Scotus Denies Cert; Stay In Utah Lifted

[Buckeye]

Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Gay Marriage Cases

 

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the hotly contested issue of gay marriage, a surprise move that will allow gay men and women to marry in five states where same-sex weddings were previously banned.

 

By rejecting appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana, the court left intact lower-court rulings that struck down bans in those states. In each case, a stay was put in place pending Supreme Court action. By denying to hear the appeals, the stays will be lifted.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-intervene-gay-marriage-cases-n219276

[thesometimesaint]

Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Gay Marriage Cases

 

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the hotly contested issue of gay marriage, a surprise move that will allow gay men and women to marry in five states where same-sex weddings were previously banned.

 

By rejecting appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana, the court left intact lower-court rulings that struck down bans in those states. In each case, a stay was put in place pending Supreme Court action. By denying to hear the appeals, the stays will be lifted.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-intervene-gay-marriage-cases-n219276

 

That's what I expected they'd do.

[Buckeye]

When I read this news I first thought of Elder Oaks' remarks two days ago.  Unfortunately, it appears the address is not up on LDS.org yet.  Below is a summary of his remarks from BCC: 

  

Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

“The commandment to love others as He had loved His flock was to His disciples – and is to us – a challenge that was unique.”

“Why is it so difficult to have Christlike love for one another?…because we must live among those who do not share our beliefs and values and covenant obligations.”

Followers of Christ can’t leaven the earth “if they only associate with those who share their beliefs and practices.”

“Teachings about contention are central” to the gospel.

“Savior didn’t limit His warning about contention to those who were not keeping the commandment about baptism… Even those who keep the commandments must not stir up contention.”

“Even as we seek to be meek…we must not compromise or dilute our commitment to the truths we understand”

“No middle ground” in eternal contest between good and error.

“Some behaviors must be endured, if legalized by … ‘the voice of the people.'”

“on the subject of public discourse, we wish for greater attention to the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention.”
“our stands and communications on controversial topics should not be contentious” #welp #bloggernacle

“We should accept unfavorable outcomes graciously.”

“we challenge all youth to avoid bullying”
“policy differences need not involve personal attacks that poison the process of government and punish participants.”

“Banish hateful discourse and practice civility.”

“most important setting to forego contention and practice respect for differences is in our home and family relationships.”

“Kindness is powerful, especially in a family setting.”

“Our Savior’s command to love one another as He loves us is probably our greatest challenge.”

[HappyJackWagon]

The writing has been on the wall for a while now that the bans would be overturned but I was a little surprised by the SCOTUS decision. It just sped the process.

 

Will the church change the policy allowing Bishops to perform civil marriages if it could mean gay marriages would also be possible, or will they change the temple ceremony to be a sealing only like in other countries, requiring the couple to be married civilly prior to the sealing. How long will it take before we get a letter read in Sac. meeting describing these changes?

[tonie]

The writing has been on the wall for a while now that the bans would be overturned but I was a little surprised by the SCOTUS decision. It just sped the process.

 

Will the church change the policy allowing Bishops to perform civil marriages if it could mean gay marriages would also be possible, or will they change the temple ceremony to be a sealing only like in other countries, requiring the couple to be married civilly prior to the sealing. How long will it take before we get a letter read in Sac. meeting describing these changes?

 

Do States require that persons authorized to perform marriages to actually perform marriages? 

 

Perhaps religious leaders should now in earnest, use the Hobby Lobby ruling, to create laws specifically exempting performance of same sex marriages.

[Buckeye]

Will the church change the policy allowing Bishops to perform civil marriages if it could mean gay marriages would also be possible, or will they change the temple ceremony to be a sealing only like in other countries, requiring the couple to be married civilly prior to the sealing. How long will it take before we get a letter read in Sac. meeting describing these changes?

 

I could see the church removing the 1 year waiting requirement in the US due to this and other reasons. I don't foresee the church voluntarily withdrawing from having bishops perform civil marriages, though I wouldn't be surprised to see a letter clarifying (as if anyone had doubt) that bishops are not authorized to perform SSMs. And I don't foresee any serious pressure being placed on states in the near future to require clergy to perform SSM. The pressure will come, but not for years and likely decades.

