Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

[tubaloth]

Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional | ksl.com

Not good.

Probably not as much about the Issue, but more that it seems like voters have no power.

[Vort]

Sure the voters have power, as long as they vote to do what the judges want.

[Backroads]

I think they were stretching the 14th ammendment bit.

[LittleWyvern]

[Vort]

The juxtaposition of the gorilla and the flying lawn mower with the saying is so delightfully random it literally made me LOL.

[jerome1232]

What!? a judges ruling overturned a voter approved decision based on constitutionality of the law! This is terrible, it's a travesty, the Apocalypse is nigh at hand!

Wait, isn't that the judges job? To like, you know, determine if laws are in-line with the constitution, and put their stamp of approval or overturn them accordingly?

Now I haven't read really anything about the decision, but judges overruling the voting masses is sorta designed into the system, working as intended as they say.

[Just_A_Guy]

I must be slow on the uptake, because this has never occurred to me in any previous gay marriage discussion--but something just occurred to me:

IIRC, the question of whether a religious organization can discriminate against gays in administering state benefits (to wit: adoptions of children who are wards of the state) was settled in Massachusetts, sometime ago. They can't.

Now, marriage is a state benefit--and (barring SCOTUS intervention) one that must be administered indiscriminately. So under what legal basis can a church discriminate in administering a legal benefit? I'd be interested to hear, from gay marriage supporters, how they think that can be done under the current legal regimen. Quite a reversal, when gays can have a traditional legal wedding solemnized by a willing minister of their choice, but Baptists and Mormons basically can't.

I don't see any other option but for the Church to get out of the civil marriage business entirely, which I suspect will happen within ten years. And once we get to the point where we, as Mormons, can't/won't even solemnize civil weddings in our chapels, it'll be interesting to see whether we still require them at all prior to temple sealings or whether we actually start discouraging such ceremonies as an openly corrupt institution. The common complaint about outsiders being excluded from temple weddings may be about to resolve itself.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

I must be slow on the uptake, because this has never occurred to me in any previous gay marriage discussion--but something just occurred to me:

IIRC, the question of whether a religious organization can discriminate against gays in administering state benefits (to wit: adoptions of children who are wards of the state) was settled in Massachusetts, sometime ago. They can't.

Now, marriage is a state benefit--and (barring SCOTUS intervention) one that must be administered indiscriminately. So under what legal basis can a church discriminate in administering a legal benefit? I'd be interested to hear, from gay marriage supporters, how they think that can be done under the current legal regimen. Quite a reversal, when gays can have a traditional legal wedding solemnized by a willing minister of their choice, but Baptists and Mormons basically can't.

I don't see any other option but for the Church to get out of the civil marriage business entirely, which I suspect will happen within ten years. And once we get to the point where we, as Mormons, can't/won't even solemnize civil weddings in our chapels, it'll be interesting to see whether we still require them at all prior to temple sealings or whether we actually start discouraging such ceremonies as an openly corrupt institution. The common complaint about outsiders being excluded from temple weddings may be about to resolve itself.

I kinda sorta thought I saw this very thing coming... But until you posted this I didn't realize the legal frame work was already in place

[LittleWyvern]

I don't see any other option but for the Church to get out of the civil marriage business entirely, which I suspect will happen within ten years. And once we get to the point where we, as Mormons, can't/won't even solemnize civil weddings in our chapels, it'll be interesting to see whether we still require them at all prior to temple sealings or whether we actually start discouraging such ceremonies as an openly corrupt institution. The common complaint about outsiders being excluded from temple weddings may be about to resolve itself.

That's probably the most probable outcome. Here's how I see events going from here:

1. State bans on gay marriages start falling slowly around the nation
   
2. The Church stops allowing Bishops to perform civil marriages
   
3. The 1 year "civil marriage before temple marriage" penalty goes away in the US like it has in several European countries
   
4. The Church encourages, but does not require, members to get married civilly per AoF 12 (unless the Church standpoint on AoF 12 changes)
   
5. Gay marriage stops being a hot topic and everybody stops freaking out about it
   

If you know me, you'll know I'm most excited for #5 to happen.

[Just_A_Guy]

That's probably the most probable outcome. Here's how I see events going from here:

1. State bans on gay marriages start falling slowly around the nation
   
2. The Church stops allowing Bishops to perform civil marriages
   
3. The 1 year "civil marriage before temple marriage" penalty goes away in the US like it has in several European countries
   
4. The Church encourages, but does not require, members to get married civilly per AoF 12 (unless the Church standpoint on AoF 12 changes)
   
5. Gay marriage stops being a hot topic and everybody stops freaking out about it
   

If you know me, you'll know I'm most excited for #5 to happen.

