Brian 2.0 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) From "Newsroom" at lds.org: From an address by Elder Dallin H. Oaks: From "Newsroom" again: Please go to the links and read these sources in full before arguing with me about these quotes. I have to say good on you for a thorough CFR response. Quite commendable. Edited June 9, 2015 by Brian 2.0
Brian 2.0 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 To the extent that a business owner is also an individual who has religious liberty, I would say both. Why do you differentiate? Because we all give up certain "rights" when we join almost anything in exchange for things. It's been made quite clear of late that you don't have the right to say whatever you want to say and still be a member of the church. You give up certain rights to be part of the country, state, what have you. The same goes for businesses as well. To form a business and operate legally you give up certain rights that you may still have individually but may not be able to apply them in your business dealings. We have to differentiate. People are allowed to be racists, business aren't, for example. It's a line that has to be carefully and thoughtfully legislated and examined. There's no simple, "My religious liberty says I can do whatever I want" or "I'm gay and you have to do whatever I tell you."
Daniel2 Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Hey, everyone, I hate to be a wet blanket on a somewhat resuscitated discussion (especially after a great post like that, Brian 2.0).... but the topic of whether equal rights for LGBT individuals is a real threat to religious liberty has been done ad naseum on other threads who were geared specifically for that topic. This thread is an attempt to keep the focus on aspects of civil marriage and the SCOTUS ruling as they relate to LDS culture and belief. While I realize there may be parallels, the specific back-and-forth on the "religious liberty" question really is best served in other threads, particularly because so much of the discussion becomes hostile or demeaning and ends in rapid thread closure... I'd really like to keep this thread on topic and avoid having it be shut down. Can we either move the comments to more relevant threads or open new ones, and keep this one on topic, please? Thank you in advance... Edited June 10, 2015 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Attempting to steer this back towards the marriage question, I was surprised to see a new ruling come out of Alabama, so close to the eve of the SCOTUS rulilng: Federal Judge In Alabama Rules In Favor Of Gay MarriagePosted: 05/21/2015 8:08 pm EDT Updated: 05/22/2015 1:59 am EDTMONTGOMERY, Ala (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that gays and lesbians ave the right to marry in all Alabama counties, but placed her decision on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling on same-sex marriage.U.S District Judge Callie Granade said Thursday that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and enjoined probate judges from enforcing it. However, she stayed enforcement of her order citing the expected decision this summer. Granade in January ruled that Alabama's gay marriage ban was illegal. Gay couples married for three weeks until the state Supreme Court ordered probate judges to stop. The latest ruling came in a class-action lawsuit by gay couples across the state. David Dinielli, deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, called the ruling a definitive victory for gay marriage. And an interesting take on the effects should SCOTUS fail to uphold civil marriage as a civil right for same-sex couples: Court ruling against gay marriage could cause legal 'chaos' http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-ruling-against-gay-marriage-produce-chaos-170637311.html;_ylt=AwrSbmzosndVlV0ACohXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyam4xaTZyBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjAyNjVfMQRzZWMDc2M- By MARK SHERMAN7 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Gay and lesbian couples could face legal chaos if the Supreme Court rules against same-sex marriage in the next few weeks. Same-sex weddings could come to a halt in many states, depending on a confusing mix of lower-court decisions and the sometimes-contradictory views of state and local officials. Among the 36 states in which same-sex couples can now marry are 20 in which federal judges invoked the Constitution to strike down marriage bans. Those rulings would be in conflict with the nation's highest court if the justices uphold the power of states to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. A decision is expected by late June in cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Top officials in some states, including California, seem determined to allow gay and lesbian couples to continue to marry no matter how the court decision comes out. But some county clerks, who actually issue marriage licenses, might not go along, experts said. In other states, a high court ruling in favor of state bans would serve to prohibit any more such unions, but also could give rise to new efforts to repeal marriage bans through the legislature or the ballot. The scenario may be unlikely, given the Supreme Court's role in allowing those lower court rulings to take effect before the justices themselves decided the issue. But if the court doesn't endorse same-sex marriage nationwide, "it would be chaos," said Howard Wasserman, a Florida International University law professor. Marriages already on the books probably are safe, said several