Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[BlueK]

There are two issues here. One is allowing people to take advantage of the legal benefits given to marriage-- such as with taxes, employee benefits, social security, etc. I don't think anything will change on this. The government will just say that everyone is entitled to those benefits with just one other person at a time. It gets way too complicated if there are multiples and it would be too easy to fradulently claim you're married to ten women (or seven women and three men, etc.) to claim that many exemptions in order to avoid paying taxes, for example.

Also, because you can only legally obtain one marriage license at a time in any state. so those who currently practice polygamy only get legally married to one woman and just cohabitate with the rest. There was a law on Utah's books that allowed the state to prosecute these people but I don't think it has been enforced very much over the years. But sometimes the state would try and it forced most of those folks (other than the colorado city type communities) to keep their arrangements secret. For these cases, polygamist turned reality TV star Kody Brown recently successfully won his case in federal court blocking the state of Utah from enforcing anti-cohabitation laws on the grounds that it's unconstitutional for the state to only enforce the law with polygamists and not with non-polygamists who choose to cohabitate. I do think the gay marriage ruling probably further helps this group indirectly because it pretty much establishes that it's not the government's business to worry about who choses to marry or live with whom as long as it's about consenting adults.

[Eddie]

I don't understand how we need to allow polygamy in the name of fairness. It seems totally different to me than allowing gays to marry...because before they could get married they were being denied basic benefits that were allowed to heteros. What benefits are being denied to polygamists?

The fairness relates to allowing someone to marry the person that they love. Gays have always been allowed to marry - so you can't say that they were destined to be alone forever. They could marry a person of the opposite sex whenever they wanted. Just not someone who is their same sex.

...Also, because you can only legally obtain one marriage license at a time in any state. so those who currently practice polygamy only get legally married to one woman and just cohabitate with the rest...

Just because someone married another person first, doesn't mean they can't love a second or third person. So how fair is it that the second or third person coming to the relationship doesn't get the benefit of a legally recognized relationship? What if they think they've found their soul mate and the love of their life and will never be happy with anyone else?

Sure, it's a stretch. I just don't think it's as big a stretch as some others here do.

[BlueK]

The fairness relates to allowing someone to marry the person that they love. Gays have always been allowed to marry - so you can't say that they were destined to be alone forever. They could marry a person of the opposite sex whenever they wanted. Just not someone who is their same sex.



Just because someone married another person first, doesn't mean they can't love a second or third person. So how fair is it that the second or third person coming to the relationship doesn't get the benefit of a legally recognized relationship? What if they think they've found their soul mate and the love of their life and will never be happy with anyone else?

Sure, it's a stretch. I just don't think it's as big a stretch as some others here do.

"love" wasn't really the basis of the legal argument though. The ruling was about the fact that there are legal benefits given to married people and the state doesn't have the right to decide who gets those rights based on their gender or the gender of the person they marry. For example, I don't see a strong case to be made that would force the state to give someone ten tax exemptions because they want to claim ten spouses on their taxes. There may be other ways in which non-legally married cohabitating partners might get a few more benefits, but it's not going to lead to forcing states to give someone ten marriage licenses.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sam Brunson weighs in again on the tax exempt issue:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/07/0...comment-354434

So there you have it: every applicant for tax-exempt status from the last 37 years that has had its application denied on public policy grounds. It just doesn’t happen, unless you’re a racially-discriminatory private school, or you engage in behavior that is illegal or that is considered really, really icky.

And no entity since 1978 has lost its exemption for violating public policy, much less any church. (In fact, there’s only one church in this list of 9 entities, and I suspect that’s the FLDS church which, had it been better-advised, would have not bothered applying, and just acted exempt.) Which is to say, the church will not lose its tax-exempt status.

[Eddie]

"love" wasn't really the basis of the legal argument though. The ruling was about the fact that there are legal benefits given to married people and the state doesn't have the right to decide who gets those rights based on their gender or the gender of the person they marry. For example, I don't see a strong case to be made that would force the state to give someone ten tax exemptions because they want to claim ten spouses on their taxes. There may be other ways in which non-legally married cohabitating partners might get a few more benefits, but it's not going to lead to forcing states to give someone ten marriage licenses.

So what of the most often stated rights given by the LGBTQ crowd?

This is the person I'm living with and in a committed relationship with and would be married to if the law allowed. But because they are already married and I'm not allowed to marry them too:

If he/she is hospitalized, I don't have the right to visit or have a say in end of life care.

If he/she is killed in an accident leaving orphaned children, I have no claim to care for them. (I get it, this one is a stretch. Some polyg families share a home, others don't and the child might not see the second spouse as a parental figure.)

Even though I've been contributing to the household (financially or other ways) if my spouse dies it all goes to someone else and I'm left without support.

