Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[byu71]

I know you were attempting a witty jab, but that doesn't even make sense.

Actually, he pulled of a witty jab. Whether it was fair or not doesn't matter.

[Pheidippides]

Not any non-religious ones, anyway.

I think I covered that with the "good" modifier.

[imanihonjin]

Actually, he pulled of a witty jab. Whether it was fair or not doesn't matter.

I like you 71', but I don't think he will be pleased that you think his jab was witty.

[byu71]

HUH? Is he amongst the legions on here who don't like me? Crap, I didn't peg him as one of those.

[Northwestcoug]

HUH? Is he amongst the legions on here who don't like me? Crap, I didn't peg him as one of those.

No worries, '71. You're OK I'm my book. :thumbsup:

[Pelado]

HUH? Is he amongst the legions on here who don't like me? Crap, I didn't peg him as one of those.

I thought SU was the only one here into pegging.

[byu71]

I thought SU was the only one here into pegging.

I had to look that up. I wish I had let it go. Now that I didn't, I still don't see the connection. The rest of the day could be tough though for me to catch onto things. I did read two very long posts today and I am sure a lot of brain cells died.

[cowboy]

It makes me sad that Jacob is still trying to defend the anti-gay crowd. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I see someone who seems to understand the law well enough to point out every technical impropriety of the judge but can't recognize the utter vacuity of the argument the judge is being presented.

I don't think being anti-gay marriage and anti-gay are the same. Just my opinion, and I'll agree to disagree with you and probably everyone else on this board on this point.

Is it even in doubt that the ban on gay marriage is due to institutional inertia? Is there even a single valid argument to support it?

Yes, if you are religious, and believe that marriage implies a contract with and is sanctioned by God.

The ban on gay marriage is itself a historical embarrassment, but these court cases in which justification is attempted may be more so.

The only way this opinion is not contradictory is if you believe that government has no role in determining who can marry and who can't as long as the parties are consenting adults. If you believe government does have a role, then this creates a situation where society chooses the under which circumstances consenting adults can form a legal union and call it marriage. In such cases, when society is deciding what is morally acceptable and what is not, there is nothing embarrassing about society having a different collective moral opinion than that of any individual or group of individuals. Just my two cents.

[smokymountainrain]

I don't think being anti-gay marriage and anti-gay are the same. Just my opinion, and I'll agree to disagree with you and probably everyone else on this board on this point.

Yeah, I think you may have a hard time convincing most gay people that while you won't allow them to get married you actually support them as a whole. Seems like it would be a tough sell.

[byu71]

Yeah, I think you may have a hard time convincing most gay people that while you won't allow them to get married you actually support them as a whole. Seems like it would be a tough sell.

So if I have a child who is living common law marriage, I can't object to that and love and support them at the same time?

It is all or nothing??

[Jacob]

It makes me sad that Jacob is still trying to defend the anti-gay crowd. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I see someone who seems to understand the law well enough to point out every technical impropriety of the judge but can't recognize the utter vacuity of the argument the judge is being presented.

Is it even in doubt that the ban on gay marriage is due to institutional inertia? Is there even a single valid argument to support it? The ban on gay marriage is itself a historical embarrassment, but these court cases in which justification is attempted may be more so.

That's not fair and I think you know it. I've stated many times that I don't really feel that strongly about the political issue. I don't much mind states redefining marriage laws to include gay couples. The other side is probably a lost cause. I do feel strongly about what I think the correct legal outcome is of these cases. I don't think much harm will come either way it finally resolves itself in the courts. As for the vacuity of the argument being presented, the answers Posner was seeking would have been vacuous largely because he was asking vacuous questions.

As for the last part about the "ban" being a historical embarrassment, I find that ridiculous. First of all, it turns the issue on its head. Marriage law was not a ban on certain people's ability to marry. It never was. It granted state marriage certificates where none existed previously. How could it be a historical embarrassment to "ban" something they never intended to ban? When marriage laws were drafted historically, they probably didn't even consider the issue. You can think that recent constitutional amendments are an embarrassment. Those did, of course, specifically address the issue.

Posner is know for hammering attorneys when he doesn't like their cases, and has been called out on it before. BUT THAT'S THE POINT. Posner really doesn't think much of the arguments against gay marriage, and he's a very influential judge.

I'm at a loss as to why this makes his silliness of import. The issue will be decided by the supreme court. it's hard for me to believe that Anthony Kennedy will be taking Posner into account when making the decision. Much less John Roberts.

[cowboy]

Yeah, I think you may have a hard time convincing most gay people that while you won't allow them to get married you actually support them as a whole. Seems like it would be a tough sell.

Like I said, I see things differently. I'm not going to argue my position, because we've all made up our minds.

[Jacob]

Yeah, I think you may have a hard time convincing most gay people that while you won't allow them to get married you actually support them as a whole. Seems like it would be a tough sell.

Really? Interesting. I wouldn't think so. Odd that this concern never reared its head 10 years ago. Of course, I would never tell them what sort of relationship they should enter into in the first place. None of my business.

[Jacob]

Back home I'm a lunatic apostate. Dad asserted recently that these 2 things would never change: women receiving the priesthood and homosexuality being accepted by the church. When he said that I wagered: "I'll bet you a large sum of money that at least one of those will occur in my lifetime. Women will be ordained or gays will be married in the temple."

[smokymountainrain]

So if I have a child who is living common law marriage, I can't object to that and love and support them at the same time?

It is all or nothing??

You certainly can love and support them. But if marriage is important to that child and you won't allow it, while claim you love and support them, it seems your words may ring hollow. I could be wrong.