Stay Of Ruling

[Stone holm]

Just read a somewhat vitriolic editorial attacking the Judge Shelby for refusing to grant the stay. It was published in the Deseret News, and accompanied by a photograph of a building packed with marriage license applicants. Is this a media thing, or is there pandemonium?

[BlueDreams]

are you talking about this one? http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865593223/Shelbys-unfair-unnecessary-overreach-can-only-serve-to-further-exacerbate-political-tensions.html

 

And I don't know, I'm not currently in UT. I would guess where i'm at I wouldn't see anything immediate, minus maybe someone coming by with a petition. But from what I can tell, this is fairly unprecedented/unexpected both legally and politically. Thus the media hype.

[Stone holm]

are you talking about this one? http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865593223/Shelbys-unfair-unnecessary-overreach-can-only-serve-to-further-exacerbate-political-tensions.html

 

And I don't know, I'm not currently in UT. I would guess where i'm at I wouldn't see anything immediate, minus maybe someone coming by with a petition. But from what I can tell, this is fairly unprecedented/unexpected both legally and politically. Thus the media hype.

Yeah that one. It was my understanding the 10th Circuit refused to stay it as well. Are there really masses applying out there, or is that just media hype? Makes it sound like Utah has a lot of gays seeking fulfillment. Seems strange with the press also saying there is overwhelming support for the ban. Don't understand the situation I guess. Not sure why a gay/lesbian would want to live in Utah, let lone get married there. But then I don't understand the log cabin Republicans either.

[thesometimesaint]

A minority within a much larger majority. 2% of 312 million is still a big number.

 

Salt Lake City has a lot to offer its residents. Gorgeous scenery, large city living, jobs, a multiplicity of ideas, numerous belief systems, nondiscrimination laws.  If it wasn't for the cold weather, and the sometimes fortress mentality there I'd be tempted to move.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just read a somewhat vitriolic editorial attacking the Judge Shelby for refusing to grant the stay. It was published in the Deseret News, and accompanied by a photograph of a building packed with marriage license applicants. Is this a media thing, or is there pandemonium?

The new AG of Utah will likely be spending 2 million dollars on an appeal.  We've seen all this before in other states.  Nothing new, although many Utahns are likely appalled.  They just need to get over it.  This inevitable legal process will play itself out and in a few years basically all forms of marriage will be legal nationwide.  Just part of the free agency guaranteed to us by the inspired Federal Constitution, which some people really don't like -- except when their ox is being gored.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yeah that one. It was my understanding the 10th Circuit refused to stay it as well. Are there really masses applying out there, or is that just media hype? Makes it sound like Utah has a lot of gays seeking fulfillment. Seems strange with the press also saying there is overwhelming support for the ban. Don't understand the situation I guess. Not sure why a gay/lesbian would want to live in Utah, let lone get married there. But then I don't understand the log cabin Republicans either.

Wait until polygyny becomes legal.  Then you will see very large numbers of people at the clerks' offices.

 

Utahns need to understand that the U. S. Constitution is not a guarantee of majority rule.  It is a covenant which guarantees certain minority rights -- which were overlooked by the Feds the last time the marriage question came up here in Utah in the late 19th century.  The issue is now returning, but with a vengeance.

[Stone holm]

Wait until polygyny becomes legal.  Then you will see very large numbers of people at the clerks' offices.

 

Utahns need to understand that the U. S. Constitution is not a guarantee of majority rule.  It is a covenant which guarantees certain minority rights -- which were overlooked by the Feds the last time the marriage question came up here in Utah in the late 19th century.  The issue is now returning, but with a vengeance.

Interesting, in US v Reynolds they made a cultural argument similar to the argument made in the brief the Church joined in Prop 8 . The recent case legalizing polygamous cohabitation in Utah severely criticized US v Reynolds although it upheld it as precedent. Funny there was no rush for a stay and an appeal of that case...lol

[mormonnewb]

Interesting, in US v Reynolds they made a cultural argument similar to the argument made in the brief the Church joined in Prop 8 . The recent case legalizing polygamous cohabitation in Utah severely criticized US v Reynolds although it upheld it as precedent. Funny there was no rush for a stay and an appeal of that case...lol

Thanks for pointing out that this recent case did not legalize polygamy but rather POLYGAMOUS COHABITATION. Even in Utah, no one can lawfully marry more than one person at a time (thus, no need for a stay because no one is rushing to the courthouse to be "polygamously cohabitated"). And I don't see how this ruling could ever lead to legalized polygamy. All this ruling says is that the state can't make it unlawful for people to enter into these types of relationships. This has been the state of the law for gays for more than a decade. No state can prohibit gays and lesbians from having committed relationships. However, having those relationships recognized by the state and afforded the civil benefits of "marriage" is quite another thing.

I agree that gays will be afforded marriage equality nationwide in the very near future because the states can't demonstrate any rational basis for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples ("Because God said so" isn't a rational basis for constitutional purposes). However, I can see some very rational bases for restricting marriage to two people. Logistical questions alone seem to make polygamy unworkable in legal terms, such as what happens when just one of the parties wants a divorce? Does that dissolve all of the marriages? How about custody issues? If one of the plural wives was the primary caregiver for all of the children, does she have any custody rights with regards to the children birthed by the other mothers? What if one wife was the primary breadwinner, does she owe child support payments if one of her sister wives divorces their common husband?

In short, while there is no legal difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, the complications of plural marriage seems to be a "rational basis" for differentiation.

[strappinglad]

Complexity has never stopped a government from establishing regulations by the yard to cover simple one statement laws. Besides, there are a couple of thousand lawyers that will gladly take up the sword to defend polygyny and its consequences. It would generate a feeding frenzy for decades.

[Calm]

Yeah that one. It was my understanding the 10th Circuit refused to stay it as well. Are there really masses applying out there, or is that just media hype? Makes it sound like Utah has a lot of gays seeking fulfillment. Seems strange with the press also saying there is overwhelming support for the ban. Don't understand the situation I guess. Not sure why a gay/lesbian would want to live in Utah, let lone get married there. But then I don't understand the log cabin Republicans either.

According to one article, the couple went down the first day, weren't able to get it before the office closing then, came back the second day and waited eight hours. There was a record breaking number of licenses given out, but this only occurred in SLC. Davis County had high numbers, over a hundred IIRC, but nothing like SLC had. There has been an article on it that list the numbers by county you can look for if interested. I am going off memory so please excuse any error.

[Calm]

Thanks for pointing out that this recent case did not legalize polygamy but rather POLYGAMOUS COHABITATION. Even in Utah, no one can lawfully marry more than one person at a time....

My understanding is that Utah had much stricter laws, such as the one just struck down, than other states due to them being forced upon Utah by the Feds in order to remove any possibility of plural marriage continuing. The Feds basically forced the breakup and abandonment of families with the alternate choice being imprisonment....so when people say 'even in Utah' as if it is easier to practice polygyny there, it always strikes me as rather ironic.... Edited January 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

. Logistical questions alone seem to make polygamy unworkable in legal terms, such as what happens when just one of the parties wants a divorce? Does that dissolve all of the marriages? How about custody issues? If one of the plural wives was the primary caregiver for all of the children, does she have any custody rights with regards to the children birthed by the other mothers? What if one wife was the primary breadwinner, does she owe child support payments if one of her sister wives divorces their common husband?.

It seems to me the majority of these types of issues would be solved by simply allowing one person to be involved in more than one marriage contract while keeping the regulations involved the same...iow simply because your wife is married to another man, you yourself would not be legally contracted with him in anyway and thus not involved in any divorce proceedings. Custody could be restricted to biological parents or in the case of adoption, one set of parents could be required to be identified. The major problem would come from shared property and income. If there were no prenups establishing division rights, then it seems to me to be best to value each involved in the shared wealth as an equal partner and go from there.

[BlueDreams]

Yeah that one. It was my understanding the 10th Circuit refused to stay it as well. Are there really masses applying out there, or is that just media hype? Makes it sound like Utah has a lot of gays seeking fulfillment. Seems strange with the press also saying there is overwhelming support for the ban. Don't understand the situation I guess. Not sure why a gay/lesbian would want to live in Utah, let lone get married there. But then I don't understand the log cabin Republicans either.

 

 Oh, Gotcha. The number I saw was around 600-700 marriage licenses. The number is a momentary flood and probably spurred by the sense that it's not going to last (kind of a "get it while you can" sort of mentality). These are largely found in or around SLC (specifically, SLC, Davis, and Weber county). They're also the most populated areas. I got curious and googled the numbers...it's about 1.5-6 million people. 700 licenses isn't exactly a ton of people (~.08% of the population in those counties). So it's definitely a surge of sorts (kinda, it's still a small percentage) and at least exciting within the LGBT community, but the actual effect size in the general population is miniscule. So I'd say the real news isn't the immediate effect on the general populace and more the major legal change in a very politically conservative climate. 

