cogent response. All I've gotten is ridicule, misdirection, dismissiveness, and non-acknowledgement of them.

 

Neither side should be supported by judicial fiat.  And SSM is not being supported by judicial fiat but by constitutional law.

 

Yes, there were comments made following Prop 8 that I have previously condemned.  But I understand the emotions after we led the fight to take away their access to legally recognized marriages in California, both with Prop 22 and Prop 8.  I think that the actual ACTION of taking away someone's ability to have their marriage recognized by the state is far worse than any words that were spoken in an emotional reaction.  Though I have and will continue to condemn violations of religious freedom.

[rockpond]

And I see a special interest group trying to redefine marriage.  As I understand it, it is not the temple marriage that is legally recognized.  It is the legal recognition, by the state, of the authority granted to the clergy to perform marriages.

 

 

The licensing issue is a fact. You have to provide the service under the structure of what state law tells you to do. If you are licensed to marry people, then you have to provide it to all people under the particular definition of marriage in the jurisdiction you operate in. While you may sniff at the idea that such things will ever override religious freedom, the government has a very poor track record in keeping any kind of reasonable perspective when it comes to religion, from my experience. That is especially the case when some favored interest group finds a sympathetic activist judge that is only too willing to "interpret" the law (as Shelby has done) in helping them further their agenda. And while gays can always find someone to marry them, that's not going to be good enough. Someone is going to want to force a Mormon bishop or temple sealer to marry them, and since they're licensed, they may be forced to do so or lose their license.

 

So there you go. Not particularly unreasonable as a scenario. Government hasn't been particularly trustworthy when it comes to keeping "religious exemptions" intact, so I won't be surprised at all when the bludgeon comes out.

 

As a matter of written policy, we restrict Bishops in where, how, and who they can marry (either bride or groom MUST be a member of the Bishop's ward).  Additionally, we restrict where, how, and who temple sealers can marry.  Have these well known restrictions ever been successfully challenged in court?

[rockpond]

I'll reiterate again, as I have done before: there are two problems with SSM. The first is that it's going to be used as a weapon against the church. The second is that it puts the final piece in place removing a fundamental expectation of marriage, which is full sexual fidelity. That particular attack against marriage has been going on a long time now (by idiot heterosexuals) and SSM simply makes the concept of "monogamish" a replacement for full fidelity - thus removing the expectation of protection in all marriages for innocent parties in cases of philandering spouses.

 

This is all I can find on pages 1-3 of the thread about your reasons by SSM would be detrimental to society... The first reason is just a fear that tells you we should deny their religious freedom first for fear that they might try to interfere with ours.

 

The second is that some heterosexuals and some homosexuals won't be monogamous in marriage.  How is that a reason to deny marriage equality to gays?

[Stone holm]

This is all I can find on pages 1-3 of the thread about your reasons by SSM would be detrimental to society... The first reason is just a fear that tells you we should deny their religious freedom first for fear that they might try to interfere with ours.

 

The second is that some heterosexuals and some homosexuals won't be monogamous in marriage.  How is that a reason to deny marriage equality to gays?

When you don't have solid documentary evidence, you have to rely on future fears. Actually Elder Oaks has been stoking these fears via various legal alliances he has been assembling.

[Daniel2]

Oh please. Though your side pooh-poohs the lawsuits filed against pharmacists, for instanced (licensed by the state, BTW) that have forced them to provide services they object to on religious grounds, those things do set a precedent. Perhaps you're not aware, but any professional licensed by the state must provide those services to people as directed by state law. And if state law concerning marriage between a man and a woman has been struck down, those licensed to perform marriages can be sued to perform those services for anyone. I've been licensed in another profession (no longer am); if I had refused to provide my licensed service to gays, then it would have been my head on the block. In reality, I had no problem doing that and rather enjoyed the diversity of people - including gays - that I came in contact with.

