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

[Gray]

As I had stated already, marriage as a definition apply's and has always applied to the marriage of the heterosexual (man & woman), it is a sacred institution and definition, whether religion was involved or not.

Again, I also said that nobody is denying gays right to be unioned being free adults.  Thus obviously I'm not supporting "limiting" anything.  We are simply asking for respect for our own defintinitions and words, and for the gay person to create their own for their completely NEW thing, which has also been done since the dawn of man, new things come along, new words and definitions are created.

 

Marriage has been marriage no matter how "legalized" with some government that has gotten involved in it.

Again, nobody's denying gays right to be unioned however they want, through the state, their own religious beliefs, etc.

We are simply asking them to stop co-opting the word "Marriage", which has always meant between man and woman.

Again, they are a new thing, thus if they were fair, reasonable and tolerant, they would create new words and definitions for their thing.

 

Well, you did define marriage as between a man and a woman and for religious people. If letting atheists marry isn't a redefinition of the word, why is letting gay people marry a redefinition of the word?

 

And speaking of defining things, who gets to define what marriage means? I'm reasonably sure the word isn't subject to any existing copyrights or trademarks. 

[ALarson]

Again, nobody's denying gays right to be unioned however they want, through the state, their own religious beliefs, etc.

And again I ask for specifics.  How does giving gay couples the right to marry infringe on your rights or stop you from being able to have your own religious beliefs?

 

Again, they are a new thing, thus if they were fair, reasonable and tolerant, they would create new words and definitions for their thing.

 

 

Their "thing"?  Wow.

Edited April 14, 2015 by ALarson

[thesometimesaint]

OK.  You're welcome to think that, but neither the Supremacy Clause nor the Tenth Amendment say that.

 

Here is what the Supremacy Clause says: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Now; of course the 10th Amendment has been interpreted differently by different courts including the USSC. We are just ordinary men trying do the best we can within our very limited understandings. I tend to be a middle of road type of person when it comes to the law. So in my view you have every legal religious right to swing your righteous fist, until it connects with my unrighteous nose.

[tonie]

And again I ask for specifics. How does giving gay couples the right to marry infringe on your rights or stop you from being able to have your own religious beliefs?

Their "thing"? Wow.

my experience with williamsmith is that he will not back up his claims.

[ALarson]

my experience with williamsmith is that he will not back up his claims.

Thanks tonie.  I won't expect any response from him and just assume that he has no evidence to back up his claims on here.

Edited April 14, 2015 by ALarson

[tonie]

What Biblical definition of marriage should we ask SCOTUS to enforce?

Marriage that God establish?

Marriage that Moses establish?

Marriage that Christ apparently condem?

Marriage that Prophets of this last dispensation defended and/or speak against?

[Kenngo1969]

Here is what the Supremacy Clause says: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Now; of course the 10th Amendment has been interpreted differently by different courts including the USSC. We are just ordinary men trying do the best we can within our very limited understandings. I tend to be a middle of road type of person when it comes to the law. So in my view you have every legal religious right to swing your righteous fist, until it connects with my unrighteous nose.

I will never claim a religious right to hit you, nor will I ever exercise such a right even if I did claim it; so, you're safe.

[Tacenda]

Those darn blacks pushing their black agenda of equal rights under the law. How intolerant of them.

Exactly what I was thinking!!

[Daniel2]

As various amicus briefs are being filed, here's an interesting development from one brief that was filed in support of banning same-sex marriage, allegedly on behalf of individuals in mixed orientation marriages... The problem is, Josh and Lolly Weed (active Latter-day Saints) actually support marriage equality for gay couples. Well worth a read, and kudos to them for setting the record...uh, ahem...straight (horrible pun!... but it was begging for it and I couldn't resist! ):

Mormon couple object to inclusion in U.S. Supreme Court gay marriage case

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2400859-155/mormon-couple-object-to-inclusion-in?fullpage=1

By JENNIFER DOBNER | The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Apr 15 2015 06:00AM • Last Updated Apr 15 2015 10:51 pm

Courts » Brief was filed on behalf of couples in mixed-orientation marriages, but couple don’t agree with its point of view.

A Mormon couple in a mixed-orientation marriage are objecting to their inclusion in a U.S. Supreme Court case filing because it argues that legalized gay marriage would demean the marriages of couples like themselves.

Josh and Lolly Weed's names and statements are referenced in a "friend of the court" brief ahead of the April 28 arguments in a consolidated 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case, which many expect will legalize gay marriage nationwide.