I agree with all except your #s 4 and 5.

--I don't see why AoF 12 requires cohabiting Mormons to marry civilly, anymore than it requires an unemployed Mormon to apply for welfare.

--This doesn't end with marriage. The Phil Robertson brouhaha should (but won't) put that notion to rest. It's about the social, political, and financial destruction of anyone who believes gay sex is morally and/or theologically wrong. People won't stop "freaking out about it" until the LDS Church, and like-minded churches and individuals, are institutionally broken or relegated to approximately the same status that the Ku Klux Klan currently occupies.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I don't see any other option but for the Church to get out of the civil marriage business entirely, which I suspect will happen within ten years. And once we get to the point where we, as Mormons, can't/won't even solemnize civil weddings in our chapels, it'll be interesting to see whether we still require them at all prior to temple sealings or whether we actually start discouraging such ceremonies as an openly corrupt institution. The common complaint about outsiders being excluded from temple weddings may be about to resolve itself.

My thoughts are to just get the government out of marriage entirely. If you can find a church or any religious organization that will marry you so be it. But you cannot force any religion to marry a couple that wants to make covenants with each other. Marriage is a covenant between you, your wife and God. Get the government out of it. No more marriage licenses.

I fear the government is going to try to define marriage and try to force their ideas into every ones beliefs in the future.

I was recently reading stories about people being sued for not wanting to bake cakes or take pictures of homosexual marriages and unions. What about these people's rights to do business how they see fit? Will people who are homosexual or polygamous demand to enter the temple to have their marriages done in the future?

[Just_A_Guy]

My thoughts are to just get the government out of marriage entirely. If you can find a church or any religious organization that will marry you so be it. But you cannot force any religion to marry a couple that wants to make covenants with each other. Marriage is a covenant between you, your wife and God. Get the government out of it. No more marriage licenses.

I believe similarly, but it will never happen. Modern civil marriage is a freakin' gravy train of benefits. Politically, I believe that technically the behavior we want to be incentivizing with the public purse is child-rearing, not monogamous sexual relationships; and we should re-structure family benefits around the number of children in the home rather than who's shacking up with whom. But the status quo is too entrenched, civil marriage per se is on the road to being enshrined as a civil right, and anyone who tries to eliminate it will be accused of "animus".

I fear the government is going to try to define marriage and try to force their ideas into every ones beliefs in the future.

I was recently reading stories about people being sued for not wanting to bake cakes or take pictures of homosexual marriages and unions. What about these people's rights to do business how they see fit? Will people who are homosexual or polygamous demand to enter the temple to have their marriages done in the future?

It won't be that obvious, at first. Rather, we'll see a slough of stories about the way the Church benefits from government "largesse"--nonprofit tax status, for example; or having its buildings accessible via public roads, or having its missionaries able to travel with passports issued by the State Department, or having its canneries and farms inspected by FDA regulators, or having students and research at church-owned universities subsidized by government student loans and grants. One by one, these "privileges" will be chipped away in hopes that the Church will break.

[LittleWyvern]

--This doesn't end with marriage. The Phil Robertson brouhaha should (but won't) put that notion to rest. It's about the social, political, and financial destruction of anyone who believes gay sex is morally and/or theologically wrong. People won't stop "freaking out about it" until the LDS Church, and like-minded churches and individuals, are institutionally broken or relegated to approximately the same status that the Ku Klux Klan currently occupies.

My prediction that gay marriage will fade from the public discourse over time stems from my belief that the current gay marriage movement is, at its core, a fad. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about pop culture, but I think that soon American culture and its short attention span will find some other shiny thing to pay attention to.

EDIT: Before Soulsearcher jumps in here, I'm not denying that there was, at the beginning, a genuine movement for gay marriage. However, it's obvious now that it has been completely taken over by pop culture, as anybody who "comes out" gets a guaranteed 15 minutes of fame and accolades from the media. The movement rose quickly on the wave of pop culture and will be dumped just as fast when pop culture moves on to something else, as it always does.

Edited December 22, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[Just_A_Guy]

My prediction that gay marriage will fade from the public discourse over time stems from my belief that the current gay marriage movement is, at its core, a fad. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about pop culture, but I think that soon American culture and its short attention span will find some other shiny thing to pay attention to.

I think history indicates to the contrary. Neither Brown v. Board of Education nor the Civil Rights Act of 1964, took the wind out of the sails of the NAACP.

