Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Uncle Ted]

Our company does provide all benefits a heterosexual couple enjoys to homosexual couples. That is true of gays working for the company in this state, so I assume there is no law in Utah to prevent it.

But given that companies are dropping spouse benefits to cut costs it seems that no law requires it either.

[USUC]

Anyone want to venture over to CB and gauge the reaction? I can only imagine...

in fairness, there were directives coming from the very top down the chain. This smear campaign forced a lot of otherwise good people/leaders into positions that were uncomfortable or even undesirable. It became such a focal point for awhile at Church that it became much of what we even talked about at all times, made even more combative by inappropriately hostile responses from some of the more militant pro-gay marriage demonstrators. I had several close family friends tell me in confidence that they felt really uncomfortable speaking such things from the pulpit in a position of authority, but that they felt pressure to do so and feared discipline if they spoke their conscience.

Church should not have been a place to discuss "prop 8" as political legislation and strategy....especially when it came to passing out sign up sheets for people to go door to door, stand on freeway overpasses or street corners with signs, or blanketing parking lots. All of these things, and more, happened at Church. I hated all of it, especially the pious pressure tactics put on people that were opposed to such antics. In retrospect, if I were one of the LA Ute types that were chosen to head up either PR or other messaging for the Church, I would feel frustrated and embarrassed for having participated in it. The social arguments being championed as "support" for Prop 8 were ridiculous even then, but downright embarrassing today.

My wife donated because we were asked to do so and she really felt a conviction to "protect marriage." She and I discussed it and decided mutually that any donation would be in her name only. When she explained to our Bishop we explained that I was abstaining and was opposed. He understood and thanked us anyway.

Several years later and my wife's stance on the issue has changed entirely. Recent comments by Church leadership about similarly thorny social issues have only reinforced our feeling that we are on the right side of the line on this matter. In the years to come, there will be lots of people that will deny their own participation in the bizarre Prop 8 antics coordinated by local and national Church leadership, much like you can't find a single person today willing to admit to supporting the priesthood ban. But I can say with a clear conscience that I was opposed and did nothing to support it. I voted against it. And I am hopeful that we wont see anymore political action campaigns at Church again.

Great insight. Thank you for that.

[Northwestcoug]

I listened to this SLTrib talk during lunch. I'm no lawyer, I agree with Soonercoug about the Myriad patent, support gay marriage and the recent Utah events. I am, however, sympathetic to the concept of judicial restraint, or whatever the hell that term means.

Having admitting my biases, I found Lynn Wardle's argument pretty weak and unconvincing. In fact, it seemed a little embarrassing that he kept referring to 'judicial activism', 'radical adjenda', 'Obama appointee', etc., like he couldn't argue on the merits of the judgement. But again, I'm no lawyer:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...m-sex.html.csp

[smokymountainrain]

I listened to this SLTrib talk during lunch. I'm no lawyer, I agree with Soonercoug about the Myriad patent, support gay marriage and the recent Utah events. I am, however, sympathetic to the concept of judicial restraint, or whatever the hell that term means.

Having admitting my biases, I found Lynn Wardle's argument pretty weak and unconvincing. In fact, it seemed a little embarrassing that he kept referring to 'judicial activism', 'radical adjenda', 'Obama appointee', etc., like he couldn't argue on the merits of the judgement. But again, I'm no lawyer:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...m-sex.html.csp

lol. Obama appointee recommended by Hatch, endorsed by Mike Lee.

[Northwestcoug]

lol. Obama appointee recommended by Hatch, endorsed by Mike Lee.

Ha, I forgot about that. Yeah, it just seemed like he was flailing all over the place.

[Uncle Ted]

Steve Young weighs in:

http://blog.affirmation.org/2013/12/...ope-and-faith/

This article introduced me to a new and unfamiliar acronym: LGBTQAI

What is LGBTQAI???

L – Lesbian
· A woman who is attracted to other women
G – Gay
· A man who is attracted to other men
B – Bisexual
· A man or woman who is attracted to both men and women
T – Transgender
· A person whose gender does not match their given sex
o Gender like race, is a social construction where as sex is biological, based on genitalia
o MtF
§ A person who is born a male but whose gender identity is female
o FtM
§ A person who is born female but whose gender identity is male
Q – Queer and Questioning
· Queer is the umbrella term that encompasses everyone who does not fit in the hetero-normative or gender binary
· People who are questioning, are questioning either their sexuality or gender identity
A – Asexual
· A person who identifies as asexual does not desire sex in relationships
I – Intersexual
· Someone who is intersexual has abnormal sex development
o These are people who can be born with a different chromosome makeup
o The most commonly know disorder to the public is someone who is a hermaphrodite, someone who has both male and female reproductive organs

http://group3swss60.wikispaces.com/explane+lgbtqai

This raised all kinds of questions for me. e.g. What if a bisexual wants to marry both a man and a woman? And is "explane" a valid spelling for explain?

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Saw this posted on Facebook: Gov. Herbert.jpg

[Uncle Ted]

[Moliere]

God bless Provo and Texas.

[Jacob]

Good. I don't know for sure myself. Is the LDS church against granting full benefits, such as visiting rights, health care, etc. to couples who are in a government recognized relationship that just wasn't called marriage?

The church endorsed Amendment 3, which the lunatic judge has now declared unconstitutional, and Amendment 3 declares that the state with neither marry gays, nor grant any civil unions or anything like unto it to anyone not a man and a woman. Though in later statements they softened on SLCs anti housing and employment discrimination laws designed to protect gays, but that was because they successfully lobbied for an exemption from that law. A point that did not sit well with me.

It seems to me that by refusing to issue a stay Judge Shelby has moved from any claim to being a "calling balls and strikes" judge to being a true activist judge -- meaning, he's pushing for a particular result and trying to make his ruling difficult to challenge as a practical matter.

There should have been no doubt about that to begin with, but I'm not so sure he should have granted the stay on the merits.

[Jacob]

I don't see any good reason for counties in Utah to follow this ruling.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't see any good reason for counties in Utah to follow this ruling.

Rule of law?

[Jacob]

Rule of law?

The judge didn't find the rule of law important. That's my main complaint in this thread. Also, the state can rely on much firmer legal precedents than the judge has.

[Nakoma]

Rule of law?

Isn't that what tea partiers say about enforcing immigration laws?

[Jacob]

Isn't that what tea partiers say about enforcing immigration laws?

Of course they do. They also believe in throwing tea into harbors to protest illegal or immoral government action.

I want the rule of law. But since we aren't getting it, it might be time to dump some tea.