The brief was filed April 3 by American Fork attorney Darrin Johns on behalf of couples in mixed-orientation marriages — unions in which one partner is gay and the other is not — who oppose marriage equality.

The Weeds told The Salt Lake Tribune on Tuesday they didn't consent to be included in the filing, nor do they share its point of view.

Among the filing's arguments: Constitutionally mandated same-sex marriages can exist only by "erasing, marginalizing and demeaning the same-sex attracted who live in man-woman marriages" and would send a "harmful message that it is impossible, unnatural and dangerous for the same-sex attracted to marry members of the opposite sex."

"What does that have to do with us at all?" asked Josh Weed, an openly gay man who has been married to a woman for 12 years. "I feel no devaluation of my marriage status by having marriage equality."

The Weeds, of Washington state, became the public face of Mormon mixed-orientation marriage in 2012, when they posted their story on Josh's blog, joshweed.com, which garnered thousands of Web hits and national media attention. They do not advocate mixed-orientation marriages for others.

"My wife and I support marriage equality," Josh Weed said. "That is sacrosanct to us and important to us because we know many wonderful people who are hurt by the current state of affairs. To have this amicus brief out with our names associated with it is very hurtful."

The Weeds are far from alone in their concerns. An Internet post about the brief's arguments sparked a frenzy of criticism on Mormon-themed Facebook pages, which provide support or resources for gay or transgender Latter-day Saints and their families, including Mormons Building Bridges, Mormon Stories and Mama Dragons.

The brief includes quoted statements and references to online video interviews from nearly 20 individuals and couples about the joys and challenges of their relationships and their reasons for choosing mixed-orientation marriages.

All but one appear to be Mormons with ties to North Star, a support group and resource for mixed-orientation Latter-day Saints. Many have posted videos about their relationships with the related LDS Voice(s) of Hope online video project. A few also appeared on The Learning Channel's program "My Husband's Not Gay."

Doug Mainwaring, of Massachusetts, is the lone Catholic quoted in the document and drove what he called the "grass-roots" effort to gather supporters to sign on to the brief.

"There's been a message delivered loud and clear that if you are same-sex attracted, there's only one thing you can do, which is make the declaration that you are gay and make that the foundation of your identity," said Mainwaring, who will soon mark the 30th year of his own mixed-orientation marriage. "There are a lot of us that know that's not true."

An activist who helped found the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, Mainwaring said he felt so strongly about the importance of marriage between men and women that he reached out to individuals he knew through the Voice(s) of Hope project in hopes of taking their shared message to the Supreme Court. It's there, he said, that he found the individuals who signed on to the brief.

Although the group includes just 10 couples and three individuals, Mainwaring said he believes they represent many others — "possibly hundreds of thousands or perhaps far more" — who share their point of view, but don't feel comfortable speaking out.

Statements from the Weeds and a handful of other couples and individuals were gathered from Internet posts or other sources that were in the public domain and can be used under the legal doctrine of "fair use" when properly attributed.

For their part, the Weeds, who are expecting their fourth child in May, say they wish they had been asked whether they wanted to be included in Mainwaring's effort and believe they've been misrepresented. Josh Weed said an email he received days ago said that a mixed-orientation marriage brief might be in the works, but he didn't realize its implications.

"I wish there had not been assumptions made about my position," Josh said. "I wish I'd had the opportunity to say 'Please don't' and 'I disagree.' "

Lolly Weed adds that she's not sure whether the views expressed in the brief are providing any notable contribution to the discussion of same-sex unions.

Her marriage to Josh, she said, could always take place, with or without the blessing of her state or the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I feel like it's taking away from the real issue, which is the validity of marriage equality," she said. "I don't feel like our marriage really has a place in that fight."

The case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court considers lower-court rulings from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee and asks two questions:

Whether the 14th Amendment requires a state to license marriages between individuals of the same sex and whether states are required to recognize same-sex marriages performed and legal in other states. A ruling is expected in June.

(Emphasis added)

Edited April 16, 2015 by Daniel2

[tonie]

Daniel2, I was getting ready to post that myself.

 

Here is my contribution:

 

Joshua Weed

 

"My wife and I support marriage equality," That is sacrosanct to us and important to us because we know many wonderful people who are hurt by the current state of affairs. To have this amicus brief out with our names associated with it is very hurtful."

[tonie]

Three interesting bits about Joshua Weed,

 

1. He is married to a woman, has 3 children with her, and is a faithfull Latter-Day Saint.

 

2. "This is the post where I tell you that I, Josh Weed, am homosexual."

 

3. He supports marriage equality.

Edited April 16, 2015 by tonie

[thesometimesaint]

Three interesting bits about Joshua Weed,

 

1. He is married to a woman, has 3 children with her, and is a faithfull Latter-Day Saint.

 

2. "This is the post where I tell you that I, Josh Weed, am homosexual."

 

3. He supports marriage equality.

 

I guess if it works for them. But I don't get the point of getting married, bearing children, and telling your spouse you don't find them sexually attractive.

[Calm]

I highly doubt that he tells his wife that given how he describes their sex life:

I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy.It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway). So, in a weird way, the circumstances of our marriage allowed us to build a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know. Most of whom are straight. Go fig.

Simply because he isn't in some way programmed to automatically respond sexually to women as he is to men, doesn't mean he can't shape his own behaviour and feelings into being sexually attracted to his wife as an individual. (not saying every homosexual man is capable of this, but given the description of their lives it certainly seems that Josh has done so and I know a few other couples where the husband has developed his physical attraction for his wife as an individual into something stronger than his attraction for men in general and has maintained it for many decades so I don't see it as just wishful thinking on his part)

Edited April 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I highly doubt that he tells his wife that given how he describes their sex life:

Simply because he isn't in some way programmed to automatically respond sexually to women as he is to men, doesn't mean he can't shape his own behaviour and feelings into being sexually attracted to his wife as an individual. (not saying every homosexual man is capable of this, but given the description of their lives it certainly seems that Josh has done so and I know a few other couples where the husband has developed his physical attraction for his wife as an individual into something stronger than his attraction for men in general and has maintained it for many decades so I don't see it as just wishful thinking on his part)

 

As I said if it works for them.

 

Homosexuality is by definition a sexual attraction to a member of your own sex. So if anything a homosexual marrying a heterosexual would be a form of bisexuality. I think that would be a very hard situation to maintain, at a very basic sexual appeal level. My specialty in Social Work was child and adolescent psychology. So marriage rarely came under discussion. However I could not in good conscience tell a homosexual that marrying a heterosexual would "cure" homosexuality.

[Calm]

However I could not in good conscience tell a homosexual that marrying a heterosexual would "cure" homosexuality.

And there is nothing in what the Weeds have stated that claim that his marriage to her has in any way "cured" his homosexuality or was intended to.

 

Have you read any of what the Weeds have written?

Edited April 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Yes I have read it.

 

As I said if it works for them.

 

That's why the cured is in quotes.

[Crypto]

I will never claim a religious right to hit you, nor will I ever exercise such a right even if I did claim it; so, you're safe.

Someone else told me this:

"Your rights end where my feelings begin"

Definitely something to stoke the flames with.

[Stargazer]

I've been a bit too busy to look at this thread due to overarching family matters, but now I have.  Haven't read through the whole thing, and I'm sorry for that.  I have stated my preferences vis-a-vis gay marriage in other threads and kind of wanted to "stand down" on the subject for awhile, but I found this thought-provoking YouTube video that seems relevant in some vague way.

 

EDITED TO REMOVE VIDEO:

 

As Daniel2 pointed out, the video was not on topic, so I have deleted it on my own initiative.  My apologies for the potential thread derail!!

Edited April 22, 2015 by Stargazer

[thesometimesaint]

I like this on better.

SEE http://ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/catholic-bishops-should-learn-mormons

[tonie]

I've been a bit too busy to look at this thread due to overarching family matters, but now I have.  Haven't read through the whole thing, and I'm sorry for that.  I have stated my preferences vis-a-vis gay marriage in other threads and kind of wanted to "stand down" on the subject for awhile, but I found this thought-provoking YouTube video that seems relevant in some vague way.

 

In case you're interested, it deals with the failure of the gay wedding cake proponents to bring Muslims into the fray along with the Christians.

 

 

The video is of a bombastic rhetoric, and seems to cater to a uniformed irrational fear motivated audience.  At one point he says something along the lines of "I thought they all [the Muslims] were going to blow me up".

 

We might as well accuse the gays of failing to bring, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Sihks, Buhdist, etc into the fray along with the Christians.

