Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[byu71]

Semantics. My traditional marriage is still going strong.

I asked the "we" question, but knowing you it isn't odd you would interpet we as "me". What is right and good for JL should be right and good for everyone.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I asked the "we" question, but knowing you it isn't odd you would interpet we as "me". What is right and good for JL should be right and good for everyone.

You misunderstood my response. Again.

[TripletDaddy]

To me there is a difference between saying that adults should be able to legally engage in certain behaviors without condoning the underlying behavior in and of itself. I also don't drink or smoke but I don't think those should be illegal either.

I know you probably disagree with me on the moral perspective part, but that is the way I get comfortable with believing that gay marriage should be recognized.

well, the temple recommend question is obviously very broad, but even your view seems to be contrary to the Church's position. To say that gays should legally engage in marriage is contrary to what the Church says.

I just don't see any convincing way around it. Ultimately, it doesnt matter too much. My main point was that SMR was doubtful that the question would even need to be asked. I think it is a fair question within the current construct of the temple recommend interview.

My personal opinion is that more and more bishops feel similarly which is why they wont press the issue. The question is too broad and would implicate everyone in some way or another over one issue or the next.

[SeattleUte]

I don't think your completely wrong here, but I do think you've overplayed your hand. I believe that the current generation of rank-and-file Mormons is learning some lessons that the pre-correlation Saints knew all-too-well. Heber J. Grant knew that Mormons had spines; so did George Albert Smith, Wilford Woodruff, John Widtsoe, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith.

Perhaps common consent is making a comeback. One could certainly make a case for such a happening, albeit outside of the official channels.

Then I look forward to the day when GAs are democartically elected again and the LDS Church can get some decent leaders like yourself, 3D and JL.

[byu71]

You misunderstood my response. Again.

We are just on different levels. Being the benevolent person you are toward those who are not treated fairly in our society, I would think you would make an effort to talk on a level even I as an uneducated and unenlightened person might understand.

However, Napper has always been gracious enough to explain what the intellectually fortunate are saying to me.

So in your own words, do you think gays are looking to be married to say we are in the norm or just to get the rights associated with marriage? I will ask Napper to let me know what you mean.

Thanks

[TripletDaddy]

Then I look forward to the day when GAs are democartically elected again and the LDS Church can get some decent leaders like yourself, 3D and JL.

I would be a terrible general authority in the new Church. Way too much vengeance in my blood. I would have been more effective in the Earth's infancy, a mere few thousand years ago.

[old_gregg]

So in your own words, do you think gays are looking to be married to say we are in the norm or just to get the rights associated with marriage? I will ask Napper to let me know what you mean.

who knew that those were the only possible justifications?

[Jeff Lebowski]

We are just on different levels. Being the benevolent person you are toward those who are not treated fairly in our society, I would think you would make an effort to talk on a level even I as an uneducated and unenlightened person might understand.

However, Napper has always been gracious enough to explain what the intellectually fortunate are saying to me.

So in your own words, do you think gays are looking to be married to say we are in the norm or just to get the rights associated with marriage? I will ask Napper to let me know what you mean.

Thanks

Never mind. Have a nice day.

[byu71]

who knew that those were the only possible justifications?

Probably not the only ones. A good answer might be, those aren't the only possible justifications, here are some others.

Of course that wouldn't have been a good reply if you are trying to enhance your rep as a smart ass. Well done.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Then I look forward to the day when GAs are democartically elected again and the LDS Church can get some decent leaders like yourself, 3D and JL.

I don't think Johnny Lingo would make a good GA.

[Jacob]

This was precisely the argument used to overturn prop 8 in CA. Via civil unions, etc. gays had essentially all the rights enjoyed by hetero couples, except the dignity of calling it "marriage". The court ruled that that was discrimination (the bad kind).

That's not how I remember it. The judge in that federal case ruled that because gay marriages had already been performed (because of the California's supreme court's imposition of it) that Prop 8 then took away a fundamental right (marriage) that had already been granted to gays. He then voided Prop 8. I don't remember what happened when the judge was over-ruled in part and the case was remanded back to the District Court.

If some judge did rule based on the argument you give, then he made a very poor ruling indeed.

[pellegrino]

I don't think your completely wrong here, but I do think you've overplayed your hand. I believe that the current generation of rank-and-file Mormons is learning some lessons that the pre-correlation Saints knew all-too-well. Heber J. Grant knew that Mormons had spines; so did George Albert Smith, Wilford Woodruff, John Widtsoe, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith.

Perhaps common consent is making a comeback. One could certainly make a case for such a happening, albeit outside of the official channels.

hmm, interesting thought. Perhaps the new common consent is the membership moving one way and SLC with its marketing research tools discovers the shift and then figures out how to get in line with the common consent without losing face.

[byu71]

hmm, interesting thought. Perhaps the new common consent is the membership moving one way and SLC with its marketing research tools discovers the shift and then figures out how to get in line with the common consent without losing face.

That would make church pretty darn interesting. I am not sure which would be my first major campaign. Reverse the WOW or reverse the law of chasity for single people. Which would have more impact on better recruiting for FB and BB at BYU?

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's not how I remember it. The judge in that federal case ruled that because gay marriages had already been performed (because of the California's supreme court's imposition of it) that Prop 8 then took away a fundamental right (marriage) that had already been granted to gays. He then voided Prop 8. I don't remember what happened when the judge was over-ruled in part and the case was remanded back to the District Court.

If some judge did rule based on the argument you give, then he made a very poor ruling indeed.

http://edwardschiappa.com/uploads/SchiappaAA.pdf

The Chief Justice argued that denying same-sex couples the venerated label marriage
would impose harm on same-sex couples and their children because it would “cast doubt on
whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of
opposite-sex couples” (In re Marriage Cases, 2008, p. 401). Historically, homosexual persons
have faced discrimination; excluding them from the marriage label would seem like an official
endorsement of such disparagement.

Given the importance of marriage as a social institution, and the legal presumption that
laws discriminating against homosexual citizens are suspect, the onus was on the State to
provide a compelling reason to deny the label marriage to same-sex couples. Though the
close 4-3 vote suggests reasonable people could disagree, the Court ruled that no such
compelling state interest was demonstrated. Defendants and supporting amici briefs most
often identified two interests: (a) society’s interest in encouraging procreation, and (b) the
traditional value of heterosexual marriage. Chief Justice George noted that not all marriages
result in procreation and that the heterosexual right to marry does not depend on procreation;
furthermore, the State’s interest in supporting stable families could be advanced by
providing families headed by same-sex couples the same dignity and protection families
headed by male/female couples. The Chief Justice also noted that tradition is not a compelling
state interest. The Court noted that entrenched social practices and traditions often
masked inequality; examples include bans on interracial marriage, routine exclusions of
women from many occupations, and the relegation of blacks to separate but supposedly
equal public facilities. Furthermore, many sections of the California Civil Code prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation, and state law permits same-sex couples to adopt
just as it does male/female couples.

[pellegrino]

That would make church pretty darn interesting. I am not sure which would be my first major campaign. Reverse the WOW or reverse the law of chasity for single people. Which would have more impact on better recruiting for FB and BB at BYU?

uh, I actually think that would be a horrible model for common consent. I'd rather see it come about as it is described in the D&C and as it was practiced in the early church.