Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[byu71]

71's fragile mind is blown. How could a do gooder be in a left-brained profession? 71 I don't know if I qualify under you do gooder label but I am an IT guy so also left-brained.

I am definitely left brained. There are left brained folks though who have decided to let their right brain spew wonderful thoughts while the left brain works it's ass off so the right brain can just pontificate. I am not so sure about your status as a do gooder.

This is a new term I will be using around here and not quite sure who I am going to label with it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Most do gooders aren't able to figure out how to do what they want, they want to do it and let someone else pay for it. To see your results not aligned with your intent is not a surprise.

Do gooders? Let someone else pay for it?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you off your meds?

[byu71]

Do gooders? Let someone else pay for it?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you off your meds?

Yes I am thanks to that do gooder Barak Obama. He is taking mine and handing them out to flower children in San Francisco.

[old_gregg]

Because you are pretty much clueless about everything?

[SeattleUte]

http://nyti.ms/1ckMiKM

[Solon]

The linked article highlights the impoverished quality of Utah's arguments and some pretty crass turns of phrase in the Utah briefs. In the Supreme Court its brief refers to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association as "politically correct trade associations". I can't imagine using a term like "politically correct" in a legal brief much less in the Supreme Court, and disparaging these three iconic organizations that way is declasse.

The article also does a good job of summarizing the state's shifting positions every time it files a brief. The newest argument -- public policy says gender diverse classrooms are best for kids, so what's true for classmates must also be true for the parents of kids. What about this irony ? Utah's brief argues that gay marriage ought to be banned because diversity between parents is better for the kids. Yet a generation ago the LDS Church openly preached against interacial marriage and still does covertly in many places.

http://nyti.ms/19p83hD

I've said that ultimately gay marriage bans will be outlawed as failing to pass the rational basis test under Equal Protection case law. Utah's arguments highlight the irrationality of denying this basic liberty to gay couples.

Good grief, there's some lousy writing in there, including the phrase "speaks volumes" and the accusation that the opposition is attacking "a straw man."

Especially jarring to me is the state's assertion that, since Social-Science Research indicates that children who grow up in fatherless homes struggle, a "fatherless" same-sex marriage (i.e., between two women) will cause kids to struggle. By the same token, what about a kid with two fathers? I guess he/she is an all-around ass-kicker with those extra-father vibes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://nyti.ms/1ckMiKM

Interesting.

Like I said a few pages back, this war is long over. We just watching a few mop-up skirmishes here and there.

[VirginiaCougar]

With apologies if this was already posted:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...state.html.csp

Things have fundamentally changed. In Utah, now about a third of Latter-Day Saints support gay marriage. That is an amazingly high number when you think about it. 65 percent of LDS support Civil Unions for gay couples. I would argue that the civil union number shows that the opposition to the gay marriage among LDS is surprisingly soft. It also comes closest to the official position of the church, which has supported legal rights for same-sex couples while opposing marriage.

[FMCoug]

With apologies if this was already posted:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...state.html.csp

Things have fundamentally changed. In Utah, now about a third of Latter-Day Saints support gay marriage. That is an amazing high number when you think about it. 65 percent of LDS support Civil Unions for gay couples. I would argue that the civil union number shows that the opposition to the gay marriage among LDS is surprisingly soft. In also comes closest to the official position of the church, which has supported legal rights for same-sex couples while opposing marriage.

Beyond that, I bet if most of the 65% really understood the difference between civil unions and marriage they'd switch to supporting gay marriage. Not sure if it was this thread or not, but the discussion on common law and marriage was very enlightening to this non-lawyer. If I am understanding it right, essentially your civil union "contract" would have to spell out in excruciating detail all the rights that are automatic once you're "married". An impossible task that will never be on equal footing with marriage.

[wuapinmon]

Good grief, there's some lousy writing in there, including the phrase "speaks volumes" and the accusation that the opposition is attacking "a straw man."

Especially jarring to me is the state's assertion that, since Social-Science Research indicates that children who grow up in fatherless homes struggle, a "fatherless" same-sex marriage (i.e., between two women) will cause kids to struggle. By the same token, what about a kid with two fathers? I guess he/she is an all-around ass-kicker with those extra-father vibes.

He's a do it yourself kid.

[SeattleUte]

With apologies if this was already posted:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...state.html.csp

Things have fundamentally changed. In Utah, now about a third of Latter-Day Saints support gay marriage. That is an amazing high number when you think about it. 65 percent of LDS support Civil Unions for gay couples. I would argue that the civil union number shows that the opposition to the gay marriage among LDS is surprisingly soft. In also comes closest to the official position of the church, which has supported legal rights for same-sex couples while opposing marriage.

You don't say. This is quite predictable. The worst thing about the LDS Church has always been the general authorities. If they had it their way this wouldn't be happening. They'd be cracking down by any available and necessary means and smotherng competing messages because their mindset has been from a distant epoch. However, the rank and file members are exposed to ever more formiddable competion for their minds. Now this shift in member attitudes comes too late to save the church from the massive damage the general authorities have done to it and to the instution of the general authorities. From now on Mormons will be increasingly like American Catholics, and that's a best case scenario for the general authorities. The LDS Church I grew up with is dead as a smelt.

[Jeff Lebowski]

With apologies if this was already posted:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...state.html.csp

Things have fundamentally changed. In Utah, now about a third of Latter-Day Saints support gay marriage. That is an amazingly high number when you think about it. 65 percent of LDS support Civil Unions for gay couples. I would argue that the civil union number shows that the opposition to the gay marriage among LDS is surprisingly soft. It also comes closest to the official position of the church, which has supported legal rights for same-sex couples while opposing marriage.

From the article;

But perhaps in one surprise, the broad support for civil unions or domestic partnerships included 65 percent of respondents who said they were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is fascinating. At the time of Utah Amendment 3, the LDS church issued a formal statement (perhaps more than one) that said that gays should not be be allowed to marry "or enter into any other legal arrangement that approaches marriage" (i.e., civil unions). Now here we are with a big majority of LDS favoring civil unions.

The funny thing about this is that if you get to the point where you are willing to hand over all the essential rights that go along with marriage, but you insist on holding back just that one last thing: the title of "marriage", how can you not call that discrimination? It is a logical paradox.

[SeattleUte]

From the article;



This is fascinating. At the time of Utah Amendment 3, the LDS church issued a formal statement (perhaps more than one) that said that gays should be be allowed to marry "or enter into any other legal arrangement that approaches marriage" (i.e., civil unions). Now here we are with a big majority of LDS favoring civil unions.

The funny thing about this is that if you get to the point where you are willing to hand over all the essential rights that go along with marriage, but you insist on holding back just that one last thing: the title of "marriage", how can you not call that discrimination? It is a logical paradox.

"should be be" or should not be?

[Jeff Lebowski]

"should be be" or should not be?

Oops. Not be. Fixed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Supporting same-sex marriage will not jeopardize your temple recommend:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...tml.csp?page=1