The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[Flystripper]

In the context of his question, yes. He was asking about the significance of the earlier Supreme Court marriage cases. To apply that law to same-sex marriage requires a significant leap, legally. The Court may be willing to make that leap, but it is a leap. It simply can't be said that the issue is already decided.

I see your whole statement now. There is a leap being made. You are right the law is not clear but I don't know that the most important bit about these cases were that they involved marriage between a man and a woman.

[LA Ute]

I see your whole statement now. There is a leap being made. You are right the law is not clear but I don't know that the most important bit about these cases were that they involved marriage between a man and a woman.

I know I am getting all lawyerly here, but to me that is the most important aspect of those cases regarding their relevance to the issue of whether same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right.

[wuapinmon]

Yeah, that is really unfortunate.

http://universe.byu.edu/node/10454

The way this is worded, it implies that they removed it due to complaints from readers rather than due to pressure from above. It is a shame either way. I am offended by stupid letters on the op-ed page all the time. For hell's sake, that is what the op-ed page is for. Everyone gets to vent.

[Non Sequitur]

Yeah, that is really unfortunate.

http://universe.byu.edu/node/10454

The way this is worded, it implies that they removed it due to complaints from readers rather than due to pressure from above. It is a shame either way. I am offended by stupid letters on the op-ed page all the time. For hell's sake, that is what the op-ed page is for. Everyone gets to vent.

That's more than unfortunate, that's scandalous.

[RobinFinderson]

You may be right. There are also no good reasons to ban men from having two wives. There are also no good reasons to prevent people from having sex with animals.

Before you jump my case, relax...I know these are tired old arguments from the far right. But, they sort of hit on your point....there are no good reasons to ban gays from marrying as long as society accepts homosexuality. If homosexuality is considered taboo by society (like bestiality and polygamy), then that in and of itself is as good reason as the statues banning polygamy, etc..

This is one reason I think each state should be allowed to define marriage how they wish (if they have to define it at all). That way Utah can say "straights only" and Mass. can say "come one, come all" (no pun intended).

There are no good reasons to bar polygamy, no matter what SU says. Even if the practice seems barbaric to the sensibilities of many, in a world where cheating and open marriages are both protected under law, it makes absolutely no sense to outlaw the choice of consenting adults to marry. The buggering of animals is a different matter, and one might argue that animals should be protected from sexual assault because they are technically unable to consent. I have, however, run into more than my fair share of randy leg-humping dogs, so the question of animal consent is not exactly clear. Perhaps if the zoophile were able to seduce the animal on camera in such a way to convince a jury of peers that the beast had given its full, willing consent, then perhaps such relationships could be officially registered, sort of like an official companion animal, to avoid future confusion for law enforcement. One might even mark the animal in a humane way, perhaps by adorning it with a piece of jewelry, and the human companion could wear a matching piece of jewelry. Still, it wouldn't be marriage, because that takes people.

[Green Monstah]

There are no good reasons to bar polygamy, no matter what SU says. Even if the practice seems barbaric to the sensibilities of many, in a world where cheating and open marriages are both protected under law, it makes absolutely no sense to outlaw the choice of consenting adults to marry. The buggering of animals is a different matter, and one might argue that animals should be protected from sexual assault because they are technically unable to consent. I have, however, run into more than my fair share of randy leg-humping dogs, so the question of animal consent is not exactly clear. Perhaps if the zoophile were able to seduce the animal on camera in such a way to convince a jury of peers that the beast had given its full, willing consent, then perhaps such relationships could be officially registered, sort of like an official companion animal, to avoid future confusion for law enforcement. One might even mark the animal in a humane way, perhaps by adorning it with a piece of jewelry, and the human companion could wear a matching piece of jewelry. Still, it wouldn't be marriage, because that takes people.

Props for being consistent. Oh, and the bolded text was effing hilarious

[ERCougar]

Yeah, that is really unfortunate.

http://universe.byu.edu/node/10454

The way this is worded, it implies that they removed it due to complaints from readers rather than due to pressure from above. It is a shame either way. I am offended by stupid letters on the op-ed page all the time. For hell's sake, that is what the op-ed page is for. Everyone gets to vent.

That's ridiculous (of BYU, not you, of course). Seriously.

It's offensive to me that they pulled the letter. What are they going to do about that?

[ERCougar]

I understand that BYU is in a tough position because they're trying to balance the views of ultraconservative donors with the demands of an academic institution (although really, this isn't an excuse). But this is seriously ridiculous. Agree with it or not, that was one of least offensive letters to the editor (that actually strives to make a point) I've read in any publication.

I seriously think I'm going to just start saying no to their donation campaigns and cite this kind of thing as an example. Maybe if enough of us small-timers make our opinions felt, they'll start to listen.

[Green Monstah]

That's ridiculous (of BYU, not you, of course). Seriously.

It's offensive to me that they pulled the letter. What are they going to do about that?

They need to apologize.

[LA Ute]

They need to apologize.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Looks like the story of the deleted op-ed piece is gaining some traction. Check this out:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...of_cary_crall/

[UtahDan]

Looks like the story of the deleted op-ed piece is gaining some traction. Check this out:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...of_cary_crall/

Looks like he is going to be interviewed.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1128

[SCcoug]

Looks like he is going to be interviewed.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1128

By Common Concent did an interview with him too.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/09/0...nt-cary-crall/

[Jeff Lebowski]

Looks like he is going to be interviewed.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1128

Good old BYU. When will they learn that this censorship stuff always backfires?

[Solon]

I understand that BYU is in a tough position because they're trying to balance the views of ultraconservative donors with the demands of an academic institution (although really, this isn't an excuse). But this is seriously ridiculous. Agree with it or not, that was one of least offensive letters to the editor (that actually strives to make a point) I've read in any publication.

I seriously think I'm going to just start saying no to their donation campaigns and cite this kind of thing as an example. Maybe if enough of us small-timers make our opinions felt, they'll start to listen.

The irony is that this kid has identified the winning pony. The Daily Universe should be riding it all the way home. "Thus sayeth the Lord" doesn't need legal arguments to prop it up or tear it down.

I've said this before, but I'm surprised this reason for opposing gay marriage isn't cited more often by LDS believers.