 

The licensing issue is a fact. You have to provide the service under the structure of what state law tells you to do. If you are licensed to marry people, then you have to provide it to all people under the particular definition of marriage in the jurisdiction you operate in. While you may sniff at the idea that such things will ever override religious freedom, the government has a very poor track record in keeping any kind of reasonable perspective when it comes to religion, from my experience. That is especially the case when some favored interest group finds a sympathetic activist judge that is only too willing to "interpret" the law (as Shelby has done) in helping them further their agenda. And while gays can always find someone to marry them, that's not going to be good enough. Someone is going to want to force a Mormon bishop or temple sealer to marry them, and since they're licensed, they may be forced to do so or lose their license.

 

So there you go. Not particularly unreasonable as a scenario. Government hasn't been particularly trustworthy when it comes to keeping "religious exemptions" intact, so I won't be surprised at all when the bludgeon comes out.

You are confusing licensing ecclesiastical leaders (who are licensed to marry people) with individuals employed by the state who's state appointed role is to issue marriage licenses.

Ecclesiastical leaders have never been and never will be forced to marry others against their religious beliefs.

State employees who's job is to issue marriage licenses have been forced to do their state - mandated job without discriminating against people.

[jwhitlock]

Temple sealers are licensed to perform legally recognized marriages.  Under your logic this is a special privilege and therefore falls outside of constitutional protections.

 

No, temple sealings are not legally recognized. That's why if you get sealed in the temple, you have to be previously civilly married or get a marriage license in order to be considered married in the eyes of the state. If the church were just to do sealings without getting the marriage license, they would not be recognized by the state as marriages.

 

I hope you understand the difference, which was why your analogy doesn't work.

[jwhitlock]

Neither side should be supported by judicial fiat.  And SSM is not being supported by judicial fiat but by constitutional law.

 

Yes, there were comments made following Prop 8 that I have previously condemned.  But I understand the emotions after we led the fight to take away their access to legally recognized marriages in California, both with Prop 22 and Prop 8.  I think that the actual ACTION of taking away someone's ability to have their marriage recognized by the state is far worse than any words that were spoken in an emotional reaction.  Though I have and will continue to condemn violations of religious freedom.

 

"Burn their church buildings to the ground and then tax them on the charred remains."

 

Yep, that's pretty benign compared to exercising the constitutional right to reverse judicial fiat by referendum.

[jwhitlock]

As a matter of written policy, we restrict Bishops in where, how, and who they can marry (either bride or groom MUST be a member of the Bishop's ward).  Additionally, we restrict where, how, and who temple sealers can marry.  Have these well known restrictions ever been successfully challenged in court?

 

Re-read my comments on how the state views those it provides licenses to.

[jwhitlock]

This is all I can find on pages 1-3 of the thread about your reasons by SSM would be detrimental to society... The first reason is just a fear that tells you we should deny their religious freedom first for fear that they might try to interfere with ours.

 

The second is that some heterosexuals and some homosexuals won't be monogamous in marriage.  How is that a reason to deny marriage equality to gays?

 

I've commented in detail about both of those items in this thread. Your summary here is inaccurate. Read again.

[jwhitlock]

You are confusing licensing ecclesiastical leaders (who are licensed to marry people) with individuals employed by the state who's state appointed role is to issue marriage licenses.

Ecclesiastical leaders have never been and never will be forced to marry others against their religious beliefs.

State employees who's job is to issue marriage licenses have been forced to do their state - mandated job without discriminating against people.

 

Did you actually read my comment? I'm not talking about state employees. I'm talking about independent individuals licensed by the state.

 

Sheesh. Are you guys being this obtuse on purpose? It's like wading through mud trying to get you all to actually address something, rather than inaccurately rephrasing it. No wonder it's so difficult to actually discuss the problems about SSM with SSM supporters.

[rockpond]

No, temple sealings are not legally recognized. That's why if you get sealed in the temple, you have to be previously civilly married or get a marriage license in order to be considered married in the eyes of the state. If the church were just to do sealings without getting the marriage license, they would not be recognized by the state as marriages.

 

I hope you understand the difference, which was why your analogy doesn't work.

 

In the U.S., if you get civilly married first, you have to wait a year before you can be sealed in the temple.  The marriage license that you get (and take to the temple) is just permission to be married, it is not the marriage itself.  The marriage is done by the temple sealer who will want to first see that you have a license or a certificate.

