Marriage Equality Thread

[OrangeUte]

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile2/55881992-218/marry-kirby-marriage-tradition.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.

[concerned]

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.

[OrangeUte]

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.

[concerned]

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/prominent-republicans-sign-brief-in-support-of-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

[LA Ute]

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/prominent-republicans-sign-brief-in-support-of-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

Interesting article. But how does a non-lawyer sign a brief to the SCOTUS?

[Mormon Red Death]

Interesting article. But how does a non-lawyer sign a brief to the SCOTUS?

with his or her signature?

[concerned]

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.

[LA Ute]

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.

[concerned]

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.

[Applejack]

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?

[OrangeUte]

Yikes! Where do you live? 1955?

I think you misread the post.

[NorthwestUteFan]

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.

[NorthwestUteFan]

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).

[LA Ute]

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.

[Sullyute]

[
I still hear this once in a while about inter-racial marriage too.


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.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

Sully, go spend some time in small town Idaho.....you hear it every so often even today.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

with his or her signature?

If it was in blood I'd take it more seriously.

[FMCoug]

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. :)

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

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

[Sullyute]

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.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

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

[San Diego Ute Fan]

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.

[concerned]

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.

[LA Ute]

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

[SeattleUte]

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

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?55207-Important-Prop-8-Ruling-Today/page14

[LA Ute]

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

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?55207-Important-Prop-8-Ruling-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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad)). In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens) reaffirmed the lenient nature of rational basis review in a concurring opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurring_opinion): "[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall), remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review#cite_note-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.

[Applejack]

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.

[Diehard Ute]

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.

[Scratch]

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.

[Ma'ake]

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.

[Applejack]

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.

Interesting. I trust your opinion as a realtor.

While rare, the Supremes have overturned laws based on rational basis analysis. Do you think that Prop 8's proferred justification is stronger than it was in those cases, or that the state of rational basis law has swung back over time?

[Scratch]

Both, but more than anything it's much, much easier to articulate a rational basis for Prop 8 than anything that has ever been tossed out under a rational basis review. All of the "bases" in those those cases are truly laughable.

P.S. Any interest in seeing some of my latest listings?

[SeattleUte]

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.

Last November the good people of the state of Washington created same sex marriage by referendum. I haven't noticed any change in our civilization or family institution.

The Supreme Court can do whatever it wants. I've asked LA repeatedly to give me a rationale for Prop. 8 and he hasn't. I think it's irrational and the Supreme Court could reach the same conclusion, if it decided to do so was expedient, i.e., grant gays a marriage right without establishing homosexuality as a suspect classification. (When is Scalia going to realize he no longer sounds brilliant and contrarian but like a bitter old primitive cleric (if I ever start sounding like that I trust someone here will tell me)?)

Marriage has been a religious ceremony only because until 1776 everything was a theocracy. The religious beliefs of an ever dwindling minority is not a rational reason to deny marriage to gay people. That is the rationale expressed by the LDS amicus brief. It's an established fact that same sex people fall in love and partner just like heterosexuals.

[Applejack]

We'll have to disagree about the strength of the rationales in Prop 8.

As to the law, there are clearly rational basis with bite cases out there - even Justice Marshall acknowledged as much. Now, it is entirely unclear when we get bite and when we don't. I think Kenji Yoshino at NYU gives as good of a guess as any: when there is perceived animus against an unpopular group. http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/why-the-court-can-strike-down-marriage-restrictions-under-rational-basis-review/ That is just idle law professor speculation at this point, but I think that is as good of an explanation as any for interpreting the court's law. If that is the case, Prop 8 is toast, even under rational basis.

[Rocker Ute]

Last November the good people of the state of Washington created same sex marriage by referendum. I haven't noticed any change in our civilization or family institution.

Because a civilization's decline usually happens over a weekend.

Truth of the matter is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. A legal entity of a civil union should be all that they care about, and individuals can form those however they want to, and it would define rules for inheritances, visitation rights, insurance benefits, etc. So then if a husband and wife want to enter into that, or a same-sex couple, or even a mother and her son wanted a civil union (defining themselves as a legal entity who can act on each others behalf) they could. Then let churches and organizations marry whomever they feel like marrying. Also in theory, a married couple could also not be a civil union.

The LDS church has supported laws in SLC and is supportive of laws currently being proposed to the Utah Legislature that would extend these rights (ie visitation rights, etc) to homosexual couples.

Do that and I think the whole prop 8 thing goes away, in my humble opinion.

[Scratch]

We'll have to disagree about the strength of the rationales in Prop 8.

As to the law, there are clearly rational basis with bite cases out there - even Justice Marshall acknowledged as much. Now, it is entirely unclear when we get bite and when we don't. I think Kenji Yoshino at NYU gives as good of a guess as any: when there is perceived animus against an unpopular group. http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/why-the-court-can-strike-down-marriage-restrictions-under-rational-basis-review/ That is just idle law professor speculation at this point, but I think that is as good of an explanation as any for interpreting the court's law. If that is the case, Prop 8 is toast, even under rational basis.

Kenji was my Con Law professor. He's absolutely brilliant, and you would be extremely hard-pressed to meet a nicer guy. He's also the best professor I ever had at fostering open and fair critiques and discussions in class even when he vehemently disagreed with the ideas he was presenting to the class. If you haven't read Covering you should read it.

That said, I disagree with him here, especially with Kennedy as the presumed swing vote. This has significantly more of a rational basis than Cleburne, for example. This is obviously Kenji's pet issue and I think his analysis, while sound, makes some unjustifiable leaps.

[NorthwestUteFan]

As far as I can recall, the church kept its big fat mouth shut this time around. They certainly did not get into the fundraising fiasco that forced them to pay a fine to the state of California over Prop8 (where the LDS church and church member fund drives contributed ~$40M of the total $44M raised to support Prop8, and the church didn't reveal their own contributions until the state uncovered that fact).

Perhaps they learned their lesson after the backlash and bitchslap of a judgement over Prop8. Or perhaps the local leadership just refused to urge the local members to vote the 'right way' with a wink and a nod. I do recall the Bishop reading some blathering letter from the FP mentioning 'voting to uphold your values', which many of us did by voting in support of gay marriage.

As for the backlash being mostly of the religious type, let us not forget that Lot immediately celebrated his flight from the 'abominations' occuring in Sodom by knocking up both of his daughters. But the Bible is relavent to our laws today...

As I recall from the judgement that overturned Prop8, the Rational Basis claim was irrelevant because the gay couples in California had become de facto Suspect Class and were thus allowed to be analyzed under strict scrutiny rules. Could this classification perhaps be overturned by the Supreme Court? Is this a stronger argument than hoping for a specially-tweaked version of rational basis?

[Applejack]

Kenji was my Con Law professor. He's absolutely brilliant, and you would be extremely hard-pressed to meet a nicer guy. He's also the best professor I ever had at fostering open and fair critiques and discussions in class even when he vehemently disagreed with the ideas he was presenting to the class. If you haven't read Covering you should read it.

That said, I disagree with him here. especially with Kennedy as the presumed swing vote. This has significantly more of a rational basis than Cleburne, for example. This is obviously Kenji's pet issue and I think his analysis, while sound, makes some unjustifiable leaps.

So what is that more rational basis? I ask sincerely - to me most arguments against gay marriage are moral or religious in nature. Those are fine, but the court can't rely on those. I also think the true "conservative" answer is unlikely to sway the court ("That's the way it has always been - that is justification enough").

I have a different read on Kennedy than you, I think. I think he wants to strike down this law - but these things are notoriously difficult to predict.

[LA Ute]

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.

You're right, there are cases using rational basis with bite. I've forgotten their names, but I seem to recall that Justice Kennedy was the author of at least one of them. (Was it the Texas sodomy statute case?) So if Kennedy is the swing vote we may well be looking at a 5-4 decision overturning Prop 8. Roberts might join the majority so he can assign the opinion to himself, which would make a 6-3 decision. Who knows? If I had to predict I'd say Prop 8 will be overturned.

As for a rational basis, I think the voters can determine that the ideal family situation is for children to have both a mother and a father, and that the marriage laws should support that ideal. I recognize that many disagree with that ideal -- often vehemently-- but that doesn't matter for purposes of rational basis review. That determination alone is plenty to support a rational basis for Prop 8. If the SCOTUS wants to elevate sexual orientation to suspect class status (like race) then strict scrutiny applies and I think Prop 8 goes down in a New York minute. But it doesn't look like they want to go there.


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.


To me, it's a question of judicial modesty (to borrow Justice Roberts' term). We are talking about changing something -- the definition of marriage -- that has been understood a certain way for a long time. 35 states (or so) have passed state constitutional amendments by referendum, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. There are 5 states (maybe more) that have done the opposite. With all that discussion and dialogue (and evolution in thinking) under way, I don't like the idea of a Supreme Court changing the definition of marriage in one fell swoop, even though I think the country's headed that direction eventually.

Deposit $.02.

[Scratch]

As far as I can recall, the church kept its big fat mouth shut this time around. They certainly did not get into the fundraising fiasco that forced them to pay a fine to the state of California over Prop8 (where the LDS church and church member fund drives contributed ~$40M of the total $44M raised to support Prop8, and the church didn't reveal their own contributions until the state uncovered that fact).

Perhaps they learned their lesson after the backlash and bitchslap of a judgement over Prop8. Or perhaps the local leadership just refused to urge the local members to vote the 'right way' with a wink and a nod. I do recall the Bishop reading some blathering letter from the FP mentioning 'voting to uphold your values', which many of us did by voting in support of gay marriage.

As for the backlash being mostly of the religious type, let us not forget that Lot immediately celebrated his flight from the 'abominations' occuring in Sodom by knocking up both of his daughters. But the Bible is relavent to our laws today...

As I recall from the judgement that overturned Prop8, the Rational Basis claim was irrelevant because the gay couples in California had become de facto Suspect Class and were thus allowed to be analyzed under strict scrutiny rules. Could this classification perhaps be overturned by the Supreme Court? Is this a stronger argument than hoping for a specially-tweaked version of rational basis?

I'm confused, what do you mean by "this time around" when talking about how the LDS Church handled it?

I do think that if the SCOTUS wants to get rid of Prop 8, the cleanest (by far) way to do it as by upping the classification for sexual preference. I just don't see any way that they do so. Kennedy isn't going to tell every state in the country that they have to allow gay marriages. That said, it's inevitable and is going to happen eventually.

[Diehard Ute]

To me, it's a question of judicial modesty (to borrow Justice Roberts' term). We are talking about changing something -- the definition of marriage -- that has been understood a certain way for a long time. 35 states (or so) have passed state constitutional amendments by referendum, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. There are 5 states (maybe more) that have done the opposite. With all that discussion and dialogue (and evolution in thinking) under way, I don't like the idea of a Supreme Court changing the definition of marriage in one fell swoop, even though I think the country's headed that direction eventually.

Deposit $.02.

But that really doesn't answer the ultimate question. Why is the government in that business at all???

And even further, how does who someone marries have any bearing on you? Frankly I've never heard an answer that really answered that question.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I'm confused, what do you mean by "this time around" when talking about how the LDS Church handled it?



I meant it to be a reply to SU. I referred to the pro-gay marriage voter initiative here in Washington last Nov.

[Scratch]

So what is that more rational basis? I ask sincerely - to me most arguments against gay marriage are moral or religious in nature. Those are fine, but the court can't rely on those. I also think the true "conservative" answer is unlikely to sway the court ("That's the way it has always been - that is justification enough").

I have a different read on Kennedy than you, I think. I think he wants to strike down this law - but these things are notoriously difficult to predict.

I think LA Ute nailed it. It's rational to argue that the best way for society to perpetuate itself is through families with a mother and a father who are married. There are lots of studies that back that up. You can disagree with that stance, but it clearly passes the requisite rationality tests.

BTW, my good friend clerked for Kennedy about 6 years ago and she would be shocked if he overturns it.

[UtahDan]

As far as I can recall, the church kept its big fat mouth shut this time around. They certainly did not get into the fundraising fiasco that forced them to pay a fine to the state of California over Prop8 (where the LDS church and church member fund drives contributed ~$40M of the total $44M raised to support Prop8, and the church didn't reveal their own contributions until the state uncovered that fact).

Perhaps they learned their lesson after the backlash and bitchslap of a judgement over Prop8. Or perhaps the local leadership just refused to urge the local members to vote the 'right way' with a wink and a nod. I do recall the Bishop reading some blathering letter from the FP mentioning 'voting to uphold your values', which many of us did by voting in support of gay marriage.

As for the backlash being mostly of the religious type, let us not forget that Lot immediately celebrated his flight from the 'abominations' occuring in Sodom by knocking up both of his daughters. But the Bible is relavent to our laws today...

As I recall from the judgement that overturned Prop8, the Rational Basis claim was irrelevant because the gay couples in California had become de facto Suspect Class and were thus allowed to be analyzed under strict scrutiny rules. Could this classification perhaps be overturned by the Supreme Court? Is this a stronger argument than hoping for a specially-tweaked version of rational basis?

You and I mostly agree, but I want really badly for our discussions to stay civil here. If I can play nice, anyone can. :)

[UtahDan]

I think LA Ute nailed it. It's rational to argue that the best way for society to perpetuate itself is through families with a mother and a father who are married. There are lots of studies that back that up. You can disagree with that stance, but it clearly passes the requisite rationality tests.

BTW, my good friend clerked for Kennedy about 6 years ago and she would be shocked if he overturns it.

I don't believe that is actually the case. Can you cite to some?

[Scratch]

But that really doesn't answer the ultimate question. Why is the government in that business at all???