 

At the moment, the most interesting development I foresee is this: what to do with members who, relying on ecclesiastical authority outside the church, choose to perform SSMs. Currently members can perform weddings using authority from other churches. My brother-in-law did so for his sibling. What would happen if a member did so for a gay sibling? 

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm sure there would be plenty of challenges if it felt like a church was being forced to perform a gay marriage so it's not a certainty, but the question is whether or not the church's want to continually be fighting this legal battle or simply accept it as the way of the world and get out of the marriage business.

[Buckeye]

Do States require that persons authorized to perform marriages to actually perform marriages? 

 

Perhaps religious leaders should now in earnest, use the Hobby Lobby ruling, to create laws specifically exempting performance of same sex marriages.

 

I believe that every state which has adopted SSM through the legislature has included a religious exemption clause.  I imagine that for Utah and other states that have SSM through court action, it will be fairly easy to have such exemptions added.  Expect to see some unanimous votes. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 I wouldn't be surprised to see a letter clarifying (as if anyone had doubt) that bishops are not authorized to perform SSMs. 

 

This letter has already gone out to Bishops a few months ago.

 

 At the moment, the most interesting development I foresee is this: what to do with members who, relying on ecclesiastical authority outside the church, choose to perform SSMs. Currently members can perform weddings using authority from other churches. My brother-in-law did so for his sibling. What would happen if a member did so for a gay sibling? 

 

John Dehlin stated that it was one of the requirements of his Stake President to discard his marriage authority he'd received from another source to perform a wedding. I suspect it would be viewed similarly by many local leaders, almost like receiving the authority to marry others is equivalent to them officially joining another church which is an element of apostacy in the church HB of instructions #1.

[Buckeye]

John Dehlin stated that it was one of the requirements of his Stake President to discard his marriage authority he'd received from another source to perform a wedding. I suspect it would be viewed similarly by many local leaders, almost like receiving the authority to marry others is equivalent to them officially joining another church which is an element of apostacy in the church HB of instructions #1.

 

To my knowledge, there is no church policy regarding members performing marriages under the authority of another faith. In the void, I can easily see local leaders taking different views, just as they have in regards to members who opposed Prop 8. John Dehlin's stake president is just one of many such leaders.

[tonie]

I believe that every state which has adopted SSM through the legislature has included a religious exemption clause.  I imagine that for Utah and other states that have SSM through court action, it will be fairly easy to have such exemptions added.  Expect to see some unanimous votes. 

 

I would hope so. I would hope that when the writting was on the wall, those opposed to same-sex marriage, did not put all their eggs in the basket of the Courts ruling in favor of bans. I would hope that a second front was quietly fought, getting exemptions put in place.

 

I think the Hobby Lobby ruling, provides ample basis for religious leaders not to worry about being forced to perform same-sex marriages. I also beleive that the Hobby Lobby ruling would come in favor of religion if and when individuals start pushing for tax exemption removals.

[thesometimesaint]

Generally speaking all that is required to perform the ceremony is a ordained minister. There is no requirement that they must perform the ceremony for all comers.

[Boanerges]

There's no question in my mind that Oaks saw this coming. I think his remarks Saturday were preparatory for this very outcome.

[Buckeye]

There's no question in my mind that Oaks saw this coming. I think his remarks Saturday were preparatory for this very outcome.

 

I believe that Elder Oaks believed Utah would eventually lose.  I'm not sure he thought they would lose this quickly or in this fashion. 

 

The best I can make of today's decision is this:

1. Within SCOTUS, the justices know that a majority would find SSM as a constitutional right.  It only takes 4 justices to grant a cert petition.  4 justices dissented in each of the gay rights cases decided last term (though a different dissent in each).  That fact that the court could not muster a group of 4 justices to grant cert here suggests that the court as a whole knows the eventual outcome and would rather let the people (or at least the lower courts) make it happen in order to prevent or minimize another Roe event.
2. The justices who would find SSM as a constitutional right thought it most practical to deny cert here.  This means that, rather than waiting for the high court to rule in a year, 5 more states get SSM now (Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin), another 6 states will get SSM fairly soon because they reside in circuit courts that upheld SSM as a right, but have not yet obtained SSM through the legislature (N. Carolina, S. Carolina, W. Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming), and another 5 states will get SSM in a month or so when the 9th Circuit rules (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada). 

