Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[SoonerCoug]

That doesn't surprise me.

They upheld one patent and invalidated the other, admitting all the while that they didn't really understand the science (see Justice Scalia's dissent). Funny how the legal generalists for whom the science is foreign matter are actually the ones who agree with you.

From what I have read, the SCOTUS invalidated the patent of the gene.

Scalia explained his understanding of the science, which sounded pretty solid to me. He also admitted his limitations (unlike you).

What is clear is that all 9 supreme court justices disagreed with you, but you're still implying that you have a better grasp of science than they do.

[jay santos]

Something I find interesting about this topic is that among Mormons you have 1) those that are really devout, really serious about Mormonism and 2) those that are really into conservative politics and really serious about it. There is a lot of overlap between the two groups, obviously. I pretty much only exclusively see group 2 people being really upset about gay marriage. Those in group 1 and not in group 2 don't seem to be excited at all about it.

[All-American]

From what I have read, the SCOTUS invalidated the patent of the gene.

Keep reading. SCOTUS left enough untouched that there is ongoing litigation as to whether others may perform unlicensed BRCA tests.

Scalia explained his understanding of the science, which sounded pretty solid to me. He also admitted his limitations (unlike you).

What is clear is that all 9 supreme court justices disagreed with you, but you're still implying that you have a better grasp of science than they do.

I made no such implication. At any rate, there are at least two other threads in which we discuss the case. I'd be happy to resume conversation there. Otherwise, there's no need for the number of threads about a topic to outnumber the number if people interested in it.

[Moliere]

Something I find interesting about this topic is that among Mormons you have 1) those that are really devout, really serious about Mormonism and 2) those that are really into conservative politics and really serious about it. There is a lot of overlap between the two groups, obviously. I pretty much only exclusively see group 2 people being really upset about gay marriage. Those in group 1 and not in group 2 don't seem to be excited at all about it.

This is what I'm seeing. Group 2 is the TEA Partiers in my ward and most of them tend to also be very devout. They are the ones having the biggest issue with it while most people don't utter a peep. Maybe it's because those only in Group 1 just go about their lives without watching much cable news or really caring about what their neighbor is doing as long as it doesn't affect them.

[Jacob]

As somebody who is pro gay marriage and knows very little about the law, on an elementary level, it does indeed seem strange to me that one unelected federal judge can wield so much power over an entire state. Also interesting that a conservative like Mike Lee wholeheartedly supported his appointment. Makes me wonder how Mike Lee feels now.

Sometimes you don't need to be an expert, and sometimes it is better if you are not a lawyer when trying to understand constitutional issues. Of course the US constitution doesn't stand for the proposition that states must marry gays. Of course not. This is obviously to nearly everybody. You must be slippery and twist and turn and use sleight of hand to come up with an argument that the Constitution of the United states, was intended to force states to marry gays.

But this case is even worse. As I described above, this judge took a recently decided case where the majority opinion specifically stated that their analysis did not extend to this sort of a case and decided that it did. This is not like the other cases we've heard about. This is the first case where a judge relied solely on the US Constitution to declare that states must marry gays. No previous judge has had the guts to so rule. They have always relied on their own state constitution to invent the requirement. But this guy couldn't do that because of Utah's constitutional amendment when can not be gotten around. It is as clear as it can possibly be. So this guy decided the US constitution was more vague, which made a nice little play ground for him to try to muddy up what the words of the constitution means. That way he could use sophistry disguised as legal reasoning to reach the result that he wanted to start with.

I don't have any statistics, but the supreme court is not want to declare provisions of state constitutions illegal under the US Constitution. And they just passed a case this year where they declared unequivocally that marriage law was the exclusive province of the states and that the feds shouldn't meddle so much. That just happens to be the same case this lunatic of a judge relied on to reach the exact opposite result.

[Jacob]

1) I love Robert Shelby, but I'd respect him even more if he just wrote: I think gay marriage should be legal, so I am striking down this law. I think the US constitution is in line with with my opinion, and the supreme court has established precedent that gays must be treated with dignity (citation). So I'm going to make gay marriage legal by striking down this law. End of opinion. .

Unbelievable that you really think that. But I agree that Mr Shelby should have been more honest rather than pretending that his ruling was the result of any existing law or legal reasoning.

I think Clarence Thomas would agree with me.