scholars and civil liberties lawyers. "There's a very strong likelihood these marriages would have to be respected, no matter what," said Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Gay and lesbian couples could continue to marry in the 16 states that have same-sex marriage because of state court rulings, acts of the legislature or statewide votes.View gallery Similarly, the 14 states that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, including the four directly involved in the Supreme Court cases, could continue enforcing their state marriage laws. That would include Alabama, where a federal judge has struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but put her ruling on hold pending the high court's decision. Of the remaining 20 states, any that fought unsuccessfully to preserve marriage bans would not have much trouble resuming enforcement. "That state can immediately start saying we're going to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples going forward," said Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf. That list might include Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Officials in some of those states refused to comment on how they would respond, citing the ongoing Supreme Court case. "I'm just not going to speculate on what the court may or may not do," said Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. Things might be different in California, Colorado, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia because top elected officials did not contest lower-court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage. Courts in those states issued orders, or injunctions, that forbid the state from enforcing the constitutional amendments or state laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman. Typically, a participant in the lawsuit that led to the injunction has to ask the judge to undo it. But if the governor and attorney general are same-sex marriage supporters, they may have little incentive to go back into court. In California, for instance, Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris both opposed Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that prohibited same-sex marriage. "I think it's very unlikely that anyone would try to turn back the clock in California," Stoll said. But Gene Schaerr, a Washington-based lawyer who has defended same-sex marriage bans, said he thinks even in states where the political leadership favors gay and lesbian unions, county clerks who actually issue marriage licenses would be on safe ground if they were to deny licenses to same-sex couples. In Schaerr's view, only the clerks in Alameda and Los Angeles counties are bound by the 2010 injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. A Supreme Court ruling rejecting a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples would "free the clerks in counties other than Los Angeles and Alameda to adhere to Proposition 8," Schaerr said. Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, a Republican, said she supports same-sex marriage, but believes voters need to remove the marriage ban from the state constitution — and would replace it with legal protection for same-sex marriage if given the chance. Coffman said she would "gladly defend" such an outcome. If same-sex marriages cease in Virginia, Attorney General Mark Herring would try to get the state General Assembly to repeal the state's statutory and constitutional bans, Herring spokesman Michael Kelly said. Some gay rights groups and state officials said the chance the court would not come out in favor of same-sex marriage is remote. "Recent history of the past eight months, plus all the rulings of the past 20 years, don't indicate that to us this is going to go against us," said Tom Witt, executive director of gay rights organization Equality Kansas. "It could, but a giant meteor could fall on my head in the next five seconds." None did.___Associated Press writers Kim Chandler in Montgomery, Alabama, Jonathan J. Cooper in Salem, Oregon, Maria Fisher in Kansas City, Meg Kinnard in Columbia, South Carolina, Lisa Leff in San Francisco, Larry O'Dell in Richmond, Virginia, and Kristen Wyatt in Denver contributed to this report. Edited June 10, 2015 by Daniel2
Brian 2.0 Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Hey, everyone,I hate to be a wet blanket on a somewhat resuscitated discussion (especially after a great post like that, Brian 2.0).... but the topic of whether equal rights for LGBT individuals is a real threat to religious liberty has been done ad naseum on other threads who were geared specifically for that topic.This thread is an attempt to keep the focus on aspects of civil marriage and the SCOTUS ruling as they relate to LDS culture and belief. While I realize there may be parallels, the specific back-and-forth on the "religious liberty" question really is best served in other threads, particularly because so much of the discussion becomes hostile or demeaning and ends in rapid thread closure... I'd really like to keep this thread on topic and avoid having it be shut down.Can we either move the comments to more relevant threads or open new ones, and keep this one on topic, please?Thank you in advance...No offense taken at all. We're just all bottled up here When does SCOTUS give us more?
Daniel2 Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 No offense taken at all. We're just all bottled up here When does SCOTUS give us more? Their final ruling on the matter (a decision that would apply nation-wide) could come any time now, and is expected by the end of this month.
