Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Donuthole]

A very nice writeup trumpeting Utah's anti-discrimination law in The Economist. Lexington (a weekly essayist) touts the law as offering answers to the "should a religious baker have to bake gay-wedding cakes?" question.

Here are the highlights:

That was a good read. It's encouraging to see something rational on a topic that doesn't exactly elicit rationality. However, you don't have to look any further than the comments to realize that not everybody appreciates compromise.

[Donuthole]

That was a good read. It's encouraging to see something rational on a topic that doesn't exactly elicit rationality. However, you don't have to look any further than the comments to realize that not everybody appreciates compromise.

I just saw this surprisingly rational article in the DNews linked on fb:

What defenders of traditional marriage may be forgetting

The fb comments are delightful, and again demonstrate how people are so caught up in the SSM debate that they can't even appreciate a concession which so clearly fits within their worldview.

[Maximus]

That was a good read. It's encouraging to see something rational on a topic that doesn't exactly elicit rationality. However, you don't have to look any further than the comments to realize that not everybody appreciates compromise.

I didnt know the utah law still allows someone to refuse service to someone just because they are gay. seems like a glaring obmission

[Moliere]

I didnt know the utah law still allows someone to refuse service to someone just because they are gay. seems like a glaring obmission

Does it prescriptively allow that or was it silent on the matter thus other laws would be in effect? I thought it was the latter.

[SoCalCoug]

I just saw this surprisingly rational article in the DNews linked on fb:

What defenders of traditional marriage may be forgetting

The fb comments are delightful, and again demonstrate how people are so caught up in the SSM debate that they can't even appreciate a concession which so clearly fits within their worldview.

Richard Eyre is my Dad's nemesis at the Huntsman Senior Games.

[Harry Tic]

Will LDS leaders soften the rhetoric now that marriage equality is a fait accompli? To judge from August's Ensign, the answer would appear to be, um, no.

From a pre-Obergefell talk by RMN: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/08/d...riage?lang=eng

The pull quote:

Disciples of the Lord are defenders of traditional marriage. We cannot yield. History is not our judge. A secular society is not our judge. God is our judge!

My only response to that is this:

c6e184c37df932d599fc1db174c7c7b2c8caf5400bc6b13d6865c1393f7b3122.jpg

[Moliere]

I defend traditional marriage, which is why I shun divorced couples and unmarried adults. It's been ages since I've responded to a Commando or Shaka post.

[TripletDaddy]

I defend traditional marriage, which is why I shun divorced couples and unmarried adults. It's been ages since I've responded to a Commando or Shaka post.

I am also a proponent of traditional marriage. Bring back droit du seigneur!

[smokymountainrain]

I defend traditional marriage, which is why I shun divorced couples and unmarried adults. It's been ages since I've responded to a Commando or Shaka post.

[Shaka]

I defend traditional marriage, which is why I shun divorced couples and unmarried adults. It's been ages since I've responded to a Commando or Shaka post.

My posts aren't worthy of a response anyway so I tip my cap to you sir.

[Commando]

I defend traditional marriage, which is why I shun divorced couples and unmarried adults. It's been ages since I've responded to a Commando or Shaka post.

[byu71]

My posts aren't worthy of a response anyway so I tip my cap to you sir.

I will bet he looks at the pics you post.

[LA Ute]

I didn't know Elder Christofferson's brother had returned to church activity. Really interesting piece.

A North and South Heart

http://ldslights.org/a-north-and-south-heart/

[CardiacCoug]

I didn't know Elder Christofferson's brother had returned to church activity. Really interesting piece.

A North and South Heart

http://ldslights.org/a-north-and-south-heart/

That was great.

Really makes it obvious to me at least that there is not a single good reason that the LDS church shouldn't accept gay people into the Church by the exact same standards with which straight people are accepted. Sex is OK if you're married.

Treat everybody the same, gay or straight. Anything else is pure bigotry and ignorance.

[Harry Tic]

That was great.

Really makes it obvious to me at least that there is not a single good reason that the LDS church shouldn't accept gay people into the Church by the exact same standards with which straight people are accepted. Sex is OK if you're married.

Treat everybody the same, gay or straight. Anything else is pure bigotry and ignorance.

Good read. He strikes me as a charitable soul and his has certainly been an interesting journey.

I do wonder how significant some of the theological barriers would really be to what you suggest, CC. It seems to me that the D&C tacitly acknowledges that some relationships will dissolve at the end of this life (i.e., non-temple marriages), but that admission, after all, by no means implies that non-eternal but legally binding marriages on earth are somehow morally unacceptable. I think that one might reasonably argue that even if a sealing in the temple of a (heterosexual) couple is the ideal, it needn't be treated as normative (and certainly not the grounds on which we legislate).

I often feel that the distinction between ideal and norm tends to get lost in these conversations.