Page 1 of 42 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1238

Thread: Marriage Equality Thread

  1. #1

    Marriage Equality Thread

    http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile2/5...ition.html.csp

    Robert Kirby does a great job of challenging the notion that gay marriage will end civilization as we know it. Although his analysis is a bit tongue in cheek, his point is well made that a society which fosters and encourages a loving commitment to family is not a bad thing to be feared or opposed. At least not on the grounds of a parade of horrible a happening in our world because of it.

  2. #2
    Di you see that John Huntsman Jr. signed the legal brief to be submitted to the Supreme Court saying that gay marriage is a constitutional right? The times they are a changing.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Di you see that John Huntsman Jr. signed the legal brief to be submitted to the Supreme Court saying that gay marriage is a constitutional right? The times they are a changing.
    I didn't see that. What capacity did he sign it in? Ambassador to China? Presidential candidate? Businessman? That's interesting. He's a very different kind of conservative than most republicans.

  4. #4
    There is an article in the NY times and every where else today.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us...iage.html?_r=0

  5. #5
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    There is an article in the NY times and every where else today.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us...iage.html?_r=0
    Interesting article. But how does a non-lawyer sign a brief to the SCOTUS?

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Interesting article. But how does a non-lawyer sign a brief to the SCOTUS?
    with his or her signature?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Interesting article. But how does a non-lawyer sign a brief to the SCOTUS?
    Beats me; I guess we will have to see what group that he is a member of was granted permission to file an amicus brief.

  8. #8
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death View Post
    with his or her signature?
    I'm just curious. To sign a brief submitted to a court you have to be admitted to practice before that court. Getting admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the U.S. requires a few steps. Maybe when the article says they "signed" the brief it means that they signed a statement in support of it, or joined the entity on whose behalf the brief was filed.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  9. #9
    I would assume he is not signing a a lawyer; he is singing to certify that he is the client or member of the group filing the amicus brief. I think it means he is signing on, not signing as a lawyer would.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by East Coast Bias View Post
    How much longer will members have to bite their tongues in church as someone preaches from the pulpit that legalization of gay marriage is a sign of the moral decay of society before Christ's return? I still hear this once in a while about inter-racial marriage too.
    Yikes! Where do you live? 1955?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Yikes! Where do you live? 1955?
    I think you misread the post.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by East Coast Bias View Post
    How much longer will members have to bite their tongues in church as someone preaches from the pulpit that legalization of gay marriage is a sign of the moral decay of society before Christ's return? I still hear this once in a while about inter-racial marriage too.
    It will continue until approximately 15-20 years after marriage equality is the law of the land. Old habits and beliefs die hard.

    I am happy to see Huntsman support the amicus brief. I am doubly proud of him after reading the summary of the amicus brief filed by the church's legal wing and also the half-brained arguments put forward in the Prop8 case.

    Frankly, I DGAS about gay people marrying. It won't affect my own marriage, my life, or my family one bit. The whole thing comes down to being overly concerned with the bedroom behaviors of others. Frankly I DGAS about what my straight neighbors do in their own bedrooms, so I can't understand why I shouldn't extend the same courtesy to everybody else.

    Board Legal Eagles: what do you think of the finding in the court case that gays constitute a 'Suspect Class' requiring 'strict scrutiny' rather than a 'rational basis'? (I only have a cursory knowledge of these classifications)


    FWIW, many of our gay friends voted AGAINST the recent proposition here in Washington. Those who were older and in long-term, stable relationships voted for it while those who were younger and not ready to be tied down voted against it.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeUte View Post
    I think you misread the post.
    Parts of North Carolina may very well be stuck in 1955. One of my mission companions grew up in rural Georgia and was convinced that half of his stake would resign from the church if a black man became a GA or higher (note: he welcomed the idea).

  14. #14
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    I would assume he is not signing a a lawyer; he is singing to certify that he is the client or member of the group filing the amicus brief. I think it means he is signing on, not signing as a lawyer would.
    Probably right. Kind of a dumb question on my part.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  15. #15
    [
    Quote Originally Posted by East Coast Bias View Post
    I still hear this once in a while about inter-racial marriage too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Yikes! Where do you live? 1955?
    Until the Church updated the youth manuals this year there was a quote in there from President Kimball about marrying within your same culture, race, economic background, etc. So if the Church was still teaching this in 2012 I can understand why you might still hear it on occasion.
    Last edited by Sullyute; 02-26-2013 at 12:11 PM.

  16. #16
    Sully, go spend some time in small town Idaho.....you hear it every so often even today.
    Last edited by IdahoUteTroutHead; 02-26-2013 at 11:54 AM.