And even further, how does who someone marries have any bearing on you? Frankly I've never heard an answer that really answered that question.

Here's a blurb from Orson Scott Card that I think addresses this question fairly well:


And it isn't just the damage that divorce and out-of-wedlock births do to the children in those broken families: Your divorce hurts my kids, too.

All American children grow up today in a society where they are keenly aware that marriages don't last. At the first sign of a quarrel even in a stable marriage that is in no danger, the children fear divorce. Is this how it begins? Will I now be like my friends at school, shunted from half-family to half-family?

This is not trivial damage. Kids thrive best in an environment that teaches them how to be adults. They need the confidence and role models that come from a stable home with father and mother in their proper places.

So long before the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to play Humpty Dumpty, the American people had plunged into a terrible experiment on ourselves, guided only by the slogan of immaturity and barbarism: "If it feels good, do it!"

Civilization depends on people deliberately choosing not to do many things that feel good at the time, in order to accomplish more important, larger purposes. Having an affair; breaking up a marriage; oh, those can feel completely justified and the reasons very important at the time.

But society has a vital stake in child-rearing; and children have a vital stake in society.

Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization. It provides most males an opportunity to mate (polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society); it provides most females an opportunity to have a mate who is exclusively devoted to her. Those who are successful in mating are the ones who will have the strongest loyalty to the social order; so the system that provides reproductive success to the largest number is the system that will be most likely to keep a civilization alive.

Monogamy depends on the vast majority of society both openly and privately obeying the rules. Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.

Civilization Is Rooted in Reproductive Security.

There is a very complex balance in maintaining a monogamous society, with plenty of lapses and exceptions and mechanisms to cope with the natural barbaric impulses of the male mating drive. There is always room to tolerate a small and covert number of exceptions to the rule.

But the rule must be largely observed, and must be seen to be observed even more than it actually is. If trust between the sexes breaks down, then males who are able will revert to the broadcast strategy of reproduction, while females will begin to compete for males who already have female mates. It is a reproductive free-for-all.

Civilization requires the suppression of natural impulses that would break down the social order. Civilization thrives only when most members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and when those who don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful way.

Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of the chance to satisfy their natural desire to mate with every attractive female?

Why would women submit to rules that keep them from trying to mate with the strongest (richest, most physically imposing, etc.) male, just because he already has a wife?

Because civilization provides the best odds for their children to live to adulthood. So even though civilized individuals can't pursue the most obviously pleasurable and selfish (i.e., natural) strategies for reproduction, the fact is that they are far more likely to be successful at reproduction in a civilized society -- whether they personally like the rules or not.

Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it.

Even if the political system changes, as long as the marriage rules remain intact, the civilization can go on.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You and I mostly agree, but I want really badly for our discussions to stay civil here. If I can play nice, anyone can. :)

Ask LA. Prop 8 passed solely because the LDS church got involved with fundraising. This time around (in WA) they mostly kept quiet about it.

But, point taken and I apologize for the 'big fat mouth' hyperbolic rhetoric.

[LA Ute]

I've asked LA repeatedly to give me a rationale for Prop. 8 and he hasn't.

I must have missed those posts.

[Jeromy in SLC]

And even further, how does who someone marries have any bearing on you? Frankly I've never heard an answer that really answered that question.

Because there isn't a rational answer that exists. The most common that you see is that it would damage/cheapen/destroy the institution of marriage. With divorce rates the way they are, those that have enjoyed this benefit have done more to damage/cheapen/destroy the institution of marriage than allowing same-sex couples to do so would.

I prefer to put the argument back on this point of view. The actions/inactions of a couple do more to damage/strengthen/cheapen/enrich/destroy/promote their marriage than the actions of anyone else. Your actions define the depths and strength of your marriage. The ability of someone else to enjoy the legal benefits that marriage provides does not.

[SeattleUte]

Because a civilization's decline usually happens over a weekend.

Truth of the matter is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. A legal entity of a civil union should be all that they care about, and individuals can form those however they want to, and it would define rules for inheritances, visitation rights, insurance benefits, etc. So then if a husband and wife want to enter into that, or a same-sex couple, or even a mother and her son wanted a civil union (defining themselves as a legal entity who can act on each others behalf) they could. Then let churches and organizations marry whomever they feel like marrying. Also in theory, a married couple could also not be a civil union.

The LDS church has supported laws in SLC and is supportive of laws currently being proposed to the Utah Legislature that would extend these rights (ie visitation rights, etc) to homosexual couples.

Do that and I think the whole prop 8 thing goes away, in my humble opinion.

Actually, you've got it backwards. Religion should get out of marriage. It can perform whatever ordinance it wants and call it "marriage". But marriage with force of law should be government's affair. Render unto Caesar.

[SeattleUte]

I must have missed those posts.

It's in the thread I linked. So tell me now.

[Scratch]

I don't believe that is actually the case. Can you cite to some?

Here's the first thing google turned up. I haven't looked at it in any detail. I really should get some work done today, but I know there are plenty of others out there, although I admittedly can't speak to the studies underlying them (as you know, a study can say anything). I only mention these studies because of the low bar for rational review.

[Diehard Ute]

Because there isn't a rational answer that exists. The most common that you see is that it would damage/cheapen/destroy the institution of marriage. With divorce rates the way they are, those that have enjoyed this benefit have done more to damage/cheapen/destroy the institution of marriage than allowing same-sex couples to do so would.

I prefer to put the argument back on this point of view. The actions/inactions of a couple do more to damage/strengthen/cheapen/enrich/destroy/promote their marriage than the actions of anyone else. Your actions define the depths and strength of your marriage. The ability of someone else to enjoy the legal benefits that marriage provides does not.

I agree. And there's no data to suggest same sex marriage has any relation to divorce rates, in fact in some studies it may be lower.

Personally let's quit rewarding people for marriage. No more tax breaks for being married.

Those claiming this is about keeping civilization alive apparently haven't noticed the overpopulation of the planet, and that doesn't even touch on the fact that not allowing someone to marry who they want doesn't magically change their sexual orientation, unless you are one of those people who supports the notion that sexual orientation is a choice.

[Scratch]

I agree. And there's no data to suggest same sex marriage has any relation to divorce rates, in fact in some studies it may be lower.

Personally let's quit rewarding people for marriage. No more tax breaks for being married.

Those claiming this is about keeping civilization alive apparently haven't noticed the overpopulation of the planet, and that doesn't even touch on the fact that not allowing someone to marry who they want doesn't magically change their sexual orientation, unless you are one of those people who supports the notion that sexual orientation is a choice.

I don't want to get into an argument regarding the merits of gay marriage, I jumped into this thread to address the highly interesting question of how the SCOTUS is going to deal with this issue, particularly given the underlying case law. That said, as to your post, I want to point out that the issue isn't society's ability to generate more people (that is, you mention overpopulation and changes in sexual orientation). Rather, the issue is what does society do with those people once they are here, and how can those people be raised to have the most benefit to society going forward.

[LA Ute]

It's in the thread I linked. So tell me now.

I never even saw that thread until today. Believe it or not, I stopped following that discussion on CUF a long time ago because I am pretty tired of it. But look for my answer a few posts up (or down) in this thread. Or go here (http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?264-Marriage-Equality-Thread&p=3934&viewfull=1#post3934).

I'm not interested in debating gay marriage or the role the church played in Prop 8. No one should draw any conclusions from that about my views on either issue. I'm just talking about what the Supreme Court might do. In that context, I do think the argument that anti-gay hatred or animus is the only basis for supporting a continued traditional definition of marriage as one man - one woman simply doesn't hold water. It's a polemical, not legal argument. If you insist on playing that tune, I'll take that as a sign that you are not really interested in discussing this SCOTUS issue, but simply bashing those who disagree with you. Not a very rational approach.

[Diehard Ute]

I don't want to get into an argument regarding the merits of gay marriage, I jumped into this thread to address the highly interesting question of how the SCOTUS is going to deal with this issue, particularly given the underlying case law. That said, as to your post, I want to point out that the issue isn't society's ability to generate more people (that is, you mention overpopulation and changes in sexual orientation). Rather, the issue is what does society do with those people once they are here, and how can those people be raised to have the most benefit to society going forward.

Well if that was your intent you've strayed, as this post leads me to wonder what you're trying to imply. I'm guessing you and I see this from entirely different points of view, not only on what is ideal, but what role the government should play in forcing what you believe is ideal on people. Perhaps I'm wrong in that assessment.

[SeattleUte]

Of course the Ninth Circuit and the N.D. Cal. agree that Prop. 8 lacks rational basis. So does the conservative think tank Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/blog/californias-gay-marriage-ban-lacks-rational-basis

Cato’s chairman Bob Levy was co-chair of the advisory board to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the suit. The author says government should get out of doing marriages, but if it is going to do marriages, everyone should be able to get married.

You know, getting government completely out of the "marriage" business may not be so bad. The upshot would be that those of us who don't go to church would have civil unions, and this would accomplish the mainstreaming purpose of homosexuals' struggle for marriage rights. Homosexuals and heterosexuals would be treated the same by government. Of course the civil union is what would count most in a court of law.

Does anyone actually believe that religions would support this? I don't.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Because a civilization's decline usually happens over a weekend.

In this case would you argue that the decline of civilization happened on a Tuesday in November?


Truth of the matter is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. A legal entity of a civil union should be all that they care about, and individuals can form those however they want to, and it would define rules for inheritances, visitation rights, insurance benefits, etc. So then if a husband and wife want to enter into that, or a same-sex couple, or even a mother and her son wanted a civil union (defining themselves as a legal entity who can act on each others behalf) they could. Then let churches and organizations marry whomever they feel like marrying. Also in theory, a married couple could also not be a civil union.

The LDS church has supported laws in SLC and is supportive of laws currently being proposed to the Utah Legislature that would extend these rights (ie visitation rights, etc) to homosexual couples.

Do that and I think the whole prop 8 thing goes away, in my humble opinion.

'Seperate but Equal' has a long history of failure. It sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice it falls far short.


Here's a blurb from Orson Scott Card that I think addresses this question fairly well:

OSC is known to be a very outspoken anti-gay marriage activist. He is supposed to be involved with writing the new Superman series for DC Comics and also the new movie scripts, and there is a big push to boycott the new Superman comics, movies, and DC Comics.


Rather, the issue is what does society do with those people once they are here, and how can those people be raised to have the most benefit to society going forward.

In California at least, the rights of gay couples to adopt children was not at issue and has not been affected. Gay couples can still adopt and raise children. The entire Prop 22/Prop 8 was silent on adoption and on the rights to parenthood, even those without biological relation.

And as for my earlier statement about Strict Scrutiny for a Suspect Class: this applies in California with relation to the Prop 8 case because the state laws already allowed gay marriage prior to Prop 8 amending the state constitution. Because a class of people already had the right to marry, and an amendment to the constitution was going to remove the right, they became a Suspect Class requiring strict scrutiny under the law rather than the simple rational basis argument.

THis same situation obviously is not present in most other states. Therefore it would be harder to press for strict scrutiny from the SC.

[Diehard Ute]

Of course the Ninth Circuit and the N.D. Cal. agree that Prop. 8 lacks rational basis. So does the conservative think tank Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/blog/californias-gay-marriage-ban-lacks-rational-basis

Cato’s chairman Bob Levy was co-chair of the advisory board to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the suit. The author says government should get out of doing marriages, but if it is going to do so, everyone should be able to get married.

You know, getting government completely out of the "marriage" business may not be so bad. The upshot would be that those of us who don't go to church would have civil unions, and this would accomplish the mainstreaming purpose of homosexuals' struggle for marriage rights. Homosexuals and heterosexuals would be treated the same by government. Of course the civil union is what would count most in a court of law.

Does anyone actually believe that religions would support this? I don't.

Depends on the religion. Many probably would, much like politics, religions run the conservative liberal spectrum as well

[LA Ute]

Of course the Ninth Circuit and the N.D. Cal. agree that Prop. 8 lacks rational basis. So does the conservative think tank Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/blog/californias-gay-marriage-ban-lacks-rational-basis

Cato’s chairman Bob Levy was co-chair of the advisory board to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the suit. The author says government should get out of doing marriages, but if it is going to do so, everyone should be able to get married.
Now you're going to appeal to authority? SU, I am surprised at you.


You know, getting government completely out of the "marriage" business may not be so bad.
It is an intriguing idea. I haven't made my mind up on it yet, but you may well be right.

[Rocker Ute]

Actually, you've got it backwards. Religion should get out of marriage. It can perform whatever ordinance it wants and call it "marriage". But marriage with force of law should be government's affair. Render unto Caesar.

Disagree. Marriage for most religions is a union between people and God, so they aren't ever going to get out of that business. However, what other legal entity is there like marriage that is supposed to be based on love (as I hear the continued argument of 'if two consenting adults love each other they should be allowed to marry). I'm looking at my business entity but am not seeing any 'love' or 'god' section.

A civil union would simply be a legal entity with rules prescribed for it by a government. This is already happening in a number of countries.

The truth is, when you see the LDS church support rights for homosexual couples but then seemingly incongruously oppose gay marriage, it seems they are saying that the institution of marriage is sacred to them. Other times the LDS has cited their fear that they could be eventually forced to perform gay marriages. You can agree with whether that notion is right or wrong, but it is their right to believe as they may.

[Applejack]

I think LA Ute nailed it. It's rational to argue that the best way for society to perpetuate itself is through families with a mother and a father who are married. There are lots of studies that back that up. You can disagree with that stance, but it clearly passes the requisite rationality tests.