 

Temple sealings are legally recognized (in the U.S.).  You are simply wrong and/or uninformed on this point.

[rockpond]

"Burn their church buildings to the ground and then tax them on the charred remains."

 

Yep, that's pretty benign compared to exercising the constitutional right to reverse judicial fiat by referendum.

 

It's horrible.  And I have publicly condemned such language.

 

I also condemn some of the horrible things members and leaders of our church have said.  You might also note that the homosexual community has never voted to take away the legal marriage rights of heterosexuals.  Nor have they infringed on our religious freedoms... you are just trying to create a fear that they will.

 

As for your endlessly repeated "judicial fiat" argument, I'm done saying the same things to you.  You do not have the right to vote away the rights of a minority.  Judge after judge after judge keeps ruling, using the 14th amendment, to explain that.  I'm sorry you disagree.  But marriage equality will soon become the law of the land.

[rockpond]

I've commented in detail about both of those items in this thread. Your summary here is inaccurate. Read again.

 

I've spent time searching through several pages for your reasons why SSM is detrimental to society and could not find them where you said they were.  If you care for a response from me, you'll have to find the post and link to it or provide the points again.

[jwhitlock]

In the U.S., if you get civilly married first, you have to wait a year before you can be sealed in the temple.  The marriage license that you get (and take to the temple) is just permission to be married, it is not the marriage itself.  The marriage is done by the temple sealer who will want to first see that you have a license or a certificate.

 

Temple sealings are legally recognized (in the U.S.).  You are simply wrong and/or uninformed on this point.

 

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Try getting a temple sealing done without a marriage license recognized by the state and see how far you get.

 

However, your post is informative. It demonstrates how far SSM supporters will go to twist things to make their point.

[rockpond]

In the U.S., if you get civilly married first, you have to wait a year before you can be sealed in the temple.  The marriage license that you get (and take to the temple) is just permission to be married, it is not the marriage itself.  The marriage is done by the temple sealer who will want to first see that you have a license or a certificate.

 

Temple sealings are legally recognized (in the U.S.).  You are simply wrong and/or uninformed on this point.

 

 

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Try getting a temple sealing done without a marriage license recognized by the state and see how far you get.

 

However, your post is informative. It demonstrates how far SSM supporters will go to twist things to make their point.

 

What is wrong with what I said?

 

I said that you have to get a license to be married (in any church/temple).  But the license is not the marriage.  The temple sealer marries you.  Temple marriages are legally recognized.

 

Again, this is in the U.S., other countries are different.

[jwhitlock]

It's horrible.  And I have publicly condemned such language.

 

I also condemn some of the horrible things members and leaders of our church have said.  You might also note that the homosexual community has never voted to take away the legal marriage rights of heterosexuals.  Nor have they infringed on our religious freedoms... you are just trying to create a fear that they will.

 

As for your endlessly repeated "judicial fiat" argument, I'm done saying the same things to you.  You do not have the right to vote away the rights of a minority.  Judge after judge after judge keeps ruling, using the 14th amendment, to explain that.  I'm sorry you disagree.  But marriage equality will soon become the law of the land.

 

I've stated, and it needs to be stated again, that the same right to marry that I have has always been provided to gays. It doesn't matter how stone holm rephrases things to his own liking; the fact is that marriage between a man and a woman is available to all, and there are quite a few gays who use that right. SSM is a special privilege. I've addressed that in detail, and there hasn't been a cogent response to those two points other than to dismiss it or to revert right back to the invalid talking point that gays are being denied rights.

 

You also are willingly misunderstanding what judicial fiat is. It occurred after prop 22 and it occurred again after prop 8. I really don't care if you dismiss those facts, but it's right there for all to see. Judges have overruled the will of the people and that is judicial fiat.

 

However, I do agree that a new redefined, weakened marriage will probably become the law of the land, much to everyone's detriment. But hey, when it's all about individual rights and entitlements, without any corresponding responsibility, then at least it's consistent with the way the world is headed.