Edited April 19, 2015 by tonie

[Daniel2]

I've been a bit too busy to look at this thread due to overarching family matters, but now I have. Haven't read through the whole thing, and I'm sorry for that. I have stated my preferences vis-a-vis gay marriage in other threads and kind of wanted to "stand down" on the subject for awhile, but I found this thought-provoking YouTube video that seems relevant in some vague way.

In case you're interested, it deals with the failure of the gay wedding cake proponents to bring Muslims into the fray along with the Christians.

Stargazer, thanks for participating. This thread is specifically about marriage, the church, and the upcoming SCOTUS case. There are other threads for cake war discussions, so as to keep this one on topic.

[Buckeye]

This may be too much of a tangent, but I thought it the best place to mention something very interesting (outside of a new thread). The DN has an article about a recently baptized former Senator named Larry Pressler: (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865626822/Spiritual-journey-leads-3-term-US-senator-to-LDS-Church.html) A few interesting points:

1. Senator Harry Reid introduced Pressler to the BOM and performed his confirmation.
2. Clayton Christensen wrote a testimony of the BOM in the New Yorker which led Pressler to meet with missionaries. Christensen also performed the baptism.
3. Pressler was a Republican when he served as a Senator in the 1980s to 1990s, but ran as an independent in the last election because, in his words, the party had changed, not him.
4. In the 2013 SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, Pressler signed an amicus brief in support of a constitutional right to marriage. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/28/the-pro-freedom-republicans-are-coming-131-sign-gay-marriage-brief.html)
5. Pressler is much more interesting that just these 4 points, so please don't limit yourself to my summary, but go and do your own research.

Again, this is somewhat of a tangent, but I thought the article shows a lot of good points that are often debated on this board. Whether democrats can be good members. Whether gay-marriage supporters can be good members. And most importantly, how we can all find common ground despite some differences. Both in politics and in the church. I imagine that's a message we'll need over the next few weeks.

[Daniel2]

As we await the upcoming hearing next week, today SCOTUS rejected the National Organization for Marriage's final appeal to stop same-sex marriages in Oregon:

Supreme Court rejects group's final attempt to overturn Oregon's gay marriage law

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/04/supreme_court_rejects_groups_f.html#incart_river

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear one last legal attempt by the National Organization for Marriage to overturn a federal judge's ruling allowing gays and lesbians to marry in Oregon.

The high court's action came nearly a year after U.S. District Judge Michael McShane of Eugene on May 19, 2014, struck down Oregon's voter-approved constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

"It's a good day," said Portland attorney Lake Perriguey, who brought one of the two lawsuits that led to McShane's ruling. "It's a distraction we don't have to worry about anymore."

Tom Johnson, a Portland attorney involved in the other lawsuit, said he was confident that the Supreme Court would deny the National Organization for Marriage's last-ditch legal appeal. But until the court ruled, there was "that tiny, little bit of uncertainty," he said.

The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on April 28 on whether states can ban same-sex marriage or whether gay and lesbian couples have aconstitutional right to marry no matter which state they are in. The court is hearing cases from four states -- Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

No one was granted the legal standing to appeal McShane's decision in Oregon. Unlike attorneys general in many states, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum also argued that Oregon's law unconstitutionally discriminated against gay and lesbian couples.

As a result, several lawyers have said, McShane's ruling could well stand no matter how the Supreme Court rules in the cases out of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia now allow gay marriage, mostly following legal actions relying on the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to refuse to recognize legally performed same-sex marriages. In addition, a federal judge this year struck down Alabama's ban and the U.S. Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages to proceed there, but the Alabama Supreme Court has ordered local officials to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The National Organization for Marriage, which has fought gay marriage in cases around the country, unsuccessfully sought to intervene in Oregon and has appealed every adverse ruling as far as it could go.

Last June, the Supreme Court in a one-sentence order refused to stay McShane's ruling.  

In its latest action, the high court included the Oregon case -- listed as National Org. For Marriage v. Geiger, Deanna L., et al -- on a long list of petitions that it refused to hear.

John Eastman, the NOM chairman and attorney for the group, could not be immediately reached for comment.

[Calm]

Popping this to front page so no one thinks there is a need to start a new one on subject....

[The Nehor]

What Biblical definition of marriage should we ask SCOTUS to enforce?

Marriage that God establish?

Marriage that Moses establish?

Marriage that Christ apparently condem?

Marriage that Prophets of this last dispensation defended and/or speak against?

 

The mandatory gay marriages that I am told are inevitable. Might as well just get it over with.