Boy Scouts reviewing Ban on Gays ...

[wuapinmon]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...uts-of-america

My goodness. That's fresh air I smell. My brother will probably rend his garments.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wait, so the church basically endorses the BSA proposal? That's pretty cool if true.

I agree.

[cowboy]

Uh, I was was joking too, about all the names I call you. Stay with me.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

[UVACoug]

Here is the biggest difference between gay marriage and polygamy: polygamy has almost zero popular support. And there are plenty of defensible reasons for not legalizing it, so I don't see the issue being forced in court.

Neither did gay marriage two decades ago. The issue is already in the courts (as I mentioned), and Utah's antibigamous cohabitation law WILL be struck down as unconstitutional. You can be in denial about this all you want ... but I know what I am talking about with this case. The state has NO argument. The judge will have to do a lot of twisting to not rule in favor of the plaintiff, and this judge will not do that.

[UVACoug]

Taxes and benefits. That's why. Frankly, that's why gay marriage is an issue too, IMO. It's about the legal rights and obligations you have vis a vis your spouse(s).

Going from a monogamous heteronormative system to a system that permits gay marriage is no big deal. The problems are pretty much the same, when you're talking inheritance or right to make medical decisions (I am fully aware there are already avenues to deal with some of these outside of the ability to marry). One person, another person. Easy. Fits in the framework.

One person plus two others is a trickier concept though. How do you do a probate with that? What about a divorce where one primary earner stays and one leaves? Tax benefits? Hell, tax filing status? I'm sure we can think up answers to all of these questions and make something work, but it now requires a ton of effort and change and cost to accommodate the 1 percent of people who have anything to do with polygamy.

It seems to me that we either stick with the two people of whatever gender for purposes of legal benefits, or we ditch the entire concept of the government having anything to do with marriage and family relations (which also will cause social upheaval, btw). I don't know which one I favor more.

This makes no sense. You deny people the "right" to marry because it is too hard to figure out how to give it to them? How is that a principled distinction?

[UVACoug]

Wait, so the church basically endorses the BSA proposal? That's pretty cool if true.

It is cool. I wish they were a little more direct in their statement though.

[Moliere]

I reread the LDS press release this morning and was just wondering why they language was so vague. It wasn't an outright endorsement of the proposed policy, but they certainly didn't say they were against it. Ultimately I think the church is doing something they are keen to do in most situations, which is to not look like they were wrong. If the proposal passes they can point to the fact they didn't go against it and in some part showed support. If it doesn't pass then they can take a narrow view on the press release and say they didn't support the position. They are pretty much setup to come away as the "correct" party on this one.

In my own little head, I like to think that the church played a role in the crafting of the current proposal. I'm sure they were contacted and asked if they'd drop scouting if it passes and I'm sure they said they wouldn't drop it. You don't just change something without the input of the majority of your stakeholders. I like to think our church was the one pushing for more inclusion. Whether that is correct or not, I don't know but I hope I'm right.

I can already guess the responses to this on Sunday. Most people were of the opinion that the church is totally against any proposal to allow gay scouts and/or leaders and they'd drop scouting if it was allowed. Now I'm sure those people will change their opinion and say they knew all along this proposal was more in line with current ("current" is my word as they'll probably use "eternal" or "unchanging") church policy and compassion.

[Pheidippides]

This makes no sense. You deny people the "right" to marry because it is too hard to figure out how to give it to them? How is that a principled distinction?

If there's one thing I've learned as both a lawyer and a person it's that principles are meaningless bullshit when we are talking about society at large.

Let polygamous people do whatever the want and be married if they so choose. Screw bigamy laws as long as we're talking about consenting adults. But don't bother setting up a social system around it. You want to diddle four women at once in the bonds of holy matrimony as recognized by some crackpot religion, be my guest, but don't expect a tax break for it. That's all I'm saying.

[Indy Coug]

Sounds like we need a flat tax system in place before polygamous marriages will work.