Meadowchik Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Hey, everyone, I hate to be a wet blanket on a somewhat resuscitated discussion (especially after a great post like that, Brian 2.0).... but the topic of whether equal rights for LGBT individuals is a real threat to religious liberty has been done ad naseum on other threads who were geared specifically for that topic. This thread is an attempt to keep the focus on aspects of civil marriage and the SCOTUS ruling as they relate to LDS culture and belief. While I realize there may be parallels, the specific back-and-forth on the "religious liberty" question really is best served in other threads, particularly because so much of the discussion becomes hostile or demeaning and ends in rapid thread closure... I'd really like to keep this thread on topic and avoid having it be shut down. Can we either move the comments to more relevant threads or open new ones, and keep this one on topic, please? Thank you in advance... In France, where I live and attend the LDS Church, gay marriage is already a legal reality. There were, however, pretty impressive marches against it before and around the time the legislature made it law. The supreme court here did uphold the ban previously, affirming that attributes of a heterosexual couple are unique. Anyways, we've not seen any changes in regards to the law and the Church, but here, "religious liberty" is not subject to the same protections. Essentially, in French law, there should be no entity between the public law and the citizen. This does make the decision of the French highest court an interesting one, considering that, rationally, the court did not rely on religious argument to make its ruling. Anyways, for the Church, I've found great value in reading and learning about many LGBT LDS individuals and their family members who are personally struggling with the dissonance between the Church and their personal beliefs about the potential goodness of same-sex marriage. There are many arguments I've read over the years about gays and homosexual behavior being intrinsically bad and I've discarded all of them, save one. This one hangs in the air: homosexual relationships, in my opinion, are wrong when they make it impossible for us to move forward in the way God wants for us. To me , that's what we're dealing with, as a Church at the core of the issue. More urgently, though, as reported by many of their supporters and allies, is the levels of depression and suicide among GLBT youth in the Church. In my opinion, we must care for those among us who are suffering and feeling excluding, including our GLBT brothers and sisters. And there is so much ground we can cover, so much we can do, regardless of the distinction God makes through his prophets about the wrongness or rightness of gay marriage. Learning to "adopt" our brothers and sisters unto us, into our society, encircling them in our love, never making baptism a prerequisite for that inclusion, this is the kind of fellowship Christ advocated, in my opinion. It is true that common beliefs, values, and covenants can bond us, however, we are already bound and children of God. It seems that, in light of the work the Church does for the dead, that perhaps no other church believes so much in the sacredness of siblinghood of every human being. I think that the early persecution of the Saints had us turning inward, and had created some cultural habits sometimes and with some of us, but we certainly cannot cling to seclusion, even when it comes to our loved ones. Their following their conscience and using their agency should be independent of our love for them. Whether we learn this now as a result of striving to keep our GLBT brothers and sisters close to us, or whether we learn it much later, it must be learned at some point. It's clear to me that the Church has two independent though often connecting missions: loving our fellow men, and inviting all to baptism, while not making baptism a prerequisite for our society. This is doctrinal, but making it a matter of course in the day-to-day will require very much of us.
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 While we're waiting for SCOTUS, here's an interesting article from Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/christian-couple-vow-to-divorce-if-samesex-marriage-is-legalised-20150610-ghl3o6.html Its not clear (at least to me) whether this couple intends to end their entire relationship or just end their state-sponsored recognition of their marriage. I rather hope it's the latter, but who knows? Sometimes people get so fixated on a principle that they're willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 While we're waiting for SCOTUS, here's an interesting article from Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/christian-couple-vow-to-divorce-if-samesex-marriage-is-legalised-20150610-ghl3o6.html Its not clear (at least to me) whether this couple intends to end their entire relationship or just end their state-sponsored recognition of their marriage. I rather hope it's the latter, but who knows? Sometimes people get so fixated on a principle that they're willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Seems to me that they would predicate their marriage on what someone else does. Not really the wisest course of action.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Because we all give up certain "rights" when we join almost anything in exchange for things. It's been made quite clear of late that you don't have the right to say whatever you want to say and still be a member of the church. You give up certain rights to be part of the country, state, what have you. The same goes for businesses as well. To form a business and operate legally you give up certain rights that you may still have individually but may not be able to apply them in your business dealings. We have to differentiate. People are allowed to be racists, business aren't, for example. It's a line that has to be carefully and thoughtfully legislated and examined. There's no simple, "My religious liberty says I can do whatever I want" or "I'm gay and you have to do whatever I tell you."I agree with this. And that's why I recommend the recently passed Utah law as a good model for navigating a middle ground between preserving religious liberty and prohibiting discrimination. Unfortunately, it seems many, including some here, will accept nothing less than total capitulation regarding religious liberty.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Hey, everyone, I hate to be a wet blanket on a somewhat resuscitated discussion (especially after a great post like that, Brian 2.0).... but the topic of whether equal rights for LGBT individuals is a real threat to religious liberty has been done ad naseum on other threads who were geared specifically for that topic. This thread is an attempt to keep the focus on aspects of civil marriage and the SCOTUS ruling as they relate to LDS culture and belief. While I realize there may be parallels, the specific back-and-forth on the "religious liberty" question really is best served in other threads, particularly because so much of the discussion becomes hostile or demeaning and ends in rapid thread closure... I'd really like to keep this thread on topic and avoid having it be shut down. Can we either move the comments to more relevant threads or open new ones, and keep this one on topic, please? Thank you in advance...Pardon. I read Brian's post and responded to it before I read further and saw this post. If you'll indulge me in allowing my response to Brian to stand, I promise to let this thread be for now.