BTW, my good friend clerked for Kennedy about 6 years ago and she would be shocked if he overturns it.

Thanks for the response (and to LAUte).

I still have an issue with this, however, so I want to push you a bit (you might not be able to respond, I understand). My issue has nothing to do with disagreement about the idea that a mother+father is best for society or whether there are studies backing that up. My issue is that even if we accept as a perfectly justifiable governmental position the encouragement of children being raised by nuclear-style families, Prop 8 has nothing to do with that justification.

With or without Prop 8, gay couples can raise children. Prop 8's existence does not forward (or even deal with) the government's justification. Prop 8 simply forbids gay couples (who can still raise children) from marrying. So, to me, that looks like a classic non-sequiter: a conclusion (Prop 8) that does not follow from its premises (we want to have children raised by a mother and father). It's analogous to saying "Prop 8 is justified by a governmental interest in protecting women from physical abuse" - yes, that is a valid justification for a law, but not this particular law.

[LA Ute]

Thanks for the response (and to LAUte).

I still have an issue with this, however, so I want to push you a bit (you might not be able to respond, I understand). My issue has nothing to do with disagreement about the idea that a mother+father is best for society or whether there are studies backing that up. My issue is that even if we accept as a perfectly justifiable governmental position the encouragement of children being raised by nuclear-style families, Prop 8 has nothing to do with that justification.

With or without Prop 8, gay couples can raise children- Prop 8's existence does not forward (or even deal with) the government's justification. Prop 8 simply forbids gay couples (who can still raise children) from marrying. So, to me, that looks like a classic non-sequiter: a conclusion (Prop 8) that does not follow from its premises (we want to have children raised by a mother and father). It's analogous to saying "Prop 8 is justified by a governmental interest in protecting women from physical abuse - yes, that is a valid justification for a law, but not this particular law.

Fair enough. The argument would be that society ought to do all it can to support that ideal (marriage = one man, one woman). Whether or not that proposition is the right basis for a law is eminently debatable, but I think it is a rational basis.

[SeattleUte]

Disagree. Marriage for most religions is a union between people and God, so they aren't ever going to get out of that business. However, what other legal entity is there like marriage that is supposed to be based on love (as I hear the continued argument of 'if two consenting adults love each other they should be allowed to marry). I'm looking at my business entity but am not seeing any 'love' or 'god' section.

A civil union would simply be a legal entity with rules prescribed for it by a government. This is already happening in a number of countries.

The truth is, when you see the LDS church support rights for homosexual couples but then seemingly incongruously oppose gay marriage, it seems they are saying that the institution of marriage is sacred to them. Other times the LDS has cited their fear that they could be eventually forced to perform gay marriages. You can agree with whether that notion is right or wrong, but it is their right to believe as they may.

See above. I decided I agree with you. If it's good enough for Cato it's good enough for me. Don't ever say SU doesn't have an open mind.

[Applejack]

Fair enough. The argument would be that society ought to do all it can to support that ideal (marriage = one man, one woman). Whether or not that proposition is the right basis for a law is eminently debatable, but I think it is a rational basis.

I don't think I follow you. Just to clarify, what is "that ideal"? Is it that children be raised by a mother and a father? If so, I don't see how Prop 8 does anything one way or the other. Is the ideal that marriage be between a man and a woman? That seems to be a conclusion, not a justification.

[LA Ute]

I don't think I follow you. Just to clarify, what is "that ideal"? Is it that children be raised by a mother and a father? If so, I don't see how Prop 8 does anything one way or the other. Is the ideal that marriage be between a man and a woman? That seems to be a conclusion, not a justification.

It goes like this: The ideal situation for raising children is a family in which there is both a mother and a father. Society should do all it can to support that ideal. Defining "marriage" as between one man and one woman supports that ideal. (No, it doesn't ensure the ideal will be a reality, but it supports the ideal.) The proposition is debatable, but it's enough to survive rational basis review.

[Rocker Ute]

In this case would you argue that the decline of civilization happened on a Tuesday in November?



'Seperate but Equal' has a long history of failure. It sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice it falls far short.

Nope, just pointing out the fallacy of his argument that because everything is fine right now, that everything will be fine in the future. It very well may be, but we don't know yet. I assume you don't know my politics yet, so you won't know how laughable the 'I believe the end of the world was on a Tuesday last November' argument is.

As for my arguments for civil unions -- it is actually based on getting away from this 'separate but equal' notion. As far as the government was concerned, every relationship, straight or gay or whatever, would be a civil union with the same rights. If a religion then wanted to go and give their blessing to a civil union under God, or however they see it, they certainly could, and it would have no bearing on legal rights, just like my baptism into a church doesn't either.

Or are you prescribing that all religions should be forced to perform gay marriages?

[Rocker Ute]

See above. I decided I agree with you. If it's good enough for Cato it's good enough for me. Don't ever say SU doesn't have an open mind.
Wait, you can't change your mind like that, I was just working into a lather. :p

[Applejack]

It goes like this: The ideal situation for raising children is a family in which there is both a mother and a father. Society should do all it can to support that ideal. Defining "marriage" as between one man and one woman supports that ideal. (No, it doesn't ensure the ideal will be a reality, but it supports the ideal.) The proposition is debatable, but it's enough to survive rational basis review.

Thanks again. We obviously disagree about whether defining marriage does anything with regards to where children are raised. I disagree that it survive rational review because of the disconnect I see between the justification and what the law actually does/is. You disagree. I suspect we will both find support among members of the court.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Nope, just pointing out the fallacy of his argument that because everything is fine right now, that everything will be fine in the future. It very well may be, but we don't know yet. I assume you don't know my politics yet, so you won't know how laughable the 'I believe the end of the world was on a Tuesday last November' argument is.


Good, it was meant strictly as a joke. :rimshot:


As for civil unions, are you comfortable with having your marriage renamed as a 'civil union' or even worse, a 'filial partnership' as proposed by the Defendants in the Prop 8 case? I don't believe any of us are OK with that.

The problem is this: so long as marriage is a legal contract with legal rights the state simply MUST be involved. In some sense I appreciate the way many European countries handle marriages. A couple first gets married by a civil authority, and afterward they can follow up and solemnize their union with a church ceremony.

Any law REQUIRING every religion to perform gay marriages will be easily overturned, imho.

[Rocker Ute]

Interestingly enough, I just came across a study about the effects of straight and homosexual relationships on kids that came out of University of Texas in Austin by a sociologist there. Of course, it has been picked up by every uber-right wing rag out there and propped up as proof that such relationships are bad. I haven't read the entire thing yet (currently behind a paywall, deciding if I'm even interested enough to get it all), but first look-see seems to support more that a stable relationship and a committed relationship between a man and a woman is a good thing for kids, vs gay marriage is a bad thing.

[Rocker Ute]

Good, it was meant strictly as a joke. :rimshot:


As for civil unions, are you comfortable with having your marriage renamed as a 'civil union' or even worse, a 'filial partnership' as proposed by the Defendants in the Prop 8 case? I don't believe any of us are OK with that.

The problem is this: so long as marriage is a legal contract with legal rights the state simply MUST be involved. In some sense I appreciate the way many European countries handle marriages. A couple first gets married by a civil authority, and afterward they can follow up and solemnize their union with a church ceremony.

Any law REQUIRING every religion to perform gay marriages will be easily overturned, imho.

Actually, I couldn't care less what the state calls my marriage, as long as the rights associated with it are included. I personally care more about what God thinks about it. Then again, I got married by a religious institution, someone who was married by a judge might feel differently.

It would seem to be pretty simple for the country to say, "All recorded marriages are recognized as civil unions which contain these rights..." What you said about other countries requiring a civil union by an authority and they can follow that up with whatever ceremony they want would makes the most sense to me.

In fact, it seems that the government already doesn't care about who, what or how the ceremony is performed (as demonstrated by WebMonkey getting married by Ute King, who spent 15 minutes on his iPhone on a website gaining the right to do so).

Hey, just think of the boon to the wedding industry if a bunch of people married on the courtroom steps now felt compelled to reissue those vows again!

[LA Ute]

Thanks again. We obviously disagree about whether defining marriage does anything with regards to where children are raised. I disagree that it survive rational review because of the disconnect I see between the justification and what the law actually does/is. You disagree. I suspect we will both find support among members of the court.

FWIW, I am quite sympathetic to the Rocker Ute/Cato Institute/SeattleUte view that government should get out of the marriage business. That may be the best way out of this mess. And it is a mess, IMO.

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA, if the State gets out of the marriage business then how does the state regulate taxes and contracts associated with marriage? How do they handle the related familial legal issues? How about joint property ownership? If they're get entirely out of the business won't they relinquish their claim to control and regulate those aspects?


As for a definition of marriage, I like this: "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."

[LA Ute]

LA, if the State gets out of the marriage business then how does the state regulate taxes and contracts associated with marriage? How do they handle the related familial legal issues? How about joint property ownership? If they're get entirely out of the business won't they relinquish their claim to control and regulate those aspects?


As for a definition of marriage, I like this: "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."

I think the concept is that the state sanctions civil unions, and marriage is a matter for churches.

[Diehard Ute]

LA, if the State gets out of the marriage business then how does the state regulate taxes and contracts associated with marriage? How do they handle the related familial legal issues? How about joint property ownership? If they're get entirely out of the business won't they relinquish their claim to control and regulate those aspects?


As for a definition of marriage, I like this: "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."

Well, I think there's an argument that some things should be tossed when it comes to marriage. The tax code should, IMO, not care if someone is single or married. I get penalized for being single, why?

Can't property issues etc be regulated without the government caring about who gets married? Doesn't this already occur in common law marriages?

It certainly does in domestic violence, the law includes marriage and those that live together, be it roommates or people who just decide to not get married (And yes, it applies to same sex couples as well)

I don't think that's a hurdle, at least from my point of view.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Well in that case they aren't really getting out, but rather controlling through the seperate definition ('Domestic Partnership' or 'Civil Union')

I have read quite a bit of Libertarian rhetoric suggesting the State relinquish ALL rights to control marriage/partnerships. I didn't read the Cato position, but rather inferred it would be similar to the other Libertarian rhetoric. Apologies if it states differently

[NorthwestUteFan]

Diehard, that is an interest point. The government allows a tax benefit to married couples because marriage is seen to be in the State's best interest. At least partially this is an issue for gay couples and could be a reason to present for equality.

Perhaps a redefinition is in order, along with restructuring the tax code to match. That will certainly be a hard sale for Congress.

[Diehard Ute]

Diehard, that is an interest point. The government allows a tax benefit to married couples because marriage is seen to be in the State's best interest. At least partially this is an issue for gay couples and could be a reason to present for equality.

Perhaps a redefinition is in order, along with restructuring the tax code to match. That will certainly be a hard sale for Congress.

I think a lot of that stuff is quite antiquated. But I know changing it will be met with a lot of resistance, although everyone I work with (They're all married) feel the law should change and take that benefit away.

When it comes to taxes etc people have very strong and unique views, I can attest by how often I'm told "I pay your salary" (I know...I pay my salary too haha)

[UtahDan]

This discussion is pretty good evidence we have started a pretty great thing here. That is all.

[Jeromy in SLC]

Interestingly enough, I just came across a study about the effects of straight and homosexual relationships on kids that came out of University of Texas in Austin by a sociologist there. Of course, it has been picked up by every uber-right wing rag out there and propped up as proof that such relationships are bad. I haven't read the entire thing yet (currently behind a paywall, deciding if I'm even interested enough to get it all), but first look-see seems to support more that a stable relationship and a committed relationship between a man and a woman is a good thing for kids, vs gay marriage is a bad thing.

Does this study comment on the effect that combative and unstable hetrosexual marriages have on children? The basis of any study that claims hetrosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples better account for the assholes among us. I would contend that poor parenting has no boundaries.

And to be clear, I understand you aren't taking that stance. I am merely adding my own editorial.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[FMCoug]

Does this study comment on the effect that combative and unstable hetrosexual marriages have on children? The basis of any study that claims hetrosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples better account for the assholes among us. I would contend that poor parenting has no boundaries.

And to be clear, I understand you aren't taking that stance. I am merely adding my own editorial.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Great point. I have often had the same thought about two parent versus single parent homes.

[Rocker Ute]

Does this study comment on the effect that combative and unstable hetrosexual marriages have on children? The basis of any study that claims hetrosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples better account for the assholes among us. I would contend that poor parenting has no boundaries.

And to be clear, I understand you aren't taking that stance. I am merely adding my own editorial.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I hate to speak authoritatively on it because I haven't read the entire thing. However the abstract and the reviews of it seem to indicate that what you said is the likely contributing factor, specifically instability. The study found that that 23% of children from same sex couples were sexually abused, to the 2% of Americans at large, 14% of children of same sex couples spent some time in foster care, compared to 2% of the general population, and arrest, drug use and unemployment were higher in these groups.

This instability was traced to less than 23% of children having spent a continuous 3 years or more with the same sex couples.

Now what the study seems to acknowledge is that comparing this to a stable household is a challenge given the historical climate and attitude towards same-sex couples, and also that most of these children would by nature experience instability coming from another biological parent. Only two of the children from lesbian couples spent their entire life with them, no children of gay men stayed the entire time. 175 kids were studied.

Like I said, it seems to underscore the importance of a stable and happy home life, more than anything else. With more mainstream acceptance of same-sex couples might change this, but that probably won't be known for a number of years.

Here is the study if you care to shell out the $ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

I'd be interested to see how children of similarly unstable households stack up, I think that would be a better measure.