    -What would you do
    if you saw spaceships over Glasgow?
    Would you fear them?
    Every aircraft, every camera, is a wish that wasn't granted.

    What was that for?
    Try to be bad.


  17. #17
    Uniform Fashion Expert HuskyFreeNorthwest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Eug
    Posts
    439
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death View Post
    with his or her signature?
    If it was in blood I'd take it more seriously.

  18. #18
    Living in the past ... FMCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    In but not of Utah
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    Parts of North Carolina may very well be stuck in 1955. One of my mission companions grew up in rural Georgia and was convinced that half of his stake would resign from the church if a black man became a GA or higher (note: he welcomed the idea).
    It's not surprising that there are people who joined the Church based on their perception that its beliefs and practices mirrored their own. Southern converts from pre-1978 who are racists would make all the sense in the world. Which reminds me of a friend of mine. Inactive member whose parents joined the Church when he was a kid. It turns out his Dad thought that polygamy was still practiced in secret and when he got to the "higher levels" he would get to practice it. The parents divorced a couple of years after joining the Church.

  19. #19
    Wait, you don't get to practice it when you get to certain point? Damn it!


    -What would you do
    if you saw spaceships over Glasgow?
    Would you fear them?
    Every aircraft, every camera, is a wish that wasn't granted.

    What was that for?
    Try to be bad.


  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoUteTroutHead View Post
    Sully, go spend some time in small town Idaho.....you hear it every so often even today.
    I don't doubt it. However, as with most things, context matters. If someone is saying that marriage is hard and the more things that you have in common (culture, background, religion, race, hobbies, food tastes, etc) then the greater chance you will have at success, then I don't necessarily have an issue with that as I think they are generally correct. If they are saying don't marry outside your race because other races are inferior or making it simply about skin color than I do have issues with this line of thinking.

  21. #21
    Well, it is Idaho.....I don't want to give them too much or too little credit when it comes to this.


    -What would you do
    if you saw spaceships over Glasgow?
    Would you fear them?
    Every aircraft, every camera, is a wish that wasn't granted.

    What was that for?
    Try to be bad.


  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Sullyute View Post
    I don't doubt it. However, as with most things, context matters. If someone is saying that marriage is hard and the more things that you have in common (culture, background, religion, race, hobbies, food tastes, etc) then the greater chance you will have at success, then I don't necessarily have an issue with that as I think they are generally correct. If they are saying don't marry outside your race because other races are inferior or making it simply about skin color than I do have issues with this line of thinking.
    There's a lot to be said for marrying someone with things in common. Mrs SDUF is 5 weeks younger than I am, went to the same high school, very similar tastes, backgrounds, etc, etc. I think that goes a long way.

    As far as Pres Kimball's advice on marrying within the same race... I think at the time that was probably sound advice. Back then, things could be pretty tough for a mixed-race couple. Mostly because of ignorant outsiders.

    Today, I think there is much more acceptance for it. A member of our bishopric has an African-American wife. They are very happy, but San Diego is pretty laid back as far as race goes for the most part.
    Desse jeito, não tem jeito.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by San Diego Ute Fan View Post
    There's a lot to be said for marrying someone with things in common. Mrs SDUF is 5 weeks younger than I am, went to the same high school, very similar tastes, backgrounds, etc, etc. I think that goes a long way.

    As far as Pres Kimball's advice on marrying within the same race... I think at the time that was probably sound advice. Back then, things could be pretty tough for a mixed-race couple. Mostly because of ignorant outsiders.

    Today, I think there is much more acceptance for it. A member of our bishopric has an African-American wife. They are very happy, but San Diego is pretty laid back as far as race goes for the most part.
    Attitudes are changing in SLC too. Several devout LDS interracial or interethnic couples in our neighborhood not far from the U. A lesbian couple lives next door to our first counsellor and are raising two children, a boy and a girl. Seems to me many male missionaries are marrying women of different ethnicity from their missions. The biggest driver could be the number of good-standing white LDS families adopting African or Asian children, or other ethnicities. Sometimes I am astonished by it; couldn't have imagined it when I was growing up down the street from W. Cleon Skousen.
    Last edited by concerned; 02-26-2013 at 12:46 PM.

  24. #24
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Attitudes are changing in SLC too. Several devout LDS interracial or interethnic couples in our neighborhood not far from the U. A lesbian couple lives next door to our first counsellor and are raising two children, a boy and a girl. Seems to me many male missionaries are marrying women of different ethnicity from their missions. The biggest driver could be the number of good white LDS families adopting African or Asian children, or other ethnicities. Sometimes I am astonished by it; couldn't have imagined it when I was growing up down the street from W. Cleon Skousen.
    Ditto here. Our ward in Los Angeles looks like United Nations. Doesn't even come up, and no one really noticed. And we live in the suburbs.