In all, by denying the cert petition, the Supreme Court has taken the number of states with SSM from 19 to 35, including all of the states that encompassed the Territory of Deseret. 

[Duncan]

To my knowledge, there is no church policy regarding members performing marriages under the authority of another faith. In the void, I can easily see local leaders taking different views, just as they have in regards to members who opposed Prop 8. John Dehlin's stake president is just one of many such leaders.

 

 

There is a lady in my ward who marries people, how many she has done I have no idea.

[The Nehor]

Do States require that persons authorized to perform marriages to actually perform marriages? 

 

Perhaps religious leaders should now in earnest, use the Hobby Lobby ruling, to create laws specifically exempting performance of same sex marriages.

No, the government allows clergy to perform marriages but does not compel them to perform marriages. An LDS bishop cannot be compelled to marry a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. The only exception is government employees whose job it is to marry people cannot turn people away without legal cause.

This worry that bishops and sealers will be compelled to perform marriages is currently not founded on anything but hysteria. In areas where same sex marriage is legal a bishop cannot be compelled to marry anyone. Heterosexual couples do not have an inherent right to a temple sealing and neither will homosexual couples.

[Buzzard]

At the risk of violating the spirit of Elder Oaks talk, I humbly predict that society will look back on these days, and perhaps this day in particular, and rue it. It may take decades, but it will happen.  I do realize that the SSA portion of society will probably feel differently.

[Buckeye]

At the risk of violating the spirit of Elder Oaks talk, I humbly predict that society will look back on these days, and perhaps this day in particular, and rue it. It may take decades, but it will happen.  I do realize that the SSA portion of society will probably feel differently.

 

I'm hopeful that a full tasting of the fruit will let us pass sound judgment as to whether SSM is good or evil. If nothing else, today's ruling should help us get to that point sooner.

[Avatar4321]

I'm hopeful that a full tasting of the fruit will let us pass sound judgment as to whether SSM is good or evil. If nothing else, today's ruling should help us get to that point sooner.

the fruits will be marriage laws used to persecute the church.

and the judgments described in the family proclamation.

it's alright though. Christ will come soon.

[Buckeye]

the fruits will be marriage laws used to persecute the church.

 

I certainly hope not.  That would be a bad fruit indeed.

and the judgments described in the family proclamation.

 

Actually, the PotF doesn't specify any judgments.  It's kind of vague.

it's alright though. Christ will come soon.

 

That would be awesome.  It's got to happen sometime, right?

[Avatar4321]

Do you think the adversary will not use marriage laws to attack the church? He has before. Why would this time be different?

[halconero]

Question out of curiosity, nothing more:

 

Let's say you had a radical bishop who decided to marry a same-sex couple. Would that marriage be considered valid by governmental authorities even if the office of the Bishop is derived from an ecclesiastical organization that does not recognize gay marriage?

[phaedrus ut]

This was likely the best result the church could ask for.  Having the Utah or California laws become the historic decision would have branded the church's responsibility in drafting those laws into the historical record.  Now it will just be a footnote. 

 

 

Phaedrus

[Buckeye]

Question out of curiosity, nothing more:

 

Let's say you had a radical bishop who decided to marry a same-sex couple. Would that marriage be considered valid by governmental authorities even if the office of the Bishop is derived from an ecclesiastical organization that does not recognize gay marriage?

 

Your question specifically relates to government recognition.  Obviously the church would not recognize the marriage as valid. But off the cuff, I'd say a court would view the marriage as valid unless the parties had some reason at the time of the ceremony to believe that the act was non-authoritative. Note that such a challenge could not come from the church, but from one of the parties - say, for example, if the relationship soured and one party wanted to claim there never was a marriage.

[Buckeye]

This was likely the best result the church could ask for.  Having the Utah or California laws become the historic decision would have branded the church's responsibility in drafting those laws into the historical record.  Now it will just be a footnote. 

 

 

Phaedrus

 

That's likely true.  When our grandkids study this part of history the major decision they study will be Windsor (or perhaps a future SCOTUS decision if any circuit upholds a SSM ban).  The Utah decision (Kitchen) will only be an interesting footnote. That said, if SCOTUS eventually overrules Reynolds, I could see some commentary tying together the unique history of the state of Utah in the religious and marriage cases.