Even though I've been contributing to the household, if our committed relationship ends I have no protections like a married couple would when divorcing.

As it stands, married people can do their taxes together or file separately. I'm not sure I see this any differently. Though I admit to not being a tax expert and not knowing the potential benefits of multiple marriages claimed - it isn't as if our tax code hasn't changed before. As it is we don't have a bunch of single people marrying each other just for the tax benefits. Polygamy is even further outside the norm - so I don't see it being used just as a tax shelter for folks.

[Katy Lied]

As odious as the leadership of the Scientologists are, the rest of the churches are protected by their sheaves of litigators. Because if any church is going to lose tax exempt status, Scientologists would be the first ones to go. And you know they'd fight it, kicking and screaming, and commiting dirty deeds like assigning PIs to investigate every IRS official with bearing on the matter, and publishing those dirty deeds. And weighing the IRS down in decades of litigation. And the Scientologists have the money and the will to do it.

As the Scientologists stand, so do all other churches stand. Hurrah David Miscavige!

[SeattleUte]

As odious as the leadership of the Scientologists are,

oh the irony!

[Lost Student]

As odious as the leadership of the Scientologists are, the rest of the churches are protected by their sheaves of litigators. Because if any church is going to lose tax exempt status, Scientologists would be the first ones to go. And you know they'd fight it, kicking and screaming, and committing dirty deeds like assigning PIs to investigate every IRS official with bearing on the matter, and publishing those dirty deeds. And weighing the IRS down in decades of litigation. And the Scientologists have the money and the will to do it.

As the Scientologists stand, so do all other churches stand. Hurrah David Miscavige!

Worse than that, they would infiltrate the IRS (and other agencies) and sabotage it from the inside.

[SeattleUte]

Worse than that, they would infiltrate the IRS (and other agencies) and sabotage it from the inside.

lol

[Uncle Ted]

Sam Brunson weighs in again on the tax exempt issue:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/07/0...comment-354434

So what's the ruling on the BYU Law school losing its accreditation? The College of Engineering needs a new building.

[Uncle Ted]

Sen. Mike Lee wants to pass a bill to legalize discrimination:

GOP Pushes First Amendment Defense Act After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Republican sen. Mike Lee of Utah has introduced a bill called the First Amendment Defense Act. Sen. Lee, welcome to the program once again.


MIKE LEE: Thank you very much. It's good to be with you.


SIEGEL: Your bill says that if a person or institution acts on a religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, it shouldn't be denied a federal tax exemption or a contract, a grant, a license. Does that mean that, say, a university with religious affiliation and federal grants can deny employment to anyone married to a person of the same sex?


LEE: A religious institution, whether an educational institution or otherwise, just like an individual ought not have to choose between adhering to religious belief and, on the other hand, doing whatever it is that that person or that entity does, there ought not be a penalty attached to a religious belief. Our country, as I explained in my book "Our Lost Constitution," was founded on a proud tradition of religious freedom and tolerance. This is especially important when it comes to government discrimination - government retaliation based on religious belief. And that's what this bill is aimed at prohibiting.


SIEGEL: But I take that - I think the short answer there is yes, a university with religious affiliations and federal grants should be allowed to deny employment to somebody married to a person of the same sex.
[...]

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/09/421528...arriage-ruling

[Eddie]

Sen. Mike Lee wants to pass a bill to legalize discrimination:


http://www.npr.org/2015/07/09/421528...arriage-ruling

Hey, Mike Lee wrote a book! Anyone read it?

[All-American]

Ah. Now we get the letter.

[TripletDaddy]

We received the letter today, too. bish indicated that the FP requested that it be read last week or this week.

since the letter covered absolutely zero new ground my guess is that it was intended as a preemptive in order to save the bishop from having to answer the same questions over and over: does this mean we have to perform gay marriages at church, what happens to married gay people if they want to come to church, etc.

for our most dedicated church historians out there, does anyone know if there was a similar "we aren't changing our policies" post mortem church wide after integration, for example?

[Jeff Lebowski]

We received the letter today, too. bish indicated that the FP requested that it be read last week or this week.

since the letter covered absolutely zero new ground my guess is that it was intended as a preemptive in order to save the bishop from having to answer the same questions over and over: does this mean we have to perform gay marriages at church, what happens to married gay people if they want to come to church, etc.

for our most dedicated church historians out there, does anyone know if there was a similar "we aren't changing our policies" post mortem church wide after integration, for example?

I seriously doubt it. The civil rights movement was a whole series of events and legislation and was not capped off with a major SCOTUS ruling like this. Also (in spite of the priesthood ban), the church did not have a formal, organized opposition to the movement as was the case with gay marriage. You had ETB telling people it was part of a communist plot, but you also had Hugh B. Brown (often during the same session of GC) telling members that it was a good thing that they should support.