    With the church growing more outside the United States than inside, and over half the membership already outside the USA, I think this is only going to continue

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  25. #25
    My critique of the LDS amicus brief is at ##391, 401-404 and 419 of the attached thread. Thoughts?

    http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...g-Today/page14
    Last edited by SeattleUte; 02-26-2013 at 01:05 PM.

  26. #26
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    My critique of the LDS amicus brief is at ##391, 401-404 and 419 of the attached thread. Thoughts?

    http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...g-Today/page14
    From point of view of pure Con Law analysis (I am not injecting my own opinion here), it's important to remember that if they decide the case on rational basis grounds they're going to have to form a modified type of rational basis test. Some call it "rational basis with bite." Maybe that's what you are arguing for. This Wikipedia entry seems to have the definition right:

    To understand the concept of rational basis review, it is easier to understand what it is not. Rational basis review is not intelligent basis review; the legislature is merely required to be rational, not smart. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every proffered justification for it is a grossly illogical non sequitur (or even worse, a word salad). In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens reaffirmed the lenient nature of rational basis review in a concurring opinion: "[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"[5]
    One may hate Prop 8 and think it is stupid, wrong-headed or motivated by hatred. But it cannot fairly be described as a grossly illogical non-sequitur. So rational basis review, as it has been applied so far, won't be enough to overturn it, IMO.

    My own view is that same-sex marriage is inevitable and we'll all just learn to adjust. I would really prefer that it not be court-mandated, however.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    One may hate Prop 8 and think it is stupid, wrong-headed or motivated by hatred. But it cannot fairly be described as a grossly illogical non-sequitur. So rational basis review, as it has been applied so far, won't be enough to overturn it, IMO.

    My own view is that same-sex marriage is inevitable and we'll all just learn to adjust. I would really prefer that it not be court-mandated, however.
    I'm not sure I agree with you (I certainly don't agree with Wikipedia - rational basis review with bite already exists). It doesn't matter whether Prop 8 is an illogical non-sequitur, it matters whether the proferred justifications for the law are illogical non-sequiters. To me, "threatening traditional marriage" looks an awful lot like a non-sequiter when it is near impossible to articulate what that threat is or how it will occur. Not to mention the lack of evidence supporting the claim. I understand that there are other proffered justifications than the one I mentioned, but it seems to me that they all lack any sort of cause and effect story.

    There are a host of reasons people support Prop 8: religious, moral, etc. I have no problem with people that support Prop 8 under those or any other justification. But those sorts of justifications, without more, don't provide a rational basis under the law.

  28. #28
    Five-O Diehard Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post

    My own view is that same-sex marriage is inevitable and we'll all just learn to adjust. I would really prefer that it not be court-mandated, however.
    But you're ok with court (or government) mandates against it? Or am I reading too much in to this?

    I don't care who people marry or who they don't. But I find the religious argument that a church shouldn't be told they have to marry someone a bit strange if that same church endorses the government telling churches they CANNOT marry someone.

    Who churches marry should be up to that church. Not the government and certainly not other churches. The government, IMO, should quit telling anyone who they can and can't marry.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    I'm not sure I agree with you (I certainly don't agree with Wikipedia - rational basis review with bite already exists). It doesn't matter whether Prop 8 is an illogical non-sequitur, it matters whether the proferred justifications for the law are illogical non-sequiters. To me, "threatening traditional marriage" looks an awful lot like a non-sequiter when it is near impossible to articulate what that threat is or how it will occur. Not to mention the lack of evidence supporting the claim. I understand that there are other proffered justifications than the one I mentioned, but it seems to me that they all lack any sort of cause and effect story.

    There are a host of reasons people support Prop 8: religious, moral, etc. I have no problem with people that support Prop 8 under those or any other justification. But those sorts of justifications, without more, don't provide a rational basis under the law.
    Sorry, I'm with LA on this. There is just no way to overturn Prop 8 under a rational basis review given the state of Supreme Court law on what constitutes a rational basis. The only way it gets overturned is if the SCOTUS gives orientation a higher standard of review.

  30. #30
    My sister in law and her "partner" have been together longer than I've been married, 25+ years. They're exactly zero threat to my marriage, or anyone else's.

    If the LDS church was still nudging men who admitted same-sex attraction into getting married and having kids, you could make the case that same-sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, at least for that subset of bi-sexuals/homosexuals.

    But I think that practice has pretty much ceased, has it not? Too many of those marriage end badly, and the kids have serious hangups, as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •