- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t know if you’ve heard yet, but a federal judge just ruled Utah’s prohibition on gay marriage unconstitutional and refused to stay his ruling. It will take a few days for the State Attorney General’s Office to construct an appeal, and gay marriages have been performed in county offices. The following is a link to a live tweet (with pictures) of perhaps the first one:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/right-after-the-utah-marriage-equality-ruling-a-guy-live-twe For many conservative members, this has been an interesting few weeks.
Also, due to high demand, the Davis County Clerk’s office will be open tomorrow (Saturday) to provide marriage licenses. The Utah Pride Center posted that news on Facebook eight minutes ago. It has received over 11,000 likes thus far.
Wow! My husband just told me about this a little bit ago. It seems out of nowhere to me, but that’s because I haven’t been following this story I guess. Was there something specific about Utah’s law, or are they going to be doing this to all the laws against gay marriage, do you know? Are these marriages valid no matter if appeals go through later?
The ruling is interesting – and logically sound, imo. I won’t try to summarize dozens of pages here, but it says, essentially, that the major justifications for the law are flawed in light of current understanding of homosexuality and that equality under the law mandates gay marriage be allowed, given the lack of reasonable justifications in the law to forbid it. Some of the most relevant parts are quoted in a post on By Common Consent that was posted after I wrote this post. The link is:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/12/20/judge-robert-shelby-2013-boggs-doniphan-gentile-of-the-year/ I just read that article. I agree also. I couldn’t understand how the government could deny gay marriage, there only seems to be religious reasons against it. Such exciting developments these last few weeks! So many changes, it will be interesting to see how things play out. The judge also cited precedent extensively (and well, imo). I think it’s going to be hard to overturn the decision, so I think the only option is going to be an attempt at re-writing the law with different justifications. I don’t think it will be successful, for the reasons the judge laid out in his ruling.
Having said all that, I do have a HUGE problem with one judge overturning an element of a state’s constitution and then refusing to stay execution of his/her decision to allow for an appeals process. With something as important and fundamental as that sort of move, I believe the appeals process is an important part of our legal system.
Interesting. I think the reaction of the church and the Utah members is really important here. Will they uphold the laws of the land or will they fight against it? Lots of people will be watching. And how long before the fundamentalists make Elder Oak’s October talk “prophetic?”
mackay11 wrote:Interesting. I think the reaction of the church and the Utah members is really important here. Will they uphold the laws of the land or will they fight against it? Lots of people will be watching.
And how long before the fundamentalists make Elder Oak’s October talk “prophetic?”
The church has made a statement (found here):
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-issues-statement-following-overturning-of-same-sex-marriage-ban- ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-issues-statement-following-overturning-of-same-sex-marriage-ban-
Quote:The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect. This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court.
DarkJedi wrote:mackay11 wrote:Interesting. I think the reaction of the church and the Utah members is really important here. Will they uphold the laws of the land or will they fight against it? Lots of people will be watching.
And how long before the fundamentalists make Elder Oak’s October talk “prophetic?”
The church has made a statement (found here):
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-issues-statement-following-overturning-of-same-sex-marriage-ban- ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-issues-statement-following-overturning-of-same-sex-marriage-ban-
Quote:The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect. This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court.
Thanks, interesting. “All people should be treated with respect.”
At least I agree with one sentence in the statement.
It’s interesting for me because when this law came up originally I voted for it and now if it were to come up again I would vote against it. Now I have many LGBT friends and have a more open mind than I did then. Also interesting to me is that my FB page has been mostly congrats with a couple of TBM saying they are against it. I honestly thought I would have more people against it. I also thought the church would have come out with something more than that paragraph. Perhaps they have learned from prop 8? Also here’s a fun Deseret news article that might make you laugh, or mad. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865592839/Judicial-tyranny.html I do think the ruling is a good thing. If SS couples want to get married so be it! It doesn’t hurt me or my husband and it makes them happy. As long as they don’t force religions that are against it, to marry them (which hasn’t happened to my knowledge in any state that has legalized it) then there’s not a problem.
The best line in the decision, in my opinion, is when the judge pointed out that the ruling broadens religious freedom in the state – since churches who don’t want to perform gay marriages won’t have to do so, but churches who do want to perform gay marriages now can do so. Gay marriage as an expansion of religious freedom is brilliant – and accurate, especially in the context of a state like Utah that is dominated by one religion.
deleted by roadrunner TataniaAvalon wrote:If SS couples want to get married so be it! It doesn’t hurt me or my husband and it makes them happy. As long as they don’t force religions that are against it, to marry them (which hasn’t happened to my knowledge in any state that has legalized it) then there’s not a problem.
I agree. SSM is legal in NY and has been for almost two years. No church has been forced to perform such a marriage against their will or doctrine as far as I know. Individuals have been, however, in civil marriages – even if it’s against his or her beliefs, a town justice must marry a SS couple. And private businesses have also been forced to allow SS marriages at their facilities and/or cater to them (for example reception halls, bakers, caterers.) I have mixed feelings on that, honestly. While I don’t care if they want to marry, I do believe in individual religious freedom and freedom of speech as well. I actually think it’s very similar to the Duck Dynasty brouhaha. If a caterer doesn’t believe in SSM for his/her own religious reasons, I don’t believe they should be forced to participate – there are others (and other venues) that will.
DJ, I understand and don’t disagree, in principle, but I also loathe the Jim Crow laws that allowed businesses that said they were open to the public to not serve black citizens. Thus, I understand the position that serving “the public” means “serving the entire citizenry”. It’s not a simple issue, and it bothers me when people at either extreme try to make it a simple issue. Legally, I understand a requirement to serve all citizens if a business is set up as serving “the public”. If a business wants to get around that, the owner can do so – by incorporating as a private club and issuing membership only to those s/he wants to serve. If that opinion and desire is shared by enough people (regardless of who is being excluded), the business will be profitable; if not, it will be unprofitable; if it isn’t profitable enough as a private enterprise, the business can serve the public.
Old-Timer wrote:DJ, I understand and don’t disagree, in principle, but I also loathe the Jim Crow laws that allowed businesses that said they were open to the public to not serve black citizens. Thus, I understand the position that serving “the public” means “serving the entire citizenry”. It’s not a simple issue, and it bothers me when people at either extreme try to make it a simple issue.
Legally, I understand a requirement to serve all citizens if a business is set up as serving “the public”. If a business wants to get around that, the owner can do so – by incorporating as a private club and issuing membership only to those s/he wants to serve. If that opinion and desire is shared by enough people (regardless of who is being excluded), the business will be profitable; if not, it will be unprofitable; if it isn’t profitable enough as a private enterprise, the business can serve the public.
Hence the mixed feelings about it. While I do see some differences in discrimination against people just because of their skin color (which has no real or true religious reasoning behind it) and SSM or gay rights as a whole, it is close enough that I could see the fear of more overt discrimination against gays. Were I in the situation (although I wouldn’t be), I simply would leave the business – you can’t really have a “private” bakery for members only. The government employee situation locally was actually a clerk who resigned her position rather than issue the marriage licenses, which seems as though it was the best solution. There was at least one town justice somewhere else upstate, but I’m not sure what the outcome was.
I realize that NY is seen as a very blue state, but in reality upstate is quite red, keeping in mind that about 3/4 of the population lives downstate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.