Gay Marriage At Scotus: One Wedding Ring Thread To Rule Them All...

[Daniel2]

In just a few weeks, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear the four consolidated cases to determine whether or not states have the right to prohibit civil marriage for same-sex couples.

As the wedding cake wars have demonstrated, gay issues here at MD are getting lots of attention, causing lots of thread-openings, and worst of all, understandably causing lots of fatigue.

So, in a preemptive move to avoid the front page being littered with 10 bajillion threads on the subject, I propose confining as much discussion as possible to a single thread...

The Lord of the Wedding-Rings Thread...

One thread to rule them all. Emphasis on ONE.

I'd love to keep this thread open as long as possible... so, a few requests: can we keep dialogue respectful... avoid Goodwin's law violations... keep it generally relevant to Mormonism and marriage and the SCOTUS case.. and be nice. I invite everyone who can do the above to participate, post, share, and discuss.

Will all this be possible in just one thread....???

Probably not... but it's worth a shot, right?!

I figured I'd start this today because today, an amicus brief was filed by several churches, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Here is a portion:

A right to same-sex marriage also would supplant the States’ “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation” with an exertion of federal ju­dicial power beyond the democratic process. Representative democracy matters to religious organizations and people of faith. Their capacity to build communities where their values are respected and their ways of life protected depends on the plu­ralism that our democratic institutions foster and secure. The fundamental liberty of religious believers to participate with other free citizens in deliberating about and shaping the character of their common destiny has been protected by this Court’s determina­tion to read the Constitution as a charter for “people of fundamentally differing views.” To de­clare an unprecedented constitutional right to same-sex marriage would deny people of faith who support traditional marriage the liberty to participate as equal citizens in deciding which values and policies will govern their communities. We urge the Court to trust the people and their democratic institutions to resolve the marriage issue, as it has on other divisive issues so many times.

The brief is also signed by Assemblies Of God, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Wesleyan Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Church Of God, the National Association of Evangelicals, and a dozen others.

The full brief can be read here:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/14-556_Major_Religious_Organizations.pdf?hc_location=ufi

Edited April 11, 2015 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

Thanks for the link Daniel2. I find it interesting that a few weeks after championing a "middle way" bill in Utah in which "neither side would get everything it wants," that the church is now arguing to SCOTUS that there is no middle ground between gay marriage and religious liberty. The church's brief argues that requiring marriage equality on a civil level will necessarily impinge on the religious liberty of those who disagree with such marriages. That makes no sense to me. Civil marriages do not affect religious rites (or rights) in any regard. And many religious bodies actually do want to bless same sex unions (a point noticeably unaddressed in the brief).

 

The key theme in the brief is that the Court should accept the will of voters (or legislatures) who acted on purely religious grounds - not because of animus to LGBT people, but because of animus to LGBT sex, which gay marriage would help normalize. To me, that is an incredibly dangerous position to take. Allowing purely religious arguments to form the basis of any governmental policy would necessitate courts deciding which god is correct, and then expecting the citizenry to accept the court's decision that is premised on a basis that is wholly foreign and unrecognized by much of the citizen body. That can only lead to anarchy and great(er) conflict between religious sects.

 

The danger of the church's position can be clearly seen by changing all references in the brief to SSM to inter-racial marriage. Should courts in 1967 have allowed purely religious beliefs to govern whether blacks and whites can marry? Of course not. But under the church's logic, SCOTUS should have taken those religiously-motivated beliefs into consideration in deciding Loving v. Virginia (a case also noticeably absent from the brief). Thank goodness the Court did not do so in 1967. Thank goodness they will not do so in 2015. 

[Danzo]

Thanks for the link Daniel2. I find it interesting that a few weeks after championing a "middle way" bill in Utah in which "neither side would get everything it wants," that the church is now arguing to SCOTUS that there is no middle ground between gay marriage and religious liberty. 

 

In a legal brief, you do not normally seek a "middle Ground".  You argue as if your opinion is the correct one.  I think you won't find any "middle ground" proposals in briefs for the other side either.

[Mormonmaniac]

Gay marriage, if allowed, will be one great hit on American and worldwide freedom, a truly sad horrific day.

[Danzo]

 Allowing purely religious arguments to form the basis of any governmental policy would necessitate courts deciding which god is correct, and then expecting the citizenry to accept the court's decision that is premised on a basis that is wholly foreign and unrecognized by much of the citizen body. That can only lead to anarchy and great(er) conflict between religious sects.

 

 

I would argue that almost all of our governmental policy have a religious origin.  Justice is very much a religious idea.  Marriage is a religious idea. Accountability as well.

 

If you argue that a religious argument invalidates a law, you would have to throw out a great deal of jurisprudence. 