[Dawminator]

Just want to add my voice to those supporting Civil Unions. It keeps the family law issues in the realm of the government and guaranteeing all couples the same rights, and thereby eliminating the equal protection issues that currently exist. If a person, gay or straight, wants to call their union a "marriage" then by all means they can do it. But It distinctly separates the church from the state on the issue.

Sadly, I think the zealots on both ends of the spectrum would prevent it from happening. Conservatives because it's too close to marriage and liberals because they want the term marriage. The solution is actually pretty easy, but in the political environment we live in if one side can't kick the crap out of the other and then hold the face down in the mud it isn't enough. Compromise is dead.

[LA Ute]

California has a comprehensive civil union law. Those who have civil unions have exactly the same rights under state law as those who are married. Thus it seems that in many ways the debate is really over what you call the relationship. That's one of the more interesting parts of the entire issue. I personally support civil unions also. Notably, the Church has always taken the position that it is not opposed to civil unions either. At least not in California. There is a lot of "squaring the circle" going on.

[concerned]

California has a comprehensive civil union law. Those who have civil unions have exactly the same rights under state law as those who are married. Thus it seems that in many ways the debate is really over what you call the relationship. That's one of the more interesting parts of the entire issue. I personally support civil unions also. Notably, the Church has always taken the position that it is not opposed to civil unions either. At least not in California. There is a lot of "squaring the circle" going on.

I quickly skimmed the State brief linked in the LA times yesterday--they made the argument that the existence of civil
unions shows there is not rational basis for the law, b/c it not substantive, and just a way to demonize or stigmatize.

I cant see the Court overturning this; they will let the states continue to be the laboratory for gay marriage, and will not federalize one way or the other (but will strike down the federal DMA law).

How much traction is there to the State's standing argu? that private citizens lack standing to enforce when the state doesn't want to? Seems like a stretch considering this was a citizen's initiative but I am not up on the subject.

[LA Ute]

I quickly skimmed the State brief linked in the LA times yesterday--they made the argument that the existence of civil
unions shows there is not rational basis for the law, b/c it not substantive, and just a way to demonize or stigmatize.

I cant see the Court overturning this; they will let the states continue to be the laboratory for gay marriage, and will not federalize one way or the other (but will strike down the federal DMA law).

How much traction is there to the State's standing argu? that private citizens lack standing to enforce when the state doesn't want to? Seems like a stretch considering this was a citizen's initiative but I am not up on the subject.

I haven't done any research but it seems to me the standing argument is weak. If it is accepted, then the state political officeholders could nullify any ballot initiative simply by choosing not to defend it in court. I think the governor/attorney general have a state constitutional duty to defend state laws, but they chose not to defend this one.

[Pheidippides]

California has a comprehensive civil union law. Those who have civil unions have exactly the same rights under state law as those who are married. Thus it seems that in many ways the debate is really over what you call the relationship. That's one of the more interesting parts of the entire issue. I personally support civil unions also. Notably, the Church has always taken the position that it is not opposed to civil unions either. At least not in California. There is a lot of "squaring the circle" going on.

You have a major issue with civil unions in that it's way too close to "separate but equal". And the history ain't great there. Frankly, I think there is actual some substance there - it's not just nomenclature. But I also believe that history shows that the constitution stands for equal rights for everybody so long as they are white heterosexual land-owning males.

If civil unions and marriage truly are the same things with the same rights, what reasons other than out and out bigotry do you have for defending marriage from the gays so vigorously?

[LA Ute]

You have a major issue with civil unions in that it's way too close to "separate but equal". And the history ain't great there. Frankly, I think there is actual some substance there - it's not just nomenclature. But I also believe that history shows that the constitution stands for equal rights for everybody so long as they are white heterosexual land-owning males.

If civil unions and marriage truly are the same things with the same rights, what reasons other than out and out bigotry do you have for defending marriage from the gays so vigorously?

Uh-oh. We are already pushing people into the "I am not a bigot" corner. That didn't take long.

[Solon]

I think it's just a matter of time before gay marriage is an accepted norm in American society (maybe a lot of time, but just time).
I also think that reasonable people are defending their idea of "marriage" as best they can.

While the courts and politicians hash this out, my only real gripe is the way history is invoked to prove the relationship between religion and marriage. Before Christianity, the most important component of marriage was estate-planning. It was all about producing legitimate children to whom generational wealth could be passed. I know the argument has been twisted a bit today to say that it's all about children and families, but historically the children were just a means to the end: it's about transferring wealth, esp. among the societal elites.

Even among the "people of the book", the children and the gradations of marriage (e.g., Abraham & Sarah vs. Abraham & Hagar) were clearly distinguished in order to lay out how Abraham's wealth would be transferred to the next generation. We see the same thing with the conflict between Jacob & Esau, and then with Jacob's own sons.

[LA Ute]

Solon, arguments like yours are one reason why I think civil unions may be the answer. In other words, if a couple wants to form a union and have the option of raising a legally-recognized family, that can be a matter of contract under state law. If they want to solemnize that marriage in a religious ceremony, they are free to do so. This makes for a nice separation between religious liberty and individual liberty.

[Mormon Red Death]

Solon, arguments like yours are one reason why I think civil unions may be the answer. In other words, if a couple wants to form a union and have the option of raising a legally-recognized family, that can be a matter of contract under state law. If they want to solemnize that marriage in a religious ceremony, they are free to do so. This makes for a nice separation between religious liberty and individual liberty.

but really what's the difference? The simple name? Just let them get married.

BTW... we all know why the Church wants civil unions instead of just letting them get married. If two gay people are chaste before marriage and then become Married they have technically met the rules of the church. They are only having sexual relations with those to who they are legally and lawfully wed.

[LA Ute]

but really what's the difference? The simple name? Just let them get married.

BTW... we all know why the Church wants civil unions instead of just letting them get married. If two gay people are chaste before marriage and then become Married they have technically met the rules of the church. They are only having sexual relations with those to who they are legally and lawfully wed.

Interesting point. I suppose such a couple could also be endowed. I'm pretty sure the church would not seal them, however, unless something changes. .

[Solon]

but really what's the difference? The simple name? Just let them get married.

BTW... we all know why the Church wants civil unions instead of just letting them get married. If two gay people are chaste before marriage and then become Married they have technically met the rules of the church. They are only having sexual relations with those to who they are legally and lawfully wed.

I'm starting to come around to LA Ute's way of thinking (:igiveup:).

The word "marriage" IS important so some people, for religious reasons. It's not important to me, but then again neither is having a special dagger or growing my sideburns long. Religious convictions aren't universal and don't always make sense.

Where we run into trouble, as the ancient Athenian distance-runner noted is with the civil union / marriage "separate-but-equal" concern. LA's solution is elegant, and already proven in some nations: make everyone get a civil union.

It's probably not going to happen, but it's the logical solution to protecting equality under the law while allowing people with religious feelings preserve the sanctity of their word.

On the other hand, religious people could just come up with a new term to mean what "marriage" does today. I prefer "mutual servitude."

[Applejack]

California has a comprehensive civil union law. Those who have civil unions have exactly the same rights under state law as those who are married. Thus it seems that in many ways the debate is really over what you call the relationship. That's one of the more interesting parts of the entire issue. I personally support civil unions also. Notably, the Church has always taken the position that it is not opposed to civil unions either. At least not in California. There is a lot of "squaring the circle" going on.

This is true in some states (like CA), but not all. Many states have civil unions that don't have the full panoply of rights associated with marriage.

Ultimately the debate is about what you call the relationship. This is why I think it is possible for the court to find no rational basis for Prop 8 - if it's just about whether or not gay couples can use the word "married" when referring to their relationship, how exactly does denying them that right plausibly further any legitimate government interest?

[LA Ute]

This is true in some states (like CA), but not all. Many states have civil unions that don't have the full panoply of rights associated with marriage.

Ultimately the debate is about what you call the relationship. This is why I think it is possible for the court to find no rational basis for Prop 8 - if it's just about whether or not gay couples can use the word "married" when referring to their relationship, how exactly does denying them that right plausibly further any legitimate government interest?
At the end of the day, you've gotta love watching democracy in action. :snack:

[Diehard Ute]

Yes LA, and watching the billions of dollars we spend on such things fly out the door is awesome too ;)

[Pheidippides]

Uh-oh. We are already pushing people into the "I am not a bigot" corner. That didn't take long.

I didn't mean to push anybody there (and not you of all people) but somewhere in the back of my head a muppet is singing "everybody's just a little bit racist." I blame the Wonder Twins for sending me down Avenue Q.

For the record, I like the idea of just calling it all civil unions at a government level. I think that solves problems.

I'm honestly curious to know how people actually got married back in ye olden days. I have read in many cultures that it was pretty much just having sex - you did the deed, you were hitched. I have also read that in medieval Europe there was a practice of men coming into windows at night and having sex with (raping?) women so they can be force to marry them when they otherwise wouldn't be allowed. Somebody with better history chops than me can confirm or deny - that's not my area of study.

But if we want to return to my own area of study, the church's own estimation in the 1950s had 80 percent of church marriages involving premarital sex. I think that was the number - I'll have to consult my library to be sure.

The point, though, is that this idea of marriage being this sacrosanct thing between two virgins is a relatively modern invention. Nobody tell my wife I said that.

[Solon]

I didn't mean to push anybody there (and not you of all people) but somewhere in the back of my head a muppet is singing "everybody's just a little bit racist." I blame the Wonder Twins for sending me down Avenue Q.

For the record, I like the idea of just calling it all civil unions at a government level. I think that solves problems.

I'm honestly curious to know how people actually got married back in ye olden days. I have read in many cultures that it was pretty much just having sex - you did the deed, you were hitched. I have also read that in medieval Europe there was a practice of men coming into windows at night and having sex with (raping?) women so they can be force to marry them when they otherwise wouldn't be allowed. Somebody with better history chops than me can confirm or deny - that's not my area of study.

But if we want to return to my own area of study, the church's own estimation in the 1950s had 80 percent of church marriages involving premarital sex. I think that was the number - I'll have to consult my library to be sure.

The point, though, is that this idea of marriage being this sacrosanct thing between two virgins is a relatively modern invention. Nobody tell my wife I said that.

One of the biggest problems historians have is that the sources are almost always skewed towards ruling elites. We know a lot more about the marriage-intrigues of Henry VIII and the dynastic/imperial implications of his choices than we know about John the Butcher who lived in a shack somewhere around Bath.

In ancient Rome, according to their oldest laws (the 12 tables), all a couple had to do to be married was to live together for a year. If a woman didn't want to marry a man, she just had to arrange to be away from home for a three straight nights each year.

Although there were plenty of distinctions between relationships and statuses, the guiding principle in Roman marriage was consent. Basically, if two people wanted to be married, they were.

[UtahDan]

When Brown v. Board was handed down, several school districts in Virginia closed rather than desegregate. There was no school available to anyone in those counties for a time. Getting rid of marriage completely as something recognized by the government in favor of civil unions has the same feel to me.

[SeattleUte]

California has a comprehensive civil union law. Those who have civil unions have exactly the same rights under state law as those who are married. Thus it seems that in many ways the debate is really over what you call the relationship. That's one of the more interesting parts of the entire issue. I personally support civil unions also. Notably, the Church has always taken the position that it is not opposed to civil unions either. At least not in California. There is a lot of "squaring the circle" going on.

The debate is not over. Everyone needs to be treated the same. So if you keep marriage in the churches homosexual and heterosexual alike should be limited to civil unions. Under this scenario, marriage would become even less prevalent, I'm sure.

[LA Ute]

The debate is not over. Everyone needs to be treated the same. So if you keep marriage in the churches homosexual and heterosexual alike should be limited to civil unions. Under this scenario, marriage would become even less prevalent, I'm sure.

That's what I am talking about.

[SeattleUte]

That's what I am talking about.

If this happens I'm trading my marriage certificate for a civil union license, in addition to having publicaly renounced my second class scout badge, in solidarity with gays.

[Pheidippides]

in addition to having publicaly renounced my second class scout badge

*snort*

[mUUser]

"Somebody asked me once for my Top 5 reasons why I'm for gay marriage, and I said: No. 1 is they pay taxes, No. 2 because they're Americans, and numbers 3 through 5 is so that they’ll shut the hell up, because I can’t take anymore gay-marriage conversation. My gay spittoon is full – and I know that might sound homoerotic." -- Adam Carolla.

The guy is spot on, but in an extremely entertaining way. :rofl:

[Joe Public]

A legal entity of a civil union should be all that they care about, and individuals can form those however they want to, and it would define rules for inheritances, visitation rights, insurance benefits, etc.

Why even have civil unions sanctioned by the government? Inheritance can be addressed through probate laws, visitation rights can be addressed through advance health care directives and powers of attorney, people could name anyone they want as a beneficiary on an insurance policy, some countries (Japan, e.g.) do not have a married filing status for taxes, child custody/support issues can be addressed as well. Underage relations can remain illegal, etc. What is the government interest in regulating adult relationships that can't be addressed in other ways under a modern legal system?

[SeattleUte]

"Somebody asked me once for my Top 5 reasons why I'm for gay marriage, and I said: No. 1 is they pay taxes, No. 2 because they're Americans, and numbers 3 through 5 is so that they’ll shut the hell up, because I can’t take anymore gay-marriage conversation. My gay spittoon is full – and I know that might sound homoerotic." -- Adam Carolla.

The guy is spot on, but in an extremely entertaining way. :rofl:

I feel very lucky to live in a country where minority groups deprived of civil rights can complain loudly about this and not get killed or imprisoned. A student of the arc of human history would recognize the odds of this as extremely remote. This strikes me as very profound, but actually not terribly funny. I never thought about MLK or Rosa Parks thank god they have shut the hell up.