[byu71]

But don't bother setting up a social system around it. You want to diddle four women at once in the bonds of holy matrimony as recognized by some crackpot religion, be my guest, but don't expect a tax break for it. That's all I'm saying.

I agree. If traditional marriage is out the window, it is out the window. However a persons chosen life style should be a burden to them and not to me as a tax payer. Yes burden. We all make choices and should not expect to have others share in the sacrifices or rewards of those choices.

If I choose to work 80 hours a week and forgo marriagage, I should not be required to subsidize someone who chooses to work 40 hours a week, have 4 wives and 30 kids.

[LA Ute]

I agree. If traditional marriage is out the window, it is out the window. However a persons chosen life style should be a burden to them and not to me as a tax payer. Yes burden. We all make choices and should not expect to have others share in the sacrifices or rewards of those choices.

If I choose to work 80 hours a week and forgo marriagage, I should not be required to subsidize someone who chooses to work 40 hours a week, have 4 wives and 30 kids.

To is the kind of talk that goes the 1% a bad name.

[myboynoah]

To is the kind of talk that goes the 1% a bad name.

LA old friend, please tell us you have not turned to the bottle.

[calicoug]

Neither did gay marriage two decades ago. The issue is already in the courts (as I mentioned), and Utah's antibigamous cohabitation law WILL be struck down as unconstitutional. You can be in denial about this all you want ... but I know what I am talking about with this case. The state has NO argument. The judge will have to do a lot of twisting to not rule in favor of the plaintiff, and this judge will not do that.

I haven't followed the case. Why do you think it is so clear?

[UVACoug]

I haven't followed the case. Why do you think it is so clear?

Because I've followed the case pretty closely. The state doesn't even really have an argument.

Lawrence v. Texas says that consenting adults have a constitutional right to privacy in their sexual relationships. On these grounds, the court struck down sodomy laws. It is clear that this also applies to laws against adultery. I don't see how it wouldn't also apply to having multiple partners.

There is also an equal protection argument, which isn't as strong in my opinion. Thousands of people sleep around with multiple sexual partners and the government wouldn't dare prosecute them. Utah's antibigamous cohabitation law is clearly targeted at people with multiple sexual partners for religious reasons. There is no rational basis for targeting religious bigamists as opposed to targeting secular bigamists. Remember, this case is not about official marriage ... it is about cohabitation.

The plaintiffs have also brought a free exercise claim, but I don't think the Court will even get there. It would be a difficult issue in light of Reynolds v. U.S. (the Supreme Court decision from the 1800s that said there is no free exercise right to practice polygamy). It is an old case, and the Supreme Court's free exercise jurisprudence has changed quite a bit since then ... but the Court has consistently been careful to distinguish Reynolds, rather than suggest it is no longer good law. I don't see the Court departing from Reynolds. It probably wont even reach the free exercise argument.

The State knows how bad their case is and argued vigorously that there was no standing to bring the suit. When they lost on standing, they got the Utah County Attorney to promise not to prosecute any polygamists for cohabitating (unless there was child sex abuse or fraud involved), and tried to argue that that mooted the case. The court ruled against the state on that too. When they got to the merits, the State didn't have much if a leg to stand on. They threw out stories of child abuse and fraud, but didn't have any actual evidence to support the claim that the state had a rational basis for banning cohabitation for religious bigamists but not secular bigamists. That is because there is none. There is no evidence that religious bigamy is an independent cause of child abuse and fraud.

Here is the newspaper account of that hearing:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55...amous.html.csp

I actually disagree with the court on its standing ruling. I don't think the threat of prosecution was ever real. The prosecutors in Utah were stupid in the amount of bluster they gave to the press, but they were never going to charge the Browns. I would not be surprised if the Tenth Circuit reversed what will likely be a ruling that the law is unconstitutional on the grounds that there was no standing. That is how they have treated polygamy cases in the past. The standing issue is closer in this case than the other polygamy cases though, so they could affirm.

[PaloAltoCougar]

LA old friend, please tell us you have not turned to the bottle.

Love the image of LAU on a bender.