[california boy]

Thanks for the link Daniel2. I find it interesting that a few weeks after championing a "middle way" bill in Utah in which "neither side would get everything it wants," that the church is now arguing to SCOTUS that there is no middle ground between gay marriage and religious liberty. The church's brief argues that requiring marriage equality on a civil level will necessarily impinge on the religious liberty of those who disagree with such marriages. That makes no sense to me. Civil marriages do not affect religious rites (or rights) in any regard. And many religious bodies actually do want to bless same sex unions (a point noticeably unaddressed in the brief).

 

The key theme in the brief is that the Court should accept the will of voters (or legislatures) who acted on purely religious grounds - not because of animus to LGBT people, but because of animus to LGBT sex, which gay marriage would help normalize. To me, that is an incredibly dangerous position to take. Allowing purely religious arguments to form the basis of any governmental policy would necessitate courts deciding which god is correct, and then expecting the citizenry to accept the court's decision that is premised on a basis that is wholly foreign and unrecognized by much of the citizen body. That can only lead to anarchy and great(er) conflict between religious sects.

 

The danger of the church's position can be clearly seen by changing all references in the brief to SSM to inter-racial marriage. Should courts in 1967 have allowed purely religious beliefs to govern whether blacks and whites can marry? Of course not. But under the church's logic, SCOTUS should have taken those religiously-motivated beliefs into consideration in deciding Loving v. Virginia (a case also noticeably absent from the brief). Thank goodness the Court did not do so in 1967. Thank goodness they will not do so in 2015. 

 

 

This issues that relgious rights should trump individual equality under the law has long ago been decided by the Supreme Court.  If this is their best argument against SSM, then I like most, think the decision in favor of gay marriage is inevitable.  Throughout the court process, the lack of legal reason to prevent gay marriage is always been the reason for the string of rulings that favor gay marriage.  No legal reason to prevent it means a favorable ruling.  

[california boy]

Gay marriage, if allowed, will be one great hit on American and worldwide freedom, a truly sad horrific day.

Could you explain what that one great hit on America and worldwide freedom actually means?  What do you think with happen?

[Danzo]

Gay marriage, if allowed, will be one great hit on American and worldwide freedom, a truly sad horrific day.

 

Although I am not in favor of same sex marriage, I do not see its passage as horrific. 

By itself, I do not see it as affecting freedom.  

I see it as a symptom, not a cause. It is a symbol that marriage has changed into something different and less valuable.   Much of that change has been happening for years and is not directly related to same sex marriage.

[Mormonmaniac]

Could you explain what that one great hit on America and worldwide freedom actually means?  What do you think with happen?

Our freedom ultimately lies in the strength of families. Gay marriage is not family but a destruction of it. I am firm on this, I will not give.

[Danzo]

Our freedom ultimately lies in the strength of families. Gay marriage is not family but a destruction of it. I am firm on this, I will not give.

 

Do you see it as a direct cause effect?  Gay marriage=Family destroyed, Gay Marriage Repealed=Family Saved?

[Mormonmaniac]

Do you see it as a direct cause effect?  Gay marriage=Family destroyed, Gay Marriage Repealed=Family Saved?

It is one of many things that threaten the destruction of families. Drug abuse, pornography, lack of respect, are just several other factors. Homosexual marriage is by far the greatest blasphemy to God and families.

[Danzo]

It is one of many things that threaten the destruction of families. Drug abuse, pornography, lack of respect, are just several other factors. Homosexual marriage is by far the greatest blasphemy to God and families.

 

I think The greatest blasphemy to families are probably abuse and infidelity. Same sex marriage is only trying to have the state put a label on something.

 

If the government passed a law that says trout are birds, it wouldn't really change the trout or directly affect the birds. it would be  bit silly, but not freedom or life threatening.

[The Nehor]

Three threads for the moderates seeking peace,

Seven for the cake makers in their halls of sugar,

Nine for gays cut off from baked goods,

One for the final battle on the field of words

In the land of Mormondom where the posters abide.

One thread to rule them all, one thread to index them,

One thread to bring them all and in mutual hostility bind them

In the land of Mormondom where the posters abide.

 

 

So was Tolkien referring to marriage when he considered gifted rings to be a tricky gift designed to bind people to a dark and twisted world?

[Mystery Meat]

Three threads for the moderates seeking peace,

Seven for the cake makers in their halls of sugar,

Nine for gays cut off from baked goods,

One for the final battle on the field of words

In the land of Mormondom where the posters abide.

One thread to rule them all, one thread to index them,

One thread to bring them all and in mutual hostility bind them

In the land of Mormondom where the posters abide.

 

 

So was Tolkien referring to marriage when he considered gifted rings to be a tricky gift designed to bind people to a dark and twisted world?

 

I hate myself for knowing who Eru is and that he did not create the dwarfs.  

[sethpayne]

It is one of many things that threaten the destruction of families. Drug abuse, pornography, lack of respect, are just several other factors. Homosexual marriage is by far the greatest blasphemy to God and families.

 

How?  Please give one specific example of how homosexual marriage threatens or damages or demeans healthy and happy heterosexual marriage.

 

Here.  Let me give you an example using one of your laundry list items.  Dad is an unhappy science teacher in a lousy town with nice, but otherwise lousy people.  Dad tries meth.  Dad makes meth.  Dad sells meth.  Because dad makes and sells meth he causes other people -- who also make and sell meth -- to become angry and want to hurt both Dad and his family.  

 

Clearly, dealing meth is a pretty much a death sentence for any healthy heterosexual marriage.  Clearly.

 

So please, just one example of how homosexual marriage demeans or degrades or threatens healthy heterosexual marriage.  An example as clear as the one I provided, if possible.

[The Nehor]

I hate myself for knowing who Eru is and that he did not create the dwarfs.  

 

While Aule formed the bodies of the dwarves they could only act and live under his power until Eru actually made them by giving them independent spirits from the Flame Imperishable within himself and in essence, giving them souls.

 

I am not ashamed of knowing this.

[Crypto]

I'll admit, I gave a little more attention to the LotR's posts  : D

Is it okay to hijack this thread and discuss Lord of the Rings instead? 

 

...okay maybe not...

Edited April 11, 2015 by Crypto

[california boy]

Our freedom ultimately lies in the strength of families. Gay marriage is not family but a destruction of it. I am firm on this, I will not give.

Could you explain why you feel gay marriage is destructive to families?  What do you feel will destroy families if gays are allowed to marry?

[sethpayne]

Could you explain why you feel gay marriage is destructive to families?  What do you feel will destroy families if gays are allowed to marry?

 

I'd also love a solid, real, tangible, defensible answer to this question.

 

But given I've been asking for one from SSM-opponents for a long long time.... I'm not hopeful an answer is forthcoming.  

[Senator]

Gay marriage, if allowed, will be one great hit on American and worldwide freedom, a truly sad horrific day.

Usually the act of allowing something is an expression of freedom......

 

I think your statement might be better expressed by saying, "Gay marriage, if allowed, will be one freedom we can't afford".

 

Perhaps

Edited April 11, 2015 by Senator

[Mystery Meat]

While Aule formed the bodies of the dwarves they could only act and live under his power until Eru actually made them by giving them independent spirits from the Flame Imperishable within himself and in essence, giving them souls.

 

I am not ashamed of knowing this.

 

This is why we are single.

[Daniel2]

The FOX 13 News story adds a bit more from a church spokesman, Mr. Hawkins:

LDS Church asks U.S. Supreme Court to rule against same-sex marriage

http://fox13now.com/2015/04/10/lds-church-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-rule-against-same-sex-marriage/

POSTED 5:32 PM, APRIL 10, 2015, BY BEN WINSLOW,UPDATED AT 05:43PM, APRIL 10, 2015

SALT LAKE CITY — In a “friend of the court” brief, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joined a number of other religions to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against same-sex marriage becoming legal nationwide.

The LDS Church filed an amicus brief alongside faiths such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Free Methodist Church – USA, and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church in urging the court to uphold a traditional definition of marriage.

“Notwithstanding our theological differences, we are united in declaring that the traditional institution of marriage is indispensable to the welfare of the American family and society. We are also united in our belief that a decision requiring the States to license or recognize same-sex marriage would generate church-state conflicts that will imperil vital religious liberties. This brief is submitted out of our firm judgment that the Constitution does not require States to take that fateful step,” they wrote in the amicus filing.

The filing says the Mormon faith “teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, that the traditional family is the foundation of society, and that marriage and family supply the crucial relationships through which parents and children acquire private and public virtue.”

“Out of support for these fundamental beliefs, the Church appears in this case to defend the traditional, husband-wife definition of marriage,” it says.

The LDS Church recently backed a bill in Utah that guarded against discrimination in housing and employment for LGBT people, as well as a bill that lets county clerks opt-out of performing same sex marriages, provided someone in the office does it.

In a statement to FOX 13, LDS Church spokesman Eric Hawkins wrote:

“The Church’s deep belief and commitment to marriage between a man and a woman is well known. While we have been outspoken proponents in favor of protections for LGBT people in such areas as housing and employment, we believe that a redefinition of marriage to include same–sex couples has profoundly troubling implications for society in the long term. We have therefore joined with many other diverse faiths representing tens of millions of Americans in expressing our views to the Supreme Court.”

Last week, the Utah Attorney General’s Office filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of states and uphold same-sex marriage bans. The mayors of Salt Lake City, Park City and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., had previously joined in amicus briefs in support of same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Utah after a federal judge here ruled the state’s ban (known as Amendment 3) was unconstitutional. The state appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and later the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation’s top court refused to hear the Amendment 3 case.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on same-sex marriage in cases out of Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky on April 28. A decision is expected in June.

My reaction: no need for anyone in the LGBT movement to respond negatively... for all its efforts to build bridges with gays and lesbians, it's not a surprise the church would respond in this fashion at the Supreme Court. It is largely a symbolic gesture driven by current church leaders sincere and deeply held religious beliefs on matter, and it isn't intended to cause offense (even if it may).

I don't think many are expecting SCOTUS to rule against same-sex couples' ability to marry (though we could be surprised and wrong, of course!)... so, I'm hoping this brief, which is a great example of free speech in the public square, doesn't cause backlash of any sort for anyone... Keep calm, breathe deep, and walk on.... We'll all make it through this and discover peaceful coexistence as neighbors on the other side of June.....

Oh... and:

Three threads for the moderates seeking peace,

Seven for the cake makers in their halls of sugar,

Nine for gays cut off from baked goods,

One for the final battle on the field of words

In the land of Mormondom where the posters abide.

One thread to rule them all, one thread to index them,

One thread to bring them all and in mutual hostility bind them

In the land of Mormondom where the posters abide.

So was Tolkien referring to marriage when he considered gifted rings to be a tricky gift designed to bind people to a dark and twisted world?

LOVE LOVE LOVE this post, Nehor!!!!

Hilariously ingenius!!! Thanks for sharing.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Daniel2

[CV75]

Thanks for the link Daniel2. I find it interesting that a few weeks after championing a "middle way" bill in Utah in which "neither side would get everything it wants," that the church is now arguing to SCOTUS that there is no middle ground between gay marriage and religious liberty. The church's brief argues that requiring marriage equality on a civil level will necessarily impinge on the religious liberty of those who disagree with such marriages. That makes no sense to me. Civil marriages do not affect religious rites (or rights) in any regard. And many religious bodies actually do want to bless same sex unions (a point noticeably unaddressed in the brief).

 

The key theme in the brief is that the Court should accept the will of voters (or legislatures) who acted on purely religious grounds - not because of animus to LGBT people, but because of animus to LGBT sex, which gay marriage would help normalize. To me, that is an incredibly dangerous position to take. Allowing purely religious arguments to form the basis of any governmental policy would necessitate courts deciding which god is correct, and then expecting the citizenry to accept the court's decision that is premised on a basis that is wholly foreign and unrecognized by much of the citizen body. That can only lead to anarchy and great(er) conflict between religious sects.

 

The danger of the church's position can be clearly seen by changing all references in the brief to SSM to inter-racial marriage. Should courts in 1967 have allowed purely religious beliefs to govern whether blacks and whites can marry? Of course not. But under the church's logic, SCOTUS should have taken those religiously-motivated beliefs into consideration in deciding Loving v. Virginia (a case also noticeably absent from the brief). Thank goodness the Court did not do so in 1967. Thank goodness they will not do so in 2015. 

As cited, “To declare an unprecedented constitutional right to same-sex marriage would deny people of faith who support traditional marriage the liberty to participate as equal citizens in deciding which values and policies will govern their communities.”

 

There are many, many virtues to diversity, but also to unity in sustaining the constitutional process of deciding which values and policies govern individual communities. So I see this as an issue between the power and role of courts and legislative bodies; federal and state interests; etc. on a subject that impacts the community / communal conscience and thus religious liberty and freedom. People of faith and the values they uphold are rightly represented through their government when they participate in the full and balanced constutuional process.

 

I think comparing SSM to other forms of traditional marriage denies the reality of self-determination (whether jurisdictional or individual) taking place in real time with actual values reflected in government policies at every level.

[tonie]

The brief is disappointing. The brief does not (or only superficially) address that questions presented.

The brief also makes claims for event that have not occurred - the claim being that legalization of ssm will create lawsuits against Churchs. 

 

States have non-discrimination laws and States have legal same-sex marriage, and yet there is not a single instance of a Church or Religious leader being sued.  Anti-drismination typical (even at the Federal level) specifically exempt religious entities.  So calling for ssm marriage to be prohibited due to lawsuits against Churches is superficially attractive but is without any actual evidence.

[Calm]

This is why we are single.

One of the things that attracted me to my husband was his homemade bookmark in Elvish.