[Daniel2]

VIRGINIA: Federal Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Marriage Equality Lawsuit

Via a joint press release from Lambda Legal and the ACLU:

A federal court denied a motion from the Staunton Circuit Court Clerk today seeking dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Virginia’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples. The lawsuit, filed earlier this year on behalf of two couples by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, Lambda Legal, and the law firm Jenner and Block, will move forward with the Staunton Circuit Court Clerk and the Registrar of Vital Records remaining as named defendants. The court today also removed the governor as a named defendant in the case. “We’re grateful that we have the chance to move ahead to challenge this discriminatory ban on behalf of loving and committed Virginia couples,” said Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia. “We will continue to fight for families in Virginia and all across the country,” said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “All loving families deserve the protection and dignity that come with marriage.” “The court recognized that ‘t is abundantly clear that plaintiffs’ alleged harm is actual, concrete, and particularized,’” noted Lambda Legal Counsel Greg Nevins. “We couldn’t agree more, and we are happy that the court is going to force Virginia to defend its marriage exclusion on the merits.”

[Fly Fisherman]

 

I also condemn some of the horrible things members and leaders of our church have said.  

CFR on the "horrible things" leaders of our church have said. 

[jwhitlock]

CFR on the "horrible things" leaders of our church have said. 

 

Like the commercial that aired right before the Prop 8 vote that showed Mormon missionaries ransacking a SS couple's house and tearing up their marriage paperwork, among other things?

 

Oh wait - that was aired by SSM supporters...

 

Ok, I've got one from the church's mormonsandgays.org web site:

 

"The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

 

Oh my goodness, he's right. That's absolutely horrible.

[rockpond]

I've stated, and it needs to be stated again, that the same right to marry that I have has always been provided to gays. It doesn't matter how stone holm rephrases things to his own liking; the fact is that marriage between a man and a woman is available to all, and there are quite a few gays who use that right. SSM is a special privilege. I've addressed that in detail, and there hasn't been a cogent response to those two points other than to dismiss it or to revert right back to the invalid talking point that gays are being denied rights.

You also are willingly misunderstanding what judicial fiat is. It occurred after prop 22 and it occurred again after prop 8. I really don't care if you dismiss those facts, but it's right there for all to see. Judges have overruled the will of the people and that is judicial fiat.

However, I do agree that a new redefined, weakened marriage will probably become the law of the land, much to everyone's detriment. But hey, when it's all about individual rights and entitlements, without any corresponding responsibility, then at least it's consistent with the way the world is headed.

If you are going to keep making the argument that gays can enter into heterosexual marriages you might wish to educate yourself on the success rate of mixed orientation marriages and ask yourself if that's really the best route to protecting the sanctity of marriage. Granted, I believe every one should have the choice and I honor those who desire such a marriage and can make it work. But I don't accept it as equality since I believe in the quaintly traditional idea that two people should marry out of deep romantic love and commitment.

One of the roles of our judicial branch is to make sure that laws passed, either by the vote of the people or their elected representatives, pass muster with our constitution. Prop 8 failed in that regard as was decided by multiple judges. If you define judicial fiat as judges applying constitutional law to a ballot initiative than I guess we agree.

How would marriage equality be to everyone's detriment? And how does it avoid responsibility?

[rockpond]

CFR on the "horrible things" leaders of our church have said.

Not worth the time and effort for you guys. I'll retract my statement. Church leadership has always been loving and kind to homosexuals in the same way that they have always been loving and kind to those of African descent.

[jwhitlock]

If you are going to keep making the argument that gays can enter into heterosexual marriages you might wish to educate yourself on the success rate of mixed orientation marriages and ask yourself if that's really the best route to protecting the sanctity of marriage. Granted, I believe every one should have the choice and I honor those who desire such a marriage and can make it work. But I don't accept it as equality since I believe in the quaintly traditional idea that two people should marry out of deep romantic love and commitment.

One of the roles of our judicial branch is to make sure that laws passed, either by the vote of the people or their elected representatives, pass muster with our constitution. Prop 8 failed in that regard as was decided by multiple judges. If you define judicial fiat as judges applying constitutional law to a ballot initiative than I guess we agree.