Daniel2 Posted June 11, 2015 Author Posted June 11, 2015 The Associated Press releases info on a new poll:NATIONAL Poll: 65 percent of Americans expect Supreme Court to back gay marriage in upcoming rulinghttp://m.startribune.com/politics/national/306872101.htmlBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, ASSOCIATED PRESS June 11, 2015 - 9:50 AMNEW YORK — Nearly two-thirds of Americans expect the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide when it rules on the issue within the next few weeks, according to a new poll.Only 25 percent expect the high court to leave existing state bans on gay marriage intact, while 65 percent expect the bans to be overturned, according to the poll conducted by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute. Its nationwide survey of 1,009 adults was conducted from June 3 to June 7.Mirroring the findings of several other recent national polls, the new survey found 55 percent of Americans in favor of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, and 37 percent opposed.Among those who oppose same-sex marriage, 72 percent say the decision about its legality should be made at the state level. Among those who favor same-sex marriage, 59 percent say the issue should be decided at the national level. At the moment, same-sex marriages are allowed in 36 states.The survey found sharp divisions over same-sex marriage along religious lines. Majorities of religiously unaffiliated Americans (79 percent), white mainline Protestants (60 percent) and Catholics (58 percent) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. But gay marriage was supported by only 29 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 35 percent of nonwhite Protestants.The survey also asked about perceptions of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Three-quarters of Democrats, 61 percent of independents and 50 percent of Republicans said there is a lot of discrimination against transgender people.Overall, 69 percent of Americans — including 65 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of white evangelical Protestants — said they favored laws that would protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations and housing.And 60 percent of Americans opposed allowing small business owners to refuse service to gays and lesbians, even if it violates their religious beliefs. This opposition included 64 percent of Catholics, 63 percent of nonwhite Protestants and 59 percent of white mainline Protestants. Among white evangelical Protestants, 51 percent supported allowing small business owners to refuse service to gays and lesbians on religious grounds.According to the survey, 65 percent of Americans report having a close friend or family member who is gay or lesbian. Only 11 percent reported having a close friend or family member who is transgender.
Daniel2 Posted June 13, 2015 Author Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Yesterday was a historic day in civil marriage rights law...It was 48 years ago today: Supreme Court rejects anti-interracial marriage lawshttp://news.yahoo.com/today-supreme-court-history-loving-v-virginia-144607316--politics.htmlNational Constitution Center By NCC StaffJun 12, 2015 2:25 PMOn June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court issued its Loving v. Virginia decision, which blocked states from passing laws that banned inter-racial marriages. Here is a brief recap of the this landmark civil rights case.As of 1967, 16 states had still not repealed anti-miscegenation laws that forbid interracial marriages. Mildred and Richard Loving were residents of one such state, Virginia. They had fallen in love and wanted to get married.Under Virginia’s laws, however, Richard, a white man, could not marry Mildred, a woman of African American and Native American descent. The two travelled to Washington D.C. where they could be married, but they were arrested under a Virginia state law that prohibited inter-racial marriage.Because their offense was a criminal conviction, after being found guilty, they were given a prison sentence of one year. The trial judge suspended the sentence for 25 years on the condition that the couple leave Virginia.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled that the state had an interest in preserving the “racial integrity” of its constituents and that because the punishment applied equally to both races, the statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.The United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the Virginia Court’s ruling and held that the Equal Protection Clause required strict scrutiny to apply to all race based classifications. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the law was rooted in invidious racial discrimination, making it impossible to satisfy a compelling government interest.“Under our Constitution,” wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”The Loving decision still stands as a milestone in the Civil Rights Movement.Monday is the next day SCOTUS will release rulings... wonder if that's when we'll see another milestone in marriage law, or if they wait till the end of the month....?As Mildred Loving, one of those two historic plaintiffs, beautifully said herself in 2007:My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/mildred-loving-endorses-marriage-equality-for-same-sex-couples Edited June 13, 2015 by Daniel2
Russell C McGregor Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Yesterday was a historic day in civil marriage rights law...Monday is the next day SCOTUS will release rulings... wonder if that's when we'll see another milestone in marriage law, or if they wait till the end of the month....?As Mildred Loving, one of those two historic plaintiffs, beautifully said herself in 2007:My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/mildred-loving-endorses-marriage-equality-for-same-sex-couples The use of the Loving decision as a gay propaganda tool is a perfect instance of the kind of manipulation involved in this whole "debate." I have read the decision; the ratio decidendi starts from the premise that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Marriage inaugurates a natural family, beginning with a husband and a wife."Same sex marriage" is an oxymoron.