[LittleWyvern]

I think history indicates to the contrary. Neither Brown v. Board of Education nor the Civil Rights Act of 1964, took the wind out of the sails of the NAACP.

I'm not denying the movement itself will still exist, but after pop culture moves on the gay marriage movement will be tiny in comparison to its current size. There's a difference that you're ignoring between the strength of a movement and the wave of pop culture. One stays constant, the other comes and goes. I just don't think the gay marriage movement has much to it besides the jet fuel pop culture gave it. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I've seen too many fads come and go to be persuaded that this isn't one.

[mordorbund]

Did... did Utah just slide down the slippery slope backwards?

[bytebear]

I'm still reeling on the idea that the government takes your money, then tells you you can have it toward the end of your life, but you can only give it to certain people, and people call it a benefit.

[bytor2112]

It is astonishing to me that this is a "cause" that so many have rallied around and find it particularly despicable when g/l are compared to the civil rights movement.

One day same sex marriage will be the the law of the land and generations of kids will have grown up confused and taught to disdain the bigotry of a faith that calls their love sin..already happening really.

For those who support SS marriage and are endowed members of the church, I wonder how that squares with "building up the kingdom of God", when you cast your lot with a law designed to destroy the family.?

Edited December 31, 2013 by bytor2112

[Soulsearcher]

My prediction that gay marriage will fade from the public discourse over time stems from my belief that the current gay marriage movement is, at its core, a fad. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about pop culture, but I think that soon American culture and its short attention span will find some other shiny thing to pay attention to.

EDIT: Before Soulsearcher jumps in here, I'm not denying that there was, at the beginning, a genuine movement for gay marriage. However, it's obvious now that it has been completely taken over by pop culture, as anybody who "comes out" gets a guaranteed 15 minutes of fame and accolades from the media. The movement rose quickly on the wave of pop culture and will be dumped just as fast when pop culture moves on to something else, as it always does.

Might surprise you but i don't disagree for the most part. The current vocal media circus is a fad. It's not what was originally intended and it kept being fed by the vicious circle of the media war with the far right. Both sides are sick and tired of it and really for the most part the tides have turned, so i don't see your prediction about the pop culture aspect dying down being far off in my opinion.

I will correct one small thing. i think it should read some who come out will get their 15 minutes of fame and accolades. There are thousands who come out and get no attention or negative attention.

[Just_A_Guy]

I hope you're right, SS. But I've got a lunch at an SLC restaurant of your choice on December 31, 2025 that says you're wrong.

[carlimac]

I will correct one small thing. i think it should read some who come out will get their 15 minutes of fame and accolades. There are thousands who come out and get no attention or negative attention.

It depends on if they are a public figure or not. My prediction is that politicians, Hollywood stars, athletes in national leagues, etc. will continue to get themselves into the news for this for a long time to come. In fact as this whole things turns toward acceptance, they will receive more accolades for their status than disdain.

[yjacket]

My thoughts are to just get the government out of marriage entirely.

My thoughts exactly, so much evil ends up being purported when the government gets involved. Shoot some of the first laws restricting marriage where Jim Crow laws prohibiting whites from marrying blacks.

Of course look at polygamy. SS marriage is 100+ years in the making. Once one accepts the premise that the government has the solemn right and duty to license marriages (i.e. tell you who can get married) it is only a matter of time before it has to allow SS marriage.

I think the larger issue is how in a matter of less than 20-30 years the homosexual crowd has influenced an entire generation of thought.

In today's society, nobody can "offend" another person, to "offend" is wrong. It's a twisted take on Christianity. There is this twisted notion that offending someone is akin to hating them; there are some things that are just wrong in life. However, everyone is free to choose their path and the government shouldn't intervene to stop someone from destroying their own life.

When the woman in adultery was brought to Christ, he didn't say: I love you, go be happy. He said go and sin no more.

Ugh . . .

[pam]

Court of Appeals denies Utah's request to stay gay marriage ruling | ksl.com

[Soulsearcher]

It depends on if they are a public figure or not. My prediction is that politicians, Hollywood stars, athletes in national leagues, etc. will continue to get themselves into the news for this for a long time to come. In fact as this whole things turns toward acceptance, they will receive more accolades for their status than disdain.

Just remember for all the Accolades you hear about there's a mountain of negative that comes with it. When Tom Daley came out a few weeks ago, sure there was a lot of positive, but look at his twitter feed and other aspects of media and there were a lot of nasty and mean things said.

[Blackmarch]

Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional | ksl.com

Not good.

Probably not as much about the Issue, but more that it seems like voters have no power.

<<< wants a federal judge that knows how to read.