[FMCoug]

I feel very lucky to live in a country where minority groups deprived of civil rights can complain loudly about this and not get killed or imprisoned. A student of the arc of human history would recognize the odds of this as extremely remote. This strikes me as very profound, but actually not terribly funny. I never thought about MLK or Rosa Parks thank god they have shut the hell up.

Lighten up Francis. One can see the humor without thinking they literally need to shut up.

[SeattleUte]

Lighten up Francis. One can see the humor without thinking they literally need to shut up.

The fight against despotism and superstition is never a laughing matter.

[SeattleUte]

Taking oneself too seriously sometimes is a laughing matter, though one is rarely in on the joke.

And with this fun and very fruitful argument, the religious debates category is now officially the most popular category on this Ute sports message board.

Good.

[Virginia Ute]

Taking oneself too seriously sometimes is a laughing matter, though one is rarely in on the joke.

And with this fun and very fruitful argument, the religious debates category is now officially the most popular category on this Ute sports message board.

Agree, humor is a very healthy and mature defense mechanism, as long as it is tasteful.

[SoonerCoug]

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.


It's not OK to say that racist statements were "sound advice" just because other people were ignorant or racist even though you and President Kimball supposedly weren't.

This is exactly the kind of persistent racist bull shit that church leaders need to aggressively speak out against.

[Pheidippides]

It's not OK to say that racist statements were "sound advice" just because other people were ignorant or racist even though you and President Kimball supposedly weren't.

This is exactly the kind of persistent racist bull shit that church leaders need to aggressively speak out against.

You all should trust Sooner on this. He's experienced in matters of smacking down ignorant racism and unknown offensive stereotypes, no matter how innocent. (And I for one thank him).

[SeattleUte]

You all should trust Sooner on this. He's experienced in matters of smacking down ignorant racism and unknown offensive stereotypes, no matter how innocent. (And I for one thank him).

I believe you brother.

[San Diego Ute Fan]

It's not OK to say that racist statements were "sound advice" just because other people were ignorant or racist even though you and President Kimball supposedly weren't.

This is exactly the kind of persistent racist bull shit that church leaders need to aggressively speak out against.

How old are you Sooner? Unless you're about 50 yrs or older, I don't think you understand how difficult it was for a mixed race couple in the 60s-70s and prior. The country is a lot more tolerant and respectful of this than at that time. Some of my closest friends are mixed race couples. I think you ought to get off your self righteous soap box and relax.

[Pheidippides]

I believe you brother.

Lol. You witnessed it.

[SeattleUte]

It's not OK to say that racist statements were "sound advice" just because other people were ignorant or racist even though you and President Kimball supposedly weren't.

This is exactly the kind of persistent racist bull shit that church leaders need to aggressively speak out against.

Seriously, it's a shame the LDS Church has never been at the vanguard of the fight for civil liberies, indeed always been about the last to figure out what's the right thing to do in these controversies. Speaking out against racism would have been the opposite of the norm. Instead of condemning the injustice of the status quo, Pres. Kimball used those very conditions to justify his own racial discrimination.

[Applejack]

Bump.

Today is oral argument day. I contemplated trying to get seats until I saw that people were standing in line yesterday afternoon in the snow! There are going to be some disappointed campers today.

SCOTUS blog is reporting that Prop 8 will either be "struck down" or not decided (I presume they mean on standing grounds. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316560034295324672. I'm not sure how they presume to know this.

[concerned]

Bump.

Today is oral argument day. I contemplated trying to get seats until I saw that people were standing in line yesterday afternoon in the snow! There are going to be some disappointed campers today.

SCOTUS blog is reporting that Prop 8 will either be "struck down" or not decided (I presume they mean on standing grounds. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316560034295324672. I'm not sure how they presume to know this.

well, that is vague. What will be struck down. the ninth Circuit ruling or Prop 8 itself? they would presume to know by talking off the record to current clerks, or more likely, on questions coming out of the argument.

[Applejack]

well, that is vague. What will be struck down. the ninth Circuit ruling or Prop 8 itself? they would presume to know by talking off the record to current clerks.

Even if they had talked to clerks, from my understanding it is VERY presumptuous to think that a decision has been made before oral arguments. Clerks can get a sense of how certain Justices are leaning, but that often changes at/after argument and especially during the drafting stage.

[Applejack]

New update! SCOBLO is saying that Kennedy appears "very uncomfortable" striking down Prop 8 - would prefer to dismiss case (on standing?) and leave 9th Circuit's pro-gay marriage ruling in place. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316560034295324672

[concerned]

arguments over; scotus blog predicting Kennedy wont vote to strike down Prop 8; court will dismiss the case on standing grounds, and leave Ninth Circuit ruling in place, invalidating Prop. 8

[concerned]

Even if they had talked to clerks, from my understanding it is VERY presumptuous to think that a decision has been made before oral arguments. Clerks can get a sense of how certain Justices are leaning, but that often changes at/after argument and especially during the drafting stage.

I dont know if it is presumptuous, but it probably isn't reliable. Obamacare ruling is the best example of that

[Applejack]

arguments over; scotus blog predicting Kennedy wont vote to strike down Prop 8; court will dismiss the case on standing grounds, and leave Ninth Circuit ruling in place, invalidating Prop. 8

If that is the case, I will be quite surprised. The standing issues in the case are troublesome, but why grant cert if you just want to kick it out on standing grounds?

DOMA is up tomorrow. I think it's a goner.

[Scratch]

Even if they had talked to clerks, from my understanding it is VERY presumptuous to think that a decision has been made before oral arguments. Clerks can get a sense of how certain Justices are leaning, but that often changes at/after argument and especially during the drafting stage.

This is counter to my understanding. Oral argument is almost always worthless, and the only way that Justices change their mind post-argument is if they (and/or their clerks) hadn't had the opportunity to fully digest the briefing and the law prior to oral argument.

[Scratch]

If that is the case, I will be quite surprised. The standing issues in the case are troublesome, but why grant cert if you just want to kick it out on standing grounds?

DOMA is up tomorrow. I think it's a goner.

It only takes 4 justices to grant cert, so that's why cert would have been granted. I can see Kennedy jumping on the standing issue because he's sympathetic to the issue, but doesn't want to issue a ruling essentially mandating gay marriage on a nation-wide level. That said, would tossing this out on standing grounds essentially mandate gay marriage for all of the 9th Circuit states (Hawaii, Alaska, California, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, and Arizona)? I wonder if Kennedy would work some language into his partially concurring and partially dissenting opinion in which he explicitly states that the Court is not taking a position as to the validity of the 9th Circuit opinion, and that it should not be read as binding in other contexts.

The other interesting thing is that even if the Court goes with the standing argument, it's only a matter of time until it's an issue again, with the parties having proper standing.

[Scratch]

I'll go you one further and say that the briefing is almost always worthless, as their minds were made up on most issues long before then.

Depends on the issue. On something like this, that may very well be the case, but in many of these cases, the briefing and law is extremely important.

[Applejack]

This is counter to my understanding. Oral argument is almost always worthless, and the only way that Justices change their mind post-argument is if they (and/or their clerks) hadn't had the opportunity to fully digest the briefing and the law prior to oral argument.

I agree that oral argument is largely a show. As you note, however, oftentimes the Justices make up their mind post-argument either because of issues they hadn't fully digested, or because an decision "doesn't write", in the parlance of the court. It would be blogger malpractice, I submit, to predict the outcome of a case based on discussions with clerks unless it was a unanimous or near-unanimous ruling.

[SeattleUte]

This is counter to my understanding. Oral argument is almost always worthless, and the only way that Justices change their mind post-argument is if they (and/or their clerks) hadn't had the opportunity to fully digest the briefing and the law prior to oral argument.

As a practical matter, you're correct of course. I've heard judges say this many times.

However this is decided, the opponents of gay marriage seem to be losing the larger, cultural war. Since Prop. 8 was adopted, the public opinion swing has been massive and historic. I heard Cooper's and Olson's arguments today on NPR and I felt that this change of public opinion was a lot because of this debate that has gripped the nation. Prop. 8 was Pearl Harbor not Gettysburgh.

[Pheidippides]

New update! SCOBLO is saying that Kennedy appears "very uncomfortable" striking down Prop 8 - would prefer to dismiss case (on standing?) and leave 9th Circuit's pro-gay marriage ruling in place. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316560034295324672

Kennedy is notoriously hard to read, but this is my expectation. There is a proud history of the SC sidestepping hot button issues and using procedural issues to decide controversy. I don't mean that negatively, btw.

I see zero chance that the 9th is reversed. Maybe I am wrong.

[GarthUte]

arguments over; scotus blog predicting Kennedy wont vote to strike down Prop 8; court will dismiss the case on standing grounds, and leave Ninth Circuit ruling in place, invalidating Prop. 8

In my opinion, this would be the best thing to happen because the SCOTUS would seem to be saying that this is an issue for the states to decide rather than the federal government.

[Scratch]

In my opinion, this would be the best thing to happen because the SCOTUS would seem to be saying that this is an issue for the states to decide rather than the federal government.

Except they would be saying the exact opposite; if they toss it out based on standing, they're not letting the states decide, they're letting the 9th Circuit and Jerry Brown decide.

[concerned]

In my opinion, this would be the best thing to happen because the SCOTUS would seem to be saying that this is an issue for the states to decide rather than the federal government.

and also saying its too early to decide once and for all either for or against--let it play out in the states. There was an article the other day about how Roe v. Wade hangs over this case, with Justice Ginsburg speaking a while ago about how Roe cut short the debate going on in the states, and short circuited the democratic process.

[concerned]

According to the scotus blog, the Ninth Circuit could be reversed on the standing issue, which would leave the district court opinion in place, which would end up in the same place.

[Scratch]

and also saying its too early to decide once and for all either for or against--let it play out in the states. There was an article the other day about how Roe v. Wade hangs over this case, with Justice Ginsburg speaking a while ago about how Roe cut short the debate going on in the states, and short circuited the democratic process.

But again, if this is what they were really trying to accomplish, the way to do it would be by tossing out the 9th Circuit's opinion and essentially saying this isn't a federal matter. By going with standing, they are allowing a decision by a federal court with purview over 8 states (if my memory serves) to dictate what the federal constitution says on the matter to those 8 states.

If the Court does indeed go with standing, it will be very interesting to see if they throw in any extra language regarding these issues. It will also be interesting to see if anyone in California tries to get a writ of mandate or anything similar compelling Brown and the AG to defend Prop 8. Or maybe that has already happened; anyone know?

[Solon]

As a practical matter, you're correct of course. I've heard judges say this many times.

However this is decided, the proponents of gay marriage seem to be losing the larger, cultural war. Since Prop. 8 was adopted, the public opinion swing has been massive and historic. I heard Cooper's and Olson's arguments today on NPR and I felt that this change of public opinion was a lot because of this debate that has gripped the nation. Prop. 8 was Pearl Harbor not Gettysburgh.

Do you mean the opponents?

Not trying to bust your chops. Just wondering if you have a fresh insight on this.

[Scratch]

According to the scotus blog, the Ninth Circuit could be reversed on the standing issue, which would leave the district court opinion in place, which would end up in the same place.

Oh, I see, that makes sense, I guess. They would essentially try to knock out that opinion on the procedural ground, and limit the ruling to the district court. Still, you would have the substantive sway of the 9th Circuit opinion to deal with. The substantive authority would still be binding as the case would have been overturned on other grounds, right?

[SeattleUte]

Do you mean the opponents?

Not trying to bust your chops. Just wondering if you have a fresh insight on this.

Yes. Oops.

[SeattleUte]

Yes. Oops.

Okay fixed.

[SeattleUte]

Kennedy is notoriously hard to read, but this is my expectation. There is a proud history of the SC sidestepping hot button issues and using procedural issues to decide controversy. I don't mean that negatively, btw.

I see zero chance that the 9th is reversed. Maybe I am wrong.

The more I think about this, the more I think you're right. How can there be a jusiciable controversy here if the State of California won't even defend the law. That also seems to do away with the arguments in favor of honoring the democratic process. I think they may well punt.

[concerned]

Oh, I see, that makes sense, I guess. They would essentially try to knock out that opinion on the procedural ground, and limit the ruling to the district court. Still, you would have the substantive sway of the 9th Circuit opinion to deal with. The substantive authority would still be binding as the case would have been overturned on other grounds, right?

From Kennedy;'s questioning, sounds like he would prefer to just dismiss the case as having been improvidently granted. Sounds as though there is not a lot enthusiasm for reinstating Prop 8 among a majority of the justices, perhaps in part for political reasons (public opinion favoring gay rights). California procedural history on this is so unique, it would have no precedential or providential effect.

[LA Ute]

What's most interesting to me about this thread is that everyone seems to accept the 9th Circuit decision as well-reasoned. Sorry, SU, but that's debatable to say the least. Steve Reinhardt is the most often-reversed appellate judge in the most-reversed circuit, and his opinion in this case is typical of the overreaching opinions that get him reversed all the time. It would be bizarre for SCOTUS simply to let that opinion stand.

[concerned]

What's most interesting to me about this thread is that everyone seems to accept the 9th Circuit decision as well-reasoned. Sorry, SU, but that's debatable to say the least. Steve Reinhardt is the most often-reversed appellate judge in the most-reversed circuit, and his opinion in this case is typical of the overreaching opinions that get him reversed all the time. It would be bizarre for SCOTUS simply to let that opinion stand.

Most of the commentary seems to conclude that regardless of the merits of the reasoning of the lower courts, this may be a thicket the S Ct. doesnt want to wade into.