 

Though it seems odd, considering it's UT, SLC was named in one of the more gay-friendly cities to live. SLC isn't heavily mormon or as conservative as other areas. Plus there are a number of other things that attract people to the area as ISS mentioned. I personally am not planning to leave the place any time soon even though the predominant political culture isn't my cup of tea....there's plenty more that I like than don't like. And I actually like having 4 seasons.  

 

With luv,

BD

[Stone holm]

My understanding is that Utah had much stricter laws, such as the one just struck down, than other states due to them being forced upon Utah by the Feds in order to remove any possibility of plural marriage continuing. The Feds basically forced the breakup and abandonment of families with the alternate choice being imprisonment....so when people say 'even in Utah' as if it is easier to practice polygyny there, it always strikes me as rather ironic....

From reading the Sisters Wives opinion, it sounded like a prosecutor went rogue in the original prosecution that triggered the case. The opinion overtly mentioned a long standing policy of the Utah Attorney General's office, namely not to bring clean poligamy cases and then couldn't get the Federal case stopped that it triggered. Unfortunately, I suspect it is very unlikely the State will appeal the case for fear of triggering an outright reversal of US v Reynolds. We will probably have to wait for some trigger happy prosecutor down in the former confederacy to go after a multi-wife Muslim before we find out if US v Reynolds is still good law. As for the complexity issue, I can understand that for group marriages, but poligamy as we used to practice it was a series of one on one marriages, the women were not wedded to each other. I think, however, in the long term, we may see a move towards group marriages. The hippy movement as I remember it, was moving in that direction before the end of the Vietnam War took the steam out of our idealism and radicalism. On a strictly rational basis, it probably makes more sense than overly romantic monogamy that has become the American norm and which is obviously no longer working for a fairly large segment of the citizens,

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting, in US v Reynolds they made a cultural argument similar to the argument made in the brief the Church joined in Prop 8 . The recent case legalizing polygamous cohabitation in Utah severely criticized US v Reynolds although it upheld it as precedent. Funny there was no rush for a stay and an appeal of that case...lol

A lot of ironies in this matter, to be sure.

[Stone holm]

A lot of ironies in this matter, to be sure.

That is the understatement of the century.

[Tacenda]

A minority within a much larger majority. 2% of 312 million is still a big number.

Salt Lake City has a lot to offer its residents. Gorgeous scenery, large city living, jobs, a multiplicity of ideas, numerous belief systems, nondiscrimination laws. If it wasn't for the cold weather, and the sometimes fortress mentality there I'd be tempted to move.

Especially right now, too dangerous. People are buying masks to walk around in, the air is that bad.

[Stone holm]

Especially right now, too dangerous. People are buying masks to walk around in, the air is that bad.

I have heard, however, that SLC is one of the gayest cities in America, whatever that may mean. My son did a study of air quality in the valley while he was attending BYU in the 90's, air quality worse than LA at the time.

[strappinglad]

The air is better in Missouri I understand. The Church has a few acres there if they ever need to pull up stakes.( ya, bad pun )

[BlueDreams]

I have heard, however, that SLC is one of the gayest cities in America, whatever that may mean. My son did a study of air quality in the valley while he was attending BYU in the 90's, air quality worse than LA at the time.

 

Inversion during the winter probs. SLC is just a pit of smog when this happens. It clears out with a good snow storm though....well at least in utah valley. Salt Lake itself, not so sure  

Edited January 2, 2014 by BlueDreams

[wenglund]

The new AG of Utah will likely be spending 2 million dollars on an appeal.  We've seen all this before in other states.  Nothing new, although many Utahns are likely appalled.  They just need to get over it.  This inevitable legal process will play itself out and in a few years basically all forms of marriage will be legal nationwide.  Just part of the free agency guaranteed to us by the inspired Federal Constitution, which some people really don't like -- except when their ox is being gored.