No he wouldn't. But I agree with him and think he writes the most correct and succinct rulings of all justices. Would that more of them would keep it simple. This case is a really simple one and requires only a one or two page decision from the supreme court. This is a point Scalia also makes all the time. Most of the alleged difficult cases are not so. They are quite simple.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Another hearing this morning at 9 am regarding a stay. This is going to be interesting.

[byu71]

once we had to start actually looking at the issue for once because of Mormon involvement in prop 8, we changed almost overnight. I know a lot of people like that.

While I totally support the "churches" right and authority to do what they want, I also reserve the right to disagree. In my own world I am totally OK with, "if it isn't commandment, then it is advice".

I think the aggressive effort in prop 8 was a mistake. Many people, they all are not stupid or ignorant, do believe that statements from the brethern are more than advice. On this issue those people were put in a very tough position. They may not have wanted to actively participate or give money, yet their beliefs would cause them guilt should they not participate. My feeling is there are already enough pronouncements to go on guilt trips over.

So you have it seems to me in the church the same thing that goes on in the Country. An activist side quoting scripture and sin to back their point up. Then you have the activists on the other side of the issue immediately using terms such as ignorant, backward, unitelligent or bigotted.

I find the hard line religion rhetoric offensive. A statement from the pulpit like God wouldn't make someone that way is very troubling at the very least.

On the other hand to automatically label those who are against gay marriage as ignorant or bigotted is also assinine.

No wonder many in the church have no interest in getting involved in the name calling tug-a-war.

[Jeff Lebowski]

While I totally support the "churches" right and authority to do what they want, I also reserve the right to disagree. In my own world I am totally OK with, "if it isn't commandment, then it is advice".

I think the aggressive effort in prop 8 was a mistake. Many people, they all are not stupid or ignorant, do believe that statements from the brethern are more than advice. On this issue those people were put in a very tough position. They may not have wanted to actively participate or give money, yet their beliefs would cause them guilt should they not participate. My feeling is there are already enough pronouncements to go on guilt trips over.

So you have it seems to me in the church the same thing that goes on in the Country. An activist side quoting scripture and sin to back their point up. Then you have the activists on the other side of the issue immediately using terms such as ignorant, backward, unitelligent or bigotted.

I find the hard line religion rhetoric offensive. A statement from the pulpit like God wouldn't make someone that way is very troubling at the very least.

On the other hand to automatically label those who are against gay marriage as ignorant or bigotted is also assinine.

No wonder many in the church have no interest in getting involved in the name calling tug-a-war.

I attended church in SoCal during the prop 8 campaign and we were told in a combined priesthood/RS meeting that not supporting prop 8 was a violation of your temple covenants (consecration).

[byu71]

I attended church in SoCal during the prop 8 campaign and we were told in a combined priesthood/RS meeting that not supporting prop 8 was a violation of your temple covenants (consecration).

IMHO, that is assinine and a form of coercion. I assume this came from someone higher than the rank of Bishop.

It would be another incident that I would use to back my feelings that just because a leader states it doesn't make it so.

[USUC]

I attended church in SoCal during the prop 8 campaign and we were told in a combined priesthood/RS meeting that not supporting prop 8 was a violation of your temple covenants (consecration).

Wow, really? Was this an official document read to the Priesthood/RS or is there a chance the presiding priesthood holder spoke on his own opinion. This Prop 8 thing was a total mess. I've heard so many different things from family and friends living in California.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wow, really? Was this an official document read to the Priesthood/RS or is there a chance the presiding official spoke on his own opinion. This Prop 8 thing was a total mess. I've heard so many different things from family and friends living in California.

No, it was a woman who was in charge of (or part of a committee) organizing their local efforts. She was ad-libbing.

[Copelius]

No, it was a woman who was in charge of (or part of a committee) organizing their local efforts. She was ad-libbing.

No need to pay any attention to it then.

[SoonerCoug]

In true Christmas spirit, I'd like to apologize to any lawyer out there that I might have offended (except All-American).

Now could someone please tell me how conservative the 10th circuit is? I've been trying to figure it out, and I'm befuddled. All I know at this point is that there are 5 republican appointees, 5 democrat appointees, and 2 open seats that have been blocked by republican senators.

[pellegrino]

I attended church in SoCal during the prop 8 campaign and we were told in a combined priesthood/RS meeting that not supporting prop 8 was a violation of your temple covenants (consecration).

That seems about par for the course.

If anyone wants to have their mind blown at just what was happening on the ground in CA, go look at religion posts on cougarboard in the run up to the 2008 election. Some of the reports on the firesides and special meetings held for the Prop. 8 are unintentionally crazy.