How would marriage equality be to everyone's detriment? And how does it avoid responsibility?

 

An interesting question; it may well be that gays in mixed gender marriages have about the same success rate as those in SSM where it's been made legal. However, I do appear to more educated on the subject than the average SSM supporter, since it does appear that there are quite a few more men with SSA in mixed-gender marriages than there are in SSM.  Ask.com, for instance, puts it at as many as a million men with SSA in mixed gender marriages, though I think that may be a bit high.

 

Marriage in the church requires a high level of total commitment and fidelity to each other.  SSM does not make that same requirement, simply because there are very, very few gay couples that engage in long-term, totally (in ALL aspects) committed marriages to each other. The movement to be "monogamish" is too strong as a counter-force when it comes to gays and SSM. That, by the way, is another thing you learn when you start studying gay web sites.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's a difference between a judicial opinion and the application of valid constitutional law. The former is what is happening more often today as judges "interpret" the constitution they way they want it to read. The latter has been pretty much shredded as far as I'm concerned. What we're left with is judges ruling by fiat. That is clearly evident when Shelby declares Utah's marriage law as unconstitutional, which is his own opinion since the constitution is silent about that specific subject.

 

I've already answered your last questions; I will point out in passing that marriage equality is a weasel phrase since it doesn't really accurately describe what SSM is all about. It's a special privilege for a narrow special interest group.

[jwhitlock]

Not worth the time and effort for you guys. I'll retract my statement. Church leadership has always been loving and kind to homosexuals in the same way that they have always been loving and kind to those of African descent.

 

You really don't think highly of the church you claim to be a member of, do you.

[rockpond]

An interesting question; it may well be that gays in mixed gender marriages have about the same success rate as those in SSM where it's been made legal. However, I do appear to more educated on the subject than the average SSM supporter, since it does appear that there are quite a few more men with SSA in mixed-gender marriages than there are in SSM. Ask.com, for instance, puts it at as many as a million men with SSA in mixed gender marriages, though I think that may be a bit high.

Marriage in the church requires a high level of total commitment and fidelity to each other. SSM does not make that same requirement, simply because there are very, very few gay couples that engage in long-term, totally (in ALL aspects) committed marriages to each other. The movement to be "monogamish" is too strong as a counter-force when it comes to gays and SSM. That, by the way, is another thing you learn when you start studying gay web sites.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's a difference between a judicial opinion and the application of valid constitutional law. The former is what is happening more often today as judges "interpret" the constitution they way they want it to read. The latter has been pretty much shredded as far as I'm concerned. What we're left with is judges ruling by fiat. That is clearly evident when Shelby declares Utah's marriage law as unconstitutional, which is his own opinion since the constitution is silent about that specific subject.

I've already answered your last questions; I will point out in passing that marriage equality is a weasel phrase since it doesn't really accurately describe what SSM is all about. It's a special privilege for a narrow special interest group.

Obviously there is likely more gay men in hetero marriages since gay marriage has not been around very long nor is it available everywhere.

Though I'm not sure how valid a source Ask.com is. Did it also provide data regarding the success rate of those marriages?

The constitution doesn't address marriage (heterosexual, polygamous, or gay). What it does say is that all deserve equal protection under the law. And what the judges are saying is that it includes the right to marry the person of your choosing regardless of gender. I get that you disagree with that interpretation. So you don't need to reply again.

You might re-consider which gay sites you are apparently visiting. Your condemnation of an entire group based on the ideas of a few about "monogamish" marriages is painting with a broad brush something that I doubt you'd appreciate having done to you. You love to quote the Affirmation site when it suits you but then you seem to forget that they want the same committed, monogamous, eternal marriages that you and I get.

I can't seem to get you to tell me (or point me towards) your logic behind why SSM would be detrimental to society. But it doesn't matter -- we won't agree anyway.

[rockpond]

You really don't think highly of the church you claim to be a member of, do you.

I don't "claim to be a member". I am a member. A very active one at that. For that reason, if I see something that I feel is wrong I won't stand by silently.