 

You are probably right about the inevitability of the legal process, and this is because, in part, there is rampant misunderstanding, including within the judiciary, that this is somehow a personal free agency issue, when in actuality it is state free agency issue--i.e. the right of governments to legally define terms and act in the best interest of the people and determine for themselves, as a people, what to sanction or not. Just as people are free to form most any relationships that suits their fancy, governments ought to be free to rationally choose which relationships to endorse and promote. Personal free agency doesn't, itself, necessarily oblige governments to put their seal of approval on every freely made choice. Fewer and fewer people get this nowadays, and consequently the latter freedom is being trampled in a confused attempt to advance the former freedom. But, there is not much that can be done about that now.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Thanks for pointing out that this recent case did not legalize polygamy but rather POLYGAMOUS COHABITATION. Even in Utah, no one can lawfully marry more than one person at a time (thus, no need for a stay because no one is rushing to the courthouse to be "polygamously cohabitated"). And I don't see how this ruling could ever lead to legalized polygamy. All this ruling says is that the state can't make it unlawful for people to enter into these types of relationships. This has been the state of the law for gays for more than a decade. No state can prohibit gays and lesbians from having committed relationships. However, having those relationships recognized by the state and afforded the civil benefits of "marriage" is quite another thing.

 

Correct!

 

I agree that gays will be afforded marriage equality nationwide in the very near future because the states can't demonstrate any rational basis for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

 

Incorrect. State laws and constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, as well as the federal DOMA, have been upheld in state and federal courts on a number of occasions over the last decade, and this precisely on the grounds of rational basis.

 

However, more recently, some of these laws, but not all, have been struck down through the discriminatory and extra-constitutional application of stricter scrutiny.

 

("Because God said so" isn't a rational basis for constitutional purposes).

 

...nor was it ever presented as a rational basis in legal cases (legislative or judicial). You are propping up a straw men.

 

However, I can see some very rational bases for restricting marriage to two people. Logistical questions alone seem to make polygamy unworkable in legal terms, such as what happens when just one of the parties wants a divorce? Does that dissolve all of the marriages?

 

This would be an issue if polygamy consisted of a single marriage of multiple people to each other (where the spouses are all married to each other and not just to one person) rather than multiple marriages (where the each spouse is married separately to one person and not to each other).  Polygamy, or polygyny, in most cases is little different from the common practice nowadays where people get divorced from their first spouse and then marrying someone else. Both are plural marriages. The difference is that the one is concurrent plural marriage and the other is consecutive plural marriage. As such, divorce logistics would be virtually the same for the one as they are for the other.

 

How about custody issues? If one of the plural wives was the primary caregiver for all of the children, does she have any custody rights with regards to the children birthed by the other mothers? What if one wife was the primary breadwinner, does she owe child support payments if one of her sister wives divorces their common husband?

 

See above.

 

In short, while there is no legal difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, the complications of plural marriage seems to be a "rational basis" for differentiation.

 

Ah...but were polygamy legalized, there would be no significant legal difference between concurrent plural marriage and consecutive plural marriage, and so your alleged "rational basis" isn't rational. Sorry.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 2, 2014 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

I have heard, however, that SLC is one of the gayest cities in America, whatever that may mean. My son did a study of air quality in the valley while he was attending BYU in the 90's, air quality worse than LA at the time.

 

Air quality has been improving in the L.A. basin for decades, still not great. But better than SLC which has been growing worse over the same time period. About two years ago we drove through SLC and were surprised at how bad the air was.

[thesometimesaint]

You are probably right about the inevitability of the legal process, and this is because, in part, there is rampant misunderstanding, including within the judiciary, that this is somehow a personal free agency issue, when in actuality it is state free agency issue--i.e. the right of governments to legally define terms and act in the best interest of the people and determine for themselves, as a people, what to sanction or not. Just as people are free to form most any relationships that suits their fancy, governments ought to be free to rationally choose which relationships to endorse and promote. Personal free agency doesn't, itself, necessarily oblige governments to put their seal of approval on every freely made choice. Fewer and fewer people get this nowadays, and consequently the latter freedom is being trampled in a confused attempt to advance the former freedom. But, there is not much that can be done about that now.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think there is a difference between allowing something and actually promoting it.

[wenglund]

I think there is a difference between allowing something and actually promoting it.

 

This is correct.

 

Gay relationships have long been allowed in this country and others. At the very least, for decades they have had the constitutional freedom of association and action. Before then, they could legally associate, but not legally engage in sodomy.

 

However, this is quite different from the relatively recent movement to get the government to sanction those homosexual relationships by way of domestic partnerships, civil unions, or re-defining marriage. Such sanctions, by definition, are clearly a promotion of those relationships, particularly given the legal benefits and incentives associated therewith.

 

More and more people these days don't seem to grasp this important difference, which is why, in part, things have devolved the way they have, and will likely continue to devolve.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-