Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well-balanced essay on preserving religious freedom in the aftermath of the SCOTUS ruling.

http://theweek.com/articles/563691/g...igious-freedom

Friday's Supreme Court decision declaring gay marriage a constitutional right doesn't seem to have inspired much ambivalence among politically informed Americans. Either it's a glorious triumph for equality and an irrefutable demonstration that the arc of history does indeed bend toward justice — or else it's a galling example of judicial overreach, the end of public Christianity in America, and the start of an era that will be marked by unprecedented persecution of traditionalist Christians.

Why can't it be both?

[Jeff Lebowski]

A succinct analysis of polygamy vs gay marriage. In 15 tweets.

https://storify.com/DemFromCT/david-...e-and-polygamy

[Sleeping in EQ]

A succinct analysis of polygamy vs gay marriage. In 15 tweets.

https://storify.com/DemFromCT/david-...e-and-polygamy

That's not analysis.

[byu71]

Well-balanced essay on preserving religious freedom in the aftermath of the SCOTUS ruling.

http://theweek.com/articles/563691/g...igious-freedom

I would have substitued the word "activists" for the politically informed Americans. What is a politically informed American anyway?

Thinking about it, amongst the people I associate with they are quite ambivolent about it.

I think we now have gay marriage because a good many people moved from the "I care about it mode" to the "who cares" mode.

The writer is probably more politically informed than I, whatever that means, but instead of it being both as he thinks, I would say it is neither. Neither a glorious triumplh or the end of Christianity.

[Moliere]

I don't get how this ruling opens up the possibility of polygamy being anymore possible of becoming legal than it was before the ruling.

For gay marriage, there was a bunch of rights that gays were being denied. These rights were enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Thus logically rights were extended to gays and everyone else is now equal in the eyes of marriage laws.

Polygamy is looking for rights that don't exist anywhere right now. You can't really claim you were innately polygamous anymore than the next guy/girl. We obviously all (or practically all, I guess) have sexual desires both inside and outside of our marriages. Limiting marriage to two people is therefore oppressive to everyone, equally.

Of course, I'm not a constitutional scholar like everyone else on the Internet, but I doubt polygamy gets any sort of play at all over the next century.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Freaking gays.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=35321745&nid...s_cid=toppick2

[Uncle Ted]

I don't get how this ruling opens up the possibility of polygamy being anymore possible of becoming legal than it was before the ruling.

For gay marriage, there was a bunch of rights that gays were being denied. These rights were enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Thus logically rights were extended to gays and everyone else is now equal in the eyes of marriage laws.

Polygamy is looking for rights that don't exist anywhere right now. You can't really claim you were innately polygamous anymore than the next guy/girl. We obviously all (or practically all, I guess) have sexual desires both inside and outside of our marriages. Limiting marriage to two people is therefore oppressive to everyone, equally.

Of course, I'm not a constitutional scholar like everyone else on the Internet, but I doubt polygamy gets any sort of play at all over the next century.

Bu what about the B in LGBT? Those folks like a little of both and limiting marriage to only two people is therefore oppressive to the way god wired them.

[scottie]

Of course, I'm not a constitutional scholar like everyone else on the Internet, but I doubt polygamy gets any sort of play at all over the next century.

I had no idea I had as many constitutional scholars and political scientists as friends and relatives pre-Facebook; thanks Internet, thanks Obama!

[TripletDaddy]

Looks like the fearmongerers were right all along. Man marries his dog:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-ceremony.html

And the bride slips him the tongue.

heterosexual marriages have even less meaning now

[clackamascoug]

I think David Frum has got some skeletons in his closet, and he's trying to keep the light of day off the door knob.

The longer I'm married, the less I care about other people and their marriages.

[Jeff Lebowski]

One expert's take on the tax exempt issue:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/07/0...st-obergefell/

Conclusion, in Tl;dr Form

The church won’t lose its federal tax exemption, even if it continues to refuse to accept or perform same-sex marriages.

BYU could, but it is tremendously unlikely to. At the very least, the chances seem way too remote to waste time and effort worrying about.

[TripletDaddy]

Other than paying taxes, what is the paranoia about losing tax exempt status??

[Nakoma]

Pretty much only Jdubs are more hardline than Mormons on acceptance of gay marriage.

http://publicreligion.org/2015/04/at.../#.VZYSzHBOKrV

[scottie]

Yeah, Reynolds v. United States.

Somehow the approval for polygamy has gone from 7% in 2001 to 16% now. I can't begin to understand how close to 1 in 6 are on board with polygamy. If it somehow were to gain some countercultural credibility, especially by employing Katy's reasoning that it could actually empower women, then I could see it getting into the 30s or even 40s.

Saw this today:

image1.JPG

[Uncle Ted]

Our ward, on July 12, is reading the FP letter and then having a discussion on it. Politics at church, what could go wrong?

I don't know... maybe someone bringing up a little history:

The New LDS Anti-Gay Marriage Letter

There is a theory that if a person traveled back in time and confronted her earlier self, the universe would explode.


This appears to be what has happened with the new anti-gay marriage letter put out by the LDS Church and set for widespread distribution this Sunday in all congregations in the U.S. and Canada.


The modern LDS Church is against any marriage not composed of “a man and a woman.”


But the earlier LDS Church was most decidedly in favor of marriages not composed of “a man and a woman.” (Read: Polygamy.)


When the modern LDS Church confronts its earlier self . . . Ka-Boom! The Church’s new letter against gay marriage is a prime example.
[...]

http://rationalfaiths.com/the-new-ld...rriage-letter/

Of course, as someone points out in the comments, there is a simple answer for this:

But the earlier LDS Church was most decidedly in favor of marriages not composed of ‘a man and a woman.’ (Read: Polygamy.)”


I disagree with this. Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. In the early church there were some men who entered in to more than one such contract. It was not the case that one husband and two wives were all married together. For example, a plural marriage situation where a husband had two wives, there were actually two marriages. There is a marriage between a man and one woman and a marriage between a man and another woman. But each marriage is still between a man and a woman. I think this is why the emphasis is on the term ‘plural marriage’ rather than the term ‘polygamy’, as there could be polygamous relationships that aren’t plural marriages.

See? These early church history marriages were not polygamy. They were marriages composed of "a man and a woman" and in some cases, multiple marriages of the same man to different women. Different women and different marriage or plural marriages.