[SeattleUte]

Most of the commentary seems to conclude that regardless of the merits of the reasoning of the lower courts, this may be a thicket the S Ct. doesnt want to wade into.

What's most bizarre is that the state of California won't even defend the law. That sure makes the arguments ring hollow that the justices should should honor the democratic process. LA, has there been a recall of governor or the AG commenced because they won't defend the Prop. 8 people's initiative? I think the Supreme Court may punt this. Scalia cares too much about public opinion to risk being on the wrong side of this issue for centuries to come.

[GarthUte]

Except they would be saying the exact opposite; if they toss it out based on standing, they're not letting the states decide, they're letting the 9th Circuit and Jerry Brown decide.

Thanks for the clarification.

[LA Ute]

what's most bizarre is that the state of california won't even defend the law.

lol.

[LA Ute]

Before anyone gets too excited about what Justice Kennedy might do, here's a statement he made about two weeks ago at the dedication of a federal courthouse named for him (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/justice-kennedy-serious-problem-supreme-court-deciding-too-many-issues-that-can-be-decided-by-congress/):


I think it’s a serious problem. A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say. And I think it’s of tremendous importance for our political system to show the rest of the world — and we have to show ourselves first — that democracy works because we can reach agreement on a principled basis.

Here's a reasoned Washington Post op-ed from a gay marriage supporter about how the shadow of Roe v. Wade hangs over this decision. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/25/doma-prop-8-and-supreme-court-caution/)

[concerned]

Thanks for the clarification.

They'd be sacrificing the popular will in California for the good of the whole. All the other states will get to decide for themselves. California is a throw away anyway; (TIC, sort of).

I suppose that if Prop 8 is upheld, there will be a new petition for a new constitutional amendment the other way during the next election cycle. It will be interesting to see the outcome four to eight years from now, and then in another four to eight years, etc.

[USS Utah]

I said after the 2008 election, with the reaction to the passage of Prop 8, that those opposed to gay marriage, which at the time included me, had already lost, they just didn't know it yet.

At the time I had the same position as the president-elect, supporting civil unions instead of marriage. Obama has since evolved to support gay marriage, but the best I can do is take a neutral position -- I am neither for nor against gay marriage.

Btw, an interesting article I came across last night:

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-silent-supportive-conservatives-gay-marriage-momentum-172804560.html

[Solon]

Before anyone gets too excited about what Justice Kennedy might do, here's a statement he made about two weeks ago at the dedication of a federal courthouse named for him (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/justice-kennedy-serious-problem-supreme-court-deciding-too-many-issues-that-can-be-decided-by-congress/):



I think it’s a serious problem. A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say. And I think it’s of tremendous importance for our political system to show the rest of the world — and we have to show ourselves first — that democracy works because we can reach agreement on a principled basis.





Here's a reasoned Washington Post op-ed from a gay marriage supporter about how the shadow of Roe v. Wade hangs over this decision. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/25/doma-prop-8-and-supreme-court-caution/)

I'm not a legal scholar, but I believe this tug-of-war between democratic will and judicial oversight is the creaking political system that democratization has brought about. IMO, when the Supreme Court was established, it was to prevent abuses by the other branches of government, not abuses by plebiscite.

There used to be other constitutional safeguards in place to keep the fickle popular will in check. These are largely gone. The Classically educated founders of this country would have understood the dangers of rule by radical democracy. They had to look no further than the Athenian meltdown during the Peloponnesian War.

[concerned]

Before anyone gets too excited about what Justice Kennedy might do, here's a statement he made about two weeks ago at the dedication of a federal courthouse named for him (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/justice-kennedy-serious-problem-supreme-court-deciding-too-many-issues-that-can-be-decided-by-congress/):



Here's a reasoned Washington Post op-ed from a gay marriage supporter about how the shadow of Roe v. Wade hangs over this decision. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/25/doma-prop-8-and-supreme-court-caution/)

You may be right, but Kennedy also wrote the Lawrence v. Texas, affirming a gay person's right to equality and privacy and invalidating criminal laws (as Scalia noted sarcastically in dissent, if you are going to affirm this right, then there is no reason not to recognize a right to marry).

that is why Kennedy may be caught in a tug of war between principles at odds, and may want to get out of the middle.

Who knows; we are all guessing.

[concerned]

Once difference between the argu today and the Obamacare argument: the Obamacare questioning was bold and far reaching --causing Jeffry Toobin et al to predict it was DOA. But the court acted with caution, restraint and institutional reserve. Here the questioning reflected that same institutional reserve, so it may be a more accurate predictor of a ruling. Not only does Roe v. Wade hang over this case, obamacare does as well.

[LA Ute]

I'm not a legal scholar, but I believe this tug-of-war between democratic will and judicial oversight is the creaking political system that democratization has brought about. IMO, when the Supreme Court was established, it was to prevent abuses by the other branches of government, not abuses by plebiscite.

There used to be other constitutional safeguards in place to keep the fickle popular will in check. These are largely gone. The Classically educated founders of this country would have understood the dangers of rule by radical democracy. They had to look no further than the Athenian meltdown during the Peloponnesian War.

Just another perspective on popular will: California's initiative system was set up in 1911 under the leadership of Hiram Johnson, a famous political reformer who was a two-term governor and then a Republican U.S. Senator for almost 30 years. The goal then was for voter initiatives to allow the public to get around the state legislature, which was controlled by the robber baron types, including Leland Stanford's Southern Pacific Railroad.

Ironically (IMO), the same initiative system is used now to get around the state legislature, overwhelmingly controlled by liberal Democrats who have reapportioned themselves into safe seats. The Republican seats are also safe; there are just a lot fewer of them and they are locked into permanent minority status. So to get a seat in the Legislature, what you need to do here in CA is get nominated by your party, and you're in your seat until you are term-limited out. Since primary voters are more extreme (and fewer in number) than general election voters, the result is a set of very conservative Republicans and very liberal Democrats in office. The result was gridlock, until this year, when the Democrats now have a filbuster-proof majority and enough votes to raise taxes at will -- even despite Proposition 13 limits on property tax increases. (They want to do away with term limits too, but haven't mustered the political will to pull that off yet.) The labor unions (especially the public employee unions) have huge clout in the Legislature. Nothing gets passed without their assent.

So...we still still the initiative process here. It's the only way to get a popular change to the law that does not have the approval of the unions. I don't think we have become overly democratized. If anything, we've gone the other direction in a big way.

[concerned]

Just another perspective on popular will: California's initiative system was set up in 1911 under the leadership of Hiram Johnson, a famous political reformer who was a two-term governor and then a Republican U.S. Senator for almost 30 years. The goal then was for voter initiatives to allow the public to get around the state legislature, which was controlled by the robber baron types, including Leland Stanford's Southern Pacific Railroad.

Ironically (IMO), the same initiative system is used now to get around the state legislature, overwhelmingly controlled by liberal Democrats who have reapportioned themselves into safe seats. The Republican seats are also safe; there are just a lot fewer of them and they are locked into permanent minority status. So to get a seat in the Legislature, what you need to do here in CA is get nominated by your party, and you're in your seat until you are term-limited out. Since primary voters are more extreme (and fewer in number) than general election voters, the result is a set of very conservative Republicans and very liberal Democrats in office. The result was gridlock, until this year, when the Democrats now have a filbuster-proof majority and enough votes to raise taxes at will -- even despite Proposition 13 limits on property tax increases. (They want to do away with term limits too, but haven't mustered the political will to pull that off yet.) The labor unions (especially the public employee unions) have huge clout in the Legislature. Nothing gets passed without their assent.

So...we still still the initiative process here. It's the only way to get a popular change to the law that does not have the approval of the unions. I don't think we have become overly democratized. If anything, we've gone the other direction in a big way.

So what you are saying is that there needs to be a federal initiative process to get around gerrymandering in the house.

[Scratch]

The whole initiative system is a farce. The general voting public is the only body less qualified than the legislature to make significant, long-term, and educated decisions without being heavily influenced by special interests and manipulated by the competing sides' mischaracterizations of the issues.

[Diehard Ute]

The whole initiative system is a farce. The general voting public is the only body less qualified than the legislature to make significant, long-term, and educated decisions without being heavily influenced by special interests and manipulated by the competing sides' mischaracterizations of the issues.

Exactly. The 'average' voter is extremely uninformed. Honestly, how many people research all the people and proposals on the ballot each year? They vote based on media reports or what their friend or family member told them, often with poor information. The first failed vote SLC's Public Safety Building is a prime example. Voters rejected it saying the cost was too high for one building...which would have been true. But it was for 4 buildings not 1. The one that passed just cut 2 fire stations and a precinct building out and passed. Trusting my fellow citizens with legislation scares me just as much, if not more than trusting the legislature.

[LA Ute]

So what you are saying is that there needs to be a federal initiative process to get around gerrymandering in the house.

Well, if the states are laboratories for the federal government, I'd consider California's more recent efforts to exemplify an experiment that did not work out very well.

386

[concerned]

Well, if the states are laboratories for the federal government, I'd consider California's more recent efforts to exemplify an experiment that did not work out very well.

386

touche

[Applejack]

Tom Goldstein has an interesting post up on SCOTUSBLAWG: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/reaching-a-judgment/

In it, he argues that one way the Justices might punt (other than the obvious standing issue) it to decide the DOMA case being argued tomorrow, and then remand Hollingsworth (Prop 8) to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit opinion would thereby be vacated, and the Ninth Circuit court would have to redecide the case in light of the opinion in Windsor (DOMA). I think that is a plausible way to punt Prop-8 if Kennedy is so inclined.

[LA Ute]

Tom Goldstein has an interesting post up on SCOTUSBLAWG: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/reaching-a-judgment/

In it, he argues that one way the Justices might punt (other than the obvious standing issue) it to decide the DOMA case being argued tomorrow, and then remand Hollingsworth (Prop 8) to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit opinion would thereby be vacated, and the Ninth Circuit court would have to redecide the case in light of the opinion in Windsor (DOMA). I think that is a plausible way to punt Prop-8 if Kennedy is so inclined.

That's a very interesting scenario, and not unlikely at all, IMO

[UtahDan]

I've barely had a chance to follow the developments of the day. Is the bottom line that LA is going to be stuck with gay marriage out in the 9th Circuit but my friends here in the 4th Circuit will probably have to keep waiting? Bitter irony for us both!! ;)

[concerned]

That's a very interesting scenario, and not unlikely at all, IMO

It would only by a years time unless after the ninth affirms the prop 8 case in light of the doma decision the s ct denies cert. I have difficlty imagining how a doma ruling could affect the prop 8 case. the issues are so different. Unless you are goint to find or not find a fundamental right.

[LA Ute]

It would only by a years time unless after the ninth affirms the prop 8 case in light of the doma decision the s ct denies cert. I have difficlty imagining how a doma ruling could affect the prop 8 case. the issues are so different. Unless you are goint to find or not find a fundamental right.

Very little would surprise me at this point. My bet is that they are going to try very hard to find a way to avoid another Roe v. Wade without upholding Prop 8. Keep in mind that only once in my life have I been right about an appellate court ruling based on oral argument, And that was my own case, in which all three justices grilled me mercilessly for an hour, and asked my opponent only two or three sympathetic questions. It was kind of clear.

[concerned]

Very little would surprise me at this point. My bet is that they are going to try very hard to find a way to avoid another Roe v. Wade without upholding Prop 8. Keep in mind that only once in my life have I been right about an appellate court ruling based on oral argument, And that was my own case, in which all three justices grilled me mercilessly for an hour, and asked my opponent only two or three sympathetic questions. It was kind of clear.

Agreed

[LA Ute]

Interesting piece on how it would help Republicans politically if SCOTUS overturns Prop 8 - and not for the obvious reason that it would infuriate conservatives:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/the-politics-of-same-sex-marriage-constitutional-adjudication.php

[SeattleUte]

Very little would surprise me at this point. My bet is that they are going to try very hard to find a way to avoid another Roe v. Wade without upholding Prop 8. Keep in mind that only once in my life have I been right about an appellate court ruling based on oral argument, And that was my own case, in which all three justices grilled me mercilessly for an hour, and asked my opponent only two or three sympathetic questions. It was kind of clear.

This case is not comparable to Roe v. Wade. I doubt they see Roe v. Wade as a frightening worst case scenrio here. The problem with Roe v. Wade is where to draw the line; the Court, in trying to find that line, behaving like a legislature and even relying on science that is now obsolete; and the fact that abortion involves the destruction of a fetus, a human life on some level (still, a majority of Americans would not want to ban abortion outright,and the Court has never seriously considered overturning Roe v. Wade). Gay marriage is not nearly as problematic. Don't kid yourself; this Court doesn't believe that the salvation of Western Civilization may be in the balance. Even the Mormon amicus brief didn't dare make such a claim.

The LDS brief actually got it right in framing the issue; in a sense it made the most forthright argument. This is about religious liberty pitted against gays' liberty. Really what we are confronted with is which side's liberty would be most directly and offensively abridged if the other side got their way. Clearly the gays' would. Regardless, while this is a serious issue, it's not a life and death issue, and the conflicting interests are not so insoluble as with abortion. Gay marriage is a yes or no issue, and the loser won't suffer as much as the suffering unwanted pregancies and abortions cause.

There is nothing per se wrong with the Court protecting a liberty inerest that the democratic process has deprived. That's what happened in Brown v. Board of Education, in Griswold v. Connecticut, etc. That is what the Court is supposed to do in limited carefully drawn circumstances. The Court just needs to suck it up and grant the gays this liberty that means a lot more to them than whatever psychic or illusory detriment religious people would suffer as a result.