Daniel2 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) The use of the Loving decision as a gay propaganda tool is a perfect instance of the kind of manipulation involved in this whole "debate." I have read the decision; the ratio decidendi starts from the premise that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Marriage inaugurates a natural family, beginning with a husband and a wife."Same sex marriage" is an oxymoron.We are each entirely entitled to our own opinions about whether or not invoking the legal precident set by Loving vs Virginia would acurately be described as "manipulation" of some alleged "gay propaganda machine"... Mildred Loving clearly didn't share your objection to the obvious parallels, nor do several courts that have ruled thus far. I am comfortable siding with them, and predict the majority of the Supreme Court will, as well.When all that is left to be said by one side in a debate is to weep, wail, and gnash their teeth through ad hominem attacks (such as unsubstantiated accusations of "manipulation" or "propaganda"), the weakness of the failing arguments speak for themselves.Russ, I imagine that in real life, you would be as likeable fellow as any other Latter-day Saint that I know, most of whom are the kindest, most good-hearted people who are striving to be Christ-like, create a culture based on sharing one heart and one mind, and live by the Golden Rule. Most that I know are weary of fighting the fight against same-sex marriage--some, because they're tired of it, and others, because they've come to understand that denying gay couples equal civil rights is simply unconstitutional, contrary to religious freedom and the D&C's revelations on the role of government, let alone a violation of doing unto others as they would have be done unto themselves.It seems that some, such as yourself, will be bitter for a long time. And I am aware that some LGBT advocates have behaved reprehensibly and provoked some of the anger and bitterness. I am of the firm belief that there is room in America for both conservatives and liberals and anyone in between/sideways/upwards/downwards in matters related to this debate. I support individuals' right to opposite-sex marriages (in fact, my mom and dad provided exceptional examples of many ideals for me to emulate in my marriage with my husband), just as I support religions' right to self determination, and hope and trust that someday (albeit sometime in the not-too-distant future), that same civil courtesy will be reciprocated by all/most--whether or not your religion forbids same-sex relationships.I think that through the Utah compromise, LDS leaders and gay advocacy leaders came together to exemplify mutual civility and respect. It is my hope that time will heal all wounds and we can all learn to treat each other with the same. Edited June 15, 2015 by Daniel2 3
Daniel2 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Posted June 15, 2015 No news today...Keep Holding Your Breath For Supreme Court Decisions On Obamacare, Gay Marriagehttp://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7585638?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592&ref=yfp50 minutes ago | Updated 25 minutes agoRyan J. Reilly Justice Reporter, The Huffington PostWASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court issued three opinions on Monday, but most of the country doesn't really care about any of them.The Supreme Court will rule in the next few weeks on crucial cases involving Obamacare, gay marriage, the Clean Air Act, housing discrimination and lethal injection. There are still 17 opinions left, which are expected to be spread out over four or five days. But none of them came up on Monday.The cases the court did decide on Monday weren't any of the major ones still pending. The first case involved immigration, the second involved attorneys' fees in bankruptcy cases and the third and final opinion involved the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen.The justices will meet again Thursday, and it is possible they will issue more opinions then.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I think that through the Utah compromise, LDS leaders and gay advocacy leaders came together to exemplify mutual civility and respect. It is my hope that time will heal all wounds and we can all learn to treat each other with the same.Can I gather from this, then, that you endorse the Utah compromise?
thesometimesaint Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Can I gather from this, then, that you endorse the Utah compromise? It's a good start, but would like to see it applied to all public accommodations.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) It's a good start, but would like to see it applied to all public accommodations.Thanks for weighing in, but I'm trying to respect Daniel2's request to keep this thread focused. I was simply seeking clarification on his position. I'm not interested in reopening the debate on the Utah compromise. Edited June 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Daniel2 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Posted June 15, 2015 Can I gather from this, then, that you endorse the Utah compromise?Yes, I endorse it (I've said so before in other threads). Given that the bill intentionally set aside public accommodations law for future discussion, I agree with Sometimesaint that more work is yet to be done.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Yes, I endorse it (I've said so before in other threads). Given that the bill intentionally set aside public accommodations law for future discussion, I agree with Sometimesaint that more work is yet to be done.Not to belabor this, but sometimesaint said he wants it applied to "all public accommodations." Perhaps you do as well, but you stopped short of saying so in this post.
Russell C McGregor Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) We are each entirely entitled to our own opinions about whether or not invoking the legal precident set by Loving vs Virginia would acurately be described as "manipulation" of some alleged "gay propaganda machine"...Mildred Loving clearly didn't share your objection to the obvious parallels, nor do several courts that have ruled thus far.CFR, please, that any of those courts actually cited Loving as the basis for their judgements. I am comfortable siding with them, and predict the majority of the Supreme Court will, as well.On that, we agree.Ever since the Guantanamo Bay scandal, I've come to realise that America has no principles, and its vaunted constitution can be interpreted by lawyers to mean whatever they want it to mean. When all that is left to be said by one side in a debate is to weep, wail, and gnash their teeth through ad hominem attacks (such as unsubstantiated accusations of "manipulation" or "propaganda"), the weakness of the failing arguments speak for themselves.Perhaps, but you haven't come down to that yet. You still have plenty of other tools in your arsenal.But when we actually look at your attempts to make an argument, they are usually appeals to emotion.Like the appeal to Mildred Loving's gush. Russ, I imagine that in real life, you would be as likeable fellow as any other Latter-day Saint that I know, most of whom are the kindest, most good-hearted people who are striving to be Christ-like, create a culture based on sharing one heart and one mind, and live by the Golden Rule. Most that I know are weary of fighting the fight against same-sex marriage--some, because they're tired of it, and others, because they've come to understand that denying gay couples equal civil rights is simply unconstitutional, contrary to religious freedom and the D&C's revelations on the role of government, let alone a violation of doing unto others as they would have be done unto themselves.You're being manipulative.Again.Or should I say, still.If there is any degree of battle-weariness among those of us who are fighting the good fight, it probably stems from the sense that this is a lost battle. Not because we are on the wrong side, but because it seems likely that the wrong side will prevail.Your attempts to put words in the mouths of people you do not and cannot understand is, as I already mentioned, manipulative.But I realise there is no point in me asking you to stop doing it. Edited June 16, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Daniel2 Posted June 16, 2015 Author Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) CFR, please, that any of those courts actually cited Loving as the basis for their judgements.Happy to:In the 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, overturning California's Proposition 8 which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples, Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[24] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[25]Since 2014, five U.S. Courts of Appeals have considered the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. In doing so they have interpreted or used the Loving ruling in a few different ways.The Fourth and Tenth Circuits used Loving along with other cases like Zablocki v. Redhailand Turner v. Safley to demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a "fundamental right to marry" that a state can not restrict unless it meets the court's "heightened scrutiny" standard. Using that standard, both courts struck down state bans on same-sex marriage.[29][30]Two other courts of appeals, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, struck down state bans on the basis of a different line of argument. Instead of "fundamental rights" analysis, they reviewed bans on same-sex marriage as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The former cited Loving to demonstrate that the Supreme Court did not accept tradition as a justification for limiting access to marriage.[31] The latter cited Loving as quoted in United States v. Windsor on the question of federalism: "state laws defining or regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons".[32]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Edited June 16, 2015 by Daniel2 4
thesometimesaint Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Russel: It goes back far longer than Guantanamo Bay. The 1804 Marbury v Madison decision gave the US the concept of Judicial Review.
Recommended Posts