[SeattleUte]

They'd be sacrificing the popular will

it's a pretty milquetoast manifestation of popular will where the AG and the governor won't even defend the law.

[LA Ute]

it's a pretty milquetoast manifestation of popular will where the AG and the governor won't even defend the law.

Troll.

[Scratch]

There is nothing per se wrong with the Court protecting a liberty inerest [sic] that the democratic process has deprived. That's what happened in Brown v. Board of Education, in Griswold v. Connecticut, etc. That is what the Court is supposed to do in limited carefully drawn circumstances. The Court just needs to suck it up and grant the gays this liberty that means a lot more to them than whatever psychic or illusory detriment religious people would suffer as a result.

Ah yes, Griswold v. Connecticut, the greatest example ever of the Supreme Court making a (correct) political decision through a completely untenable and logically absurd legal opinion that has incredibly far-reaching impacts on society.

[LA Ute]

Nelson Lund: A Social Experiment Without Science Behind It


There has been only one study using a large randomized sample, objective measures of well-being, and reports of grown children rather than their parents. This research, by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas Austin, found that children raised in a household where a parent was involved in a same-sex romantic relationship were at a significant disadvantage with respect to a number of indicators of well being—such as depression, educational attainment and criminal behavior—compared with children of intact biological families.

One might expect this work at least to raise a caution flag, but it has been vociferously attacked on methodological grounds by the same organizations that tout the value of politically congenial research that suffers from more severe methodological shortcomings. This is what one expects from activists, not scientists.

As everyone knows, some states have begun to experiment with legalizing same-sex marriage, and public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of the change. Perhaps this will work out well, and the overwhelming majority of states that have been more cautious will eventually catch up. But experiments are never guaranteed to succeed, and one advantage of democracy is that it allows failed experiments to be abandoned. If the Supreme Court constitutionalizes a right to same-sex marriage, however, there will be no going back. The court cannot possibly know that it is safe to take this irrevocable step.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324557804578376671175549596

[Rocker Ute]

Nelson Lund: A Social Experiment Without Science Behind It



http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324557804578376671175549596

I talked about this study in another thread. Kind of interesting the vehement attacks on the study this guy has endured when by his own admission he has said essentially, "Here is what this study has shown using better statistical surveying methods regarding the welfare of children in same-sex relationships... however the results may be more of an indicator of the problems of instability and current social stigmas towards such relationships than what may be the product of the relationships themselves." I haven't got the sense that he was interested in a particular political agenda on the subject, just reporting the facts that came from the study.

I think the logical next step in the study would be to compare these results to similarly unstable relationships, such as the children of divorced parents etc.

[Diehard Ute]

I talked about this study in another thread. Kind of interesting the vehement attacks on the study this guy has endured when by his own admission he has said essentially, "Here is what this study has shown using better statistical surveying methods regarding the welfare of children in same-sex relationships... however the results may be more of an indicator of the problems of instability and current social stigmas towards such relationships than what may be the product of the relationships themselves." I haven't got the sense that he was interested in a particular political agenda on the subject, just reporting the facts that came from the study.

I think the logical next step in the study would be to compare these results to similarly unstable relationships, such as the children of divorced parents etc.

Except his study didn't examine that.

His study asked 15,000 18 to 30 year olds if one of their parents EVER had a same sex relationship, be it one day or an actual relationship. Once the said their parent has been he labeled that parent as a "lesbian woman" or a "gay man" by his own admission.

To claim it was a study of children raised by a same sex couple is silly at best.

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html

[Rocker Ute]

Except his study didn't examine that.

His study asked 15,000 18 to 30 year olds if one of their parents EVER had a same sex relationship, be it one day or an actual relationship. Once the said their parent has been he labeled that parent as a "lesbian woman" or a "gay man" by his own admission.

To claim it was a study of children raised by a same sex couple is silly at best.

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html

I won't consider an opinion piece from the New Yorker as proof for your statement. The methodology of the sample study was openly disclosed and he noted these different types of situations in his cross sections of the study (ie children of 'gay' parents who were with the parents during the relationship, lived with the couples etc), but if you want to read the actual study itself and its methodology here you can (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610)...


Among those who said their mother had a same-sex relationship, 91% reported living with their mother while she was in the romantic relationship, and 57% said they had lived with their mother and her partner for at least 4 months at some point prior to age 18. A smaller share (23%) said they had spent at least 3 years living in the same household with a romantic partner of their mother’s.
Among those who said their father had a same-sex relationship, however, 42% reported living with him while he was in a same-sex romantic relationship, and 23% reported living with him and his partner for at least 4 months (but less than 2% said they had spent at least 3 years together in the same household), a trend similarly noted in Tasker’s (2005) (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610#b0240) review article on gay and lesbian parenting.
Fifty-eight (58) percent of those whose biological mothers had a same-sex relationship also reported that their biological mother exited the respondent’s household at some point during their youth, and just under 14% of them reported spending time in the foster care system, indicating greater-than-average household instability. Ancillary analyses of the NFSS suggests a likely “planned” lesbian origin of between 17% and 26% of such respondents, a range estimated from the share of such respondents who claimed that (1) their biological parents were never married or lived together, and that (2) they never lived with a parental opposite-sex partner or with their biological father. The share of respondents (whose fathers had a same-sex relationship) that likely came from “planned” gay families in the NFSS is under 1%.



BTW - I'm not defending this as proof that same-sex couples are detrimental to children, I'm just saying that this study warrants further investigation on the matter including controls for things like household instability and existing social stigmas. This is the first study of its kind that didn't work of a snowballing sample group as others have been, but haven't received the same scrutiny (ie, the person performing the study starts with a gay couple and asks them if they know other gay couples, etc).

[Rocker Ute]

Except his study didn't examine that.

His study asked 15,000 18 to 30 year olds if one of their parents EVER had a same sex relationship, be it one day or an actual relationship. Once the said their parent has been he labeled that parent as a "lesbian woman" or a "gay man" by his own admission.

To claim it was a study of children raised by a same sex couple is silly at best.

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html

Also, ironically, the New Yorker opinion piece comes to the same conclusion the person who did the study came to, and what I originally said:


And also remember what they do mean: if this study shows anything, it’s not the effect of gay parenting, but of non-, or absentee parenting. ...but one can reasonably guess that there are, buried in them, stories of parents who left or were separated from their children, or households that fell apart, because, eighteen to thirty-nine years ago, someone’s first try at an adult life involved a heterosexual relationship, even if that wasn’t sustainable. As Saletan puts it, the study “doesn’t document the failure of same-sex marriage. It documents the failure of the closeted, broken, and unstable households that preceded same-sex marriage.”

Which he notes that very fact in both the study and in interviews.

[Diehard Ute]

Also, ironically, the New Yorker opinion piece comes to the same conclusion the person who did the study came to, and what I originally said:



Which he notes that very fact in both the study and in interviews.

But the fact that people continue to mention this "study" (and the more I read about it the more I think that is a stretch) is ludicrous.

Frankly I don't think the study even goes as far as you're claiming it does, the variables and lack of actual data are just too severe (from the lack of children who actually were raised from birth by a same sex couple to no differentiation for those answering regarding when they were 6 vs those who were 22 and still living at home)

From my point if view this shouldn't even be a factor in who can marry, the people Freaky or I see in our professional careers on a daily basis prove heterosexual marriage does noting to help raise children as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps we should have a parenting license instead if a driver license ;)

[Rocker Ute]

But the fact that people continue to mention this "study" (and the more I read about it the more I think that is a stretch) is ludicrous.

Frankly I don't think the study even goes as far as you're claiming it does, the variables and lack of actual data are just too severe (from the lack of children who actually were raised from birth by a same sex couple to no differentiation for those answering regarding when they were 6 vs those who were 22 and still living at home)

From my point if view this shouldn't even be a factor in who can marry, the people Freaky or I see in our professional careers on a daily basis prove heterosexual marriage does noting to help raise children as far as I'm concerned.

I'm making no claims regarding the conclusions of the study, just saying that someone did a sample study with a methodology openly reported and found some interesting information that warrants further study. Instead of falling to similarly erroneous conclusions, why don't you just read the actual study that I linked to, the methodology, the sampling, the shortcomings of it and the challenges are all duly noted. It reinforces and notes the very things you say (ie the study is limited to the sample size of the respondents, there may be external factors that resulted in the outcomes, and that certain questions to accurately understand what happened weren't part of the survey).

I don't understand why people get angry about a study that is just reporting the facts of the sample and isn't coming to a conclusion that 'gay parents = bad'. I also don't understand people propping up this study as definitive proof that gay marriage is bad. He makes no such claims himself.

From the conclusion of the study (which I doubt anyone's knee-jerk refuting the study bothered to get to):


As scholars of same-sex parenting aptly note, same-sex couples have and will continue to raise children. American courts are finding arguments against gay marriage decreasingly persuasive (Rosenfeld, 2007 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610#b0205)). This study is intended to neither undermine nor affirm any legal rights concerning such.

and


...the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses...

[Rocker Ute]

From my point if view this shouldn't even be a factor in who can marry, the people Freaky or I see in our professional careers on a daily basis prove heterosexual marriage does noting to help raise children as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps we should have a parenting license instead if a driver license ;)

I'm with you though, maybe there should be a parenting license, or maybe at least a breathalizer test beforehand. ;)

[Applejack]

Nelson Lund: A Social Experiment Without Science Behind It



http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324557804578376671175549596

You keep bringing this up, but I think it is pretty disingenuous. We aren't talking about whether gays have the right to raise children - they do, in all 50 states. Whether committed gay couples can call themselves "married" and enjoy the benefits of such a classification is an entirely separate issue.

[LA Ute]

You keep bringing this up, but I think it is pretty disingenuous. We aren't talking about whether gays have the right to raise children - they do, in all 50 states. Whether committed gay couples can call themselves "married" and enjoy the benefits of such a classification is an entirely separate issue.

I agree that gays have the right to raise children. The point of the op-ed, to me, is that we simply don't know what the impact of same-sex parenting will be, and yet there's a willingness to gloss that fact over or ignore it. Justice Kennedy said yesterday in oral argument that the voices of the 40,000 children whose parents are in same-sex relationships ought to be heard. So it is an issue.

In my opinion the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is that children deserve to have both a male father and a female mother. That is the ideal, its effectiveness is supported by all the available evidence, and public policy ought to support that ideal. California has the most liberal civil union laws in the USA and I support those. A couple in a civil union in CA has all the rights if a married couple. But traditional marriage as an ideal ought to be supported. We can have another discussion about whether that is "separate but equal."

That's my view, and I am totally comfortable with the fact that others see the matter differently, and that people of good will on both sides disagree strongly on this.

[concerned]

I agree that gays have the right to raise children. The point of the op-ed, to me, is that we simply don't know what the impact of same-sex parenting will be, and yet there's a willingness to gloss that fact over or ignore it. Justice Kennedy said yesterday in oral argument that the voices of the 40,000 children whose parents are in same-sex relationships ought to be heard. So it is an issue.

In my opinion the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is that children deserve to have both a male father and a female mother. That is the ideal, its effectiveness is supported by all the available evidence, and public policy ought to support that ideal. California has the most liberal civil union laws in the USA and I support those. A couple in a civil union in CA has all the rights if a married couple. But traditional marriage as an ideal ought to be supported. We can have another discussion about whether that is "separate but equal."

That's my view, and I am totally comfortable with the fact that others see the matter differently, and that people of good will on both sides disagree strongly on this.

As Justice Kagan or Sotomayor noted yesterday, and as we have all discussed ad naseum, marriage is about more than just procreation, or you wouldn't let infertile people marry, etc. More than half the children in the US are born out of wedlock; I cant believe there is any study (I dont know) that says being raised by a single hetrosexual parent is healthier than being raised by two gay parents. If we were really concerned about children having two parents you would ban single parents and maybe even poor parents from having kids.

I think David Frum said about 3% of the US population might become gay married couples. What percentage of those would become parents (and ignore the fact that gays can become parents and raise a family together as a married couple or not, like the family down the street from us)? As you note, California even sanctions it.

Using a definition of marriage to promote a father and a mother to raise children is the wrong remedy for the problem; it is no remedy at all, since it doesn't affect the vast majority of children who are not raised with both a hetrosexual mother and father.

To me, the solution is not to draw a distinction between marriage and civil unions, but to draw one between civil marriage and religious marriage, more or less as it is now. Gays can enjoy civil marriage or religious marriage in a church that sanctions them, but not in a church that doesn't. They do not get the benefits, for example, that Mormons believe really come with temple marriage, like sealing to your spouse and family for time and eternity, and a pathway to eternal life.

P.s. I would not create that solution if I were a member of the S. Ct.; it is too early to do anything definitive one way or the other; the court needs to send it back to the states to percolate for at least another decade.

[Jarid in Cedar]

In my opinion the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is that children deserve to have both a male father and a female mother. That is the ideal, its effectiveness is supported by all the available evidence, and public policy ought to support that ideal. .

You better bring some support/citation for this statement, because I am not aware of any.

[Diehard Ute]

I second the call for actual facts on this LA, and not just your beliefs.

I also really find this idea that the word "marriage" is somehow sacred or protected to be silly. You're trying to take your faith and theological beliefs and force them on others via the government from where I sit.

It's time to stop. Stop caring who is married and who isn't. It's none of my business, your business or the governments business. And that's not just a "gay marriage" thing. Society punishes people who don't get married in the Christian sense. Be those people who are gay, people who live together without a piece of paper or people like myself who are single. It makes no sense. (And don't give me the "we have to ensure the species lives on" stuff. We're far too good at populating the planet already)

[SeattleUte]

As Justice Kagan or Sotomayor noted yesterday, and as we have all discussed ad naseum, marriage is about more than just procreation, or you wouldn't let infertile people marry, etc. More than half the children in the US are born out of wedlock; I cant believe there is any study (I dont know) that says being raised by a single hetrosexual parent is healthier than being raised by two gay parents. If we were really concerned about children having two parents you would ban single parents and maybe even poor parents from having kids.

I think David Frum said about 3% of the US population might become gay married couples. What percentage of those would become parents (and ignore the fact that gays can become parents and raise a family together as a married couple or not, like the family down the street from us)? As you note, California even sanctions it.

Using a definition of marriage to promote a father and a mother to raise children is the wrong remedy for the problem; it is no remedy at all, since it doesn't affect the vast majority of children who are not raised with both a hetrosexual mother and father.

To me, the solution is not to draw a distinction between marriage and civil unions, but to draw one between civil marriage and religious marriage, more or less as it is now. Gays can enjoy civil marriage or religious marriage in a church that sanctions them, but not in a church that doesn't. They do not get the benefits, for example, that Mormons believe really come with temple marriage, like sealing to your spouse and family for time and eternity, and a pathway to eternal life.

P.s. I would not create that solution if I were a member of the S. Ct.; it is too early to do anything definitive one way or the other; the court needs to send it back to the states to percolate for at least another decade.

It's not too early. Nine states provide gays a right to marry. I live in one of them. The world has not come to an end.

This dispute is about what kind of a country do we want to live in. Do we want to live in a country ruled by superstition, fanatical nostalgia for the past, bigotry, or by science, reason and compassion? It's that simple. When he was elected, Lincoln thought it was too early to free the slaves. It wasn't. Brown v. Board of Education was greeted by the same interests that oppose gay marriage -- inlcuding LDS general authorities -- as apocalyptic. These people were downright evil. They just were. Yes, this is about good vs evil on the most profound level. Someday when the arc and fate of our republic is finally recorded for history, what will define America is times such as these -- where America was able to cast a light of reason, compassion and understanding on thousands of years of barbarism and oppression that had for thousands of years been taken for granted as right and true. Unfortunately, America has not always been at the vanguard of this process, though it more times than not has been.

[LA Ute]

You better bring some support/citation for this statement, because I am not aware of any.

Fair question. I'm not a social scientist, and I know the subject is controversial (that's why we are discussing it) but I have read quite a bit of information supporting my position. Here's one piece:

Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure (http://www.childtrends.org/files/marriagerb602.pdf)Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It? (http://www.childtrends.org/files/marriagerb602.pdf)

Overview

Policies and proposals to promote marriage have been in the public eye for several years, driven by concern over the large percentages of American children growing up with just one parent.

The Bush Administration has proposed improving children’s well-being as the overarching purpose of welfare reform, and its marriage initiative is one of its chief strategies for doing so. In this context,what does research tell us about the effects of family structure – and especially of growing up with twomarried parents – on children? This brief reviews the research evidence on the effects of family structure on children, as well as keytrends in family structure over the last few decades. An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. At the same time,research on how to promote strong, low-conflict marriages is thin at best.

The authors are responsible researchers and include this caveat at the beginning of their article:


Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parentswere identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents.

The point being lost in this thread (and in Seattle's reductive argument) is the one made in the Wall Street Journal op-ed that started this branch of the discussion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578376671175549596.html?d sk=y):


A significant number of organizations representing social and behavioral scientists have filed briefs promising the court that there is nothing to worry about. These assurances have no scientific foundation. Same-sex marriage is brand new, and child rearing by same-sex couples remains rare. Even if both phenomena were far more common, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the long-term effects of redefining marriage.

The conclusions in the research literature typically amount at best to claims that a particular study found "no evidence" of bad effects from child rearing by same-sex couples. One could just as easily say that there is no reliable evidence that such child-rearing practices are beneficial or harmless. And that is the conclusion that should be relevant to the court.

Social-science advocacy organizations, however, have promoted the myth that a lack of evidence, so far, of bad effects implies the nonexistence of such effects. This myth is based on conjecture or faith, not science.

EDIT: I would like to see government get out of the marriage business altogether. Let every adult get a civil union who wants one, then leave marriage to churches, wiccan circles, whatever. But that's not going to happen for a very long time. I also think same-sex marriage is probably inevitable. So I get that. I am just stating my position on what we ought to do with what I consider to be the realities of family life in our society.

I also think that in a just world, views like Seattle's need to be rebutted. The anti-intellectual notion that "anyone who disagrees with me is a bad person (bigoted, backward, you insert the adjective)" needs to be rejected. It's an old tool of the Left and I am always surprised that a libertarian like SU uses it so relentlessly.

[Diehard Ute]

I disagree LA. I think you're trying to create an argument about raising children as a way to stop something you personally don't like.

This is NOT about children, to keep brining it up is a bait and switch move IMO

[Rocker Ute]

It's not too early. Nine states provide gays a right to marry. I live in one of them. The world has not come to an end.

This dispute is about what kind of a country do we want to live in. Do we want to live in a country ruled by superstition, fanatical nostalgia for the past, bigotry, or by science, reason and compassion? It's that simple. When he was elected, Lincoln thought it was too early to free the slaves. It wasn't. Brown v. Board of Education was greeted by the same interests that oppose gay marriage -- inlcuding LDS general authorities -- as apocalyptic. These people were downright evil. They just were. Yes, this is about good vs evil on the most profound level. Someday when the arc and fate of our republic is finally recorded for history, what will define America is times such as these -- where America was able to cast a light of reason, compassion and understanding on thousands of years of barbarism and oppression that had for thousands of years been taken for granted as right and true. Unfortunately, America has not always been at the vanguard of this process, though it more times than not has been.

Abraham Lincoln was downright evil?

[tooblue]

You better bring some support/citation for this statement, because I am not aware of any.


I second the call for actual facts on this LA, and not just your beliefs.

I also really find this idea that the word "marriage" is somehow sacred or protected to be silly. You're trying to take your faith and theological beliefs and force them on others via the government from where I sit.

It's time to stop. Stop caring who is married and who isn't. It's none of my business, your business or the governments business. And that's not just a "gay marriage" thing. Society punishes people who don't get married in the Christian sense. Be those people who are gay, people who live together without a piece of paper or people like myself who are single. It makes no sense. (And don't give me the "we have to ensure the species lives on" stuff. We're far too good at populating the planet already)

This line or argument goes both ways. What facts do you or Jarid offer in support of the position that children fair as well or better in homes with same-sex parents? There are some studies out there. Unfortunately, they are not highly regarded due to the methodology and the fact they are woefully incomplete as compared to the collective shared human experience that, albeit anecdotally, demonstrates children fair better in homes with a mother and father. In fact there are two prominent studies recently released that suggest/confirm children of same-sex couples do not fair as well as children with a mother and father:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/?page=all

Of course, on closer examination what we really learn from any such study on the subject is that good parenting requires commitment and hard work. And that regardless of whether the parents are heterosexual or homosexual societal focus should be placed on strengthening families of all varieties. So, really, a myopic demand for evidence to support yours or L.A.'s argument is a fools errand. This is social science after all. You or Jarid have no more, or in fact, far less evidence than L.A. may somehow produce.

[concerned]

It's not too early. Nine states provide gays a right to marry. I live in one of them. The world has not come to an end.

This dispute is about what kind of a country do we want to live in. Do we want to live in a country ruled by superstition, fanatical nostalgia for the past, bigotry, or by science, reason and compassion? It's that simple. When he was elected, Lincoln thought it was too early to free the slaves. It wasn't. Brown v. Board of Education was greeted by the same interests that oppose gay marriage -- inlcuding LDS general authorities -- as apocalyptic. These people were downright evil. They just were. Yes, this is about good vs evil on the most profound level. Someday when the arc and fate of our republic is finally recorded for history, what will define America is times such as these -- where America was able to cast a light of reason, compassion and understanding on thousands of years of barbarism and oppression that had for thousands of years been taken for granted as right and true. Unfortunately, America has not always been at the vanguard of this process, though it more times than not has been.

Well, then that is one more good reason I am not on the Supreme court. I would send it back to preserve the integrity of the institution until the country in further along, which will happen. As George Will said, opposition to gay marriage is dying. literally, because most opponents are over 65. Among 21-30 year olds, support is 80%. there is a sea change coming. Must be from watching Modern Family.

[Diehard Ute]

This is social science after all. You or Jarid have no more, or in fact, far less evidence than L.A. may produce.

I can't speak for Jarid, but I am not making an argument that children are better off either way. Frankly I think sexual orientation has nothing to do with good parents. I see lots of horrid heterosexual parents on a daily basis at work.

And in the end, this whole thread is not about parenting. It never should have been, that's a separate discussion from whether the government should tell you who you can and can't marry (of if being married means you're a better person or should pay less taxes)

[LA Ute]

I disagree LA. I think you're trying to create an argument about raising children as a way to stop something you personally don't like.

This is NOT about children, to keep brining it up is a bait and switch move IMO

I think children are part of the discussion. Justice Kennedy brought them up yesterday in the oral argument. That's the only reason I cited the Wall Street Journal op-ed. The main issue is what the definition of "marriage" ought to be, and whether a state may constitutionally limit governmentally-recognized marriage to traditional male-female unions. So I think we agree about that. My motives (which you seem to question) are straightforward.

[tooblue]

I can't speak for Jarid, but I am not making an argument that children are better off either way. Frankly I think sexual orientation has nothing to do with good parents. I see lots of horrid heterosexual parents on a daily basis at work.

And in the end, this whole thread is not about parenting. It never should have been, that's a separate discussion from whether the government should tell you who you can and can't marry (of if being married means you're a better person or should pay less taxes)

But, it is in part about parenting, by virtue of the fact issues of parenting are being raised in current supreme court arguments about same-sex marriage. So, in other words, it's more than L.A. who is broaching the subject of parenting. Sotomayor, Kennedy et al have broached the subject as early as yesterday. Therefore, L.A.'s line of argument is not far afield.

[concerned]

But, it is in part about parenting, by virtue of the fact issues of parenting are being raised in current supreme court arguments about same-sex marriage. So, in other words, it's more than L.A. who is broaching the subject of parenting. Sotomayor, Kennedy et al have broached the subject as early as yesterday. Therefore, L.A.'s line of argument is not far afield.

its not the justices who raised the parenting issues--it is the prop 8 defenders. The parenting issue is front and center of their argument as to why there is a rational state interest in denying marriage to gays.

[tooblue]

its not the justices who raised the parenting issues--it is the prop 8 defenders. The parenting issue is front and center of their argument as to why there is a rational state interest in denying marriage to gays.

I never suggested the issue of parenting was raised by the justices. But, based upon media reports they actively engaged the subject which means it may weigh heavily in their decision making. So, really, the issue would've been broached regardless of who raised it. At least, I hope it would—I would hope the justices entertain such judicious thinking.

[Diehard Ute]

its not the justices who raised the parenting issues--it is the prop 8 defenders. The parenting issue is front and center of their argument as to why there is a rational state interest in denying marriage to gays.

Which is silly. If that's the case is California going to start taking custody of children from single parent homes as that's not ideal? Or from homes with 9 kids and parents who can't afford 9 kids?

[SeattleUte]

Abraham Lincoln was downright evil?

He was at times, including when he opposed immediately freeing the slaves. You have never been evil?

[LA Ute]

its not the justices who raised the parenting issues--it is the prop 8 defenders. The parenting issue is front and center of their argument as to why there is a rational state interest in denying marriage to gays.

I'll try to find a transcript of justice Kennedy's remarks on this. He was citing the respondent side's briefs.

Having said that, I think the core issue is what the Constitution says.

[SeattleUte]

Well, then that is one more good reason I am not on the Supreme court. I would send it back to preserve the integrity of the institution until the country in further along, which will happen. As George Will said, opposition to gay marriage is dying. literally, because most opponents are over 65. Among 21-30 year olds, support is 80%. there is a sea change coming. Must be from watching Modern Family.

I caught the end of an exchange this morning on NPR, I think it was from the argument (which I haven't listened to). A questioner asked, "WHEN did the right to marry among same sex occur?" The answer (I think it was Ted Olson): "When we as a people came to realize that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, not a choice." (I'm paraphrasing.) I think that educated people broadly agree with this consensus. This issue really has to give pause to any purported "strict constructionist". But I've observed that strict construction often is employed as a means to a judicial activist end.

[Rocker Ute]

He was at times, including when he opposed immediately freeing the slaves. You have never been evil?

Only on message boards.

'Downright evil' is a strong term. By your standard all people are downright evil.

That statement also doesn't take into context the knowledge and prevailing beliefs and evidences at the time. Ways you think about things held to the same standard in the future may just label you as downright evil. Unfortunately we are all bound to the knowledge of our time.

[UtahDan]

I caught the end of an exchange this morning on NPR, I think it was from the argument (which I haven't listened to). A questioner asked, "WHEN did the right to marry among same sex occur?" The answer (I think it was Ted Olson): "When we as a people came to realize that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, not a choice." (I'm paraphrasing.) I think that educated people broadly agree with this consensus. This issue really has to give pause to any purported "strict constructionist". But I've observed that strict construction often is employed as a means to a judicial activist end.

When did the right to interracial marriage arise? When did the right to have homosexual sex arise? When did the right to bear arms or the right to a jury trial (in certain cases) arise? I'd like to see the science that was relied upon when those things came into being.

[LA Ute]

I think that educated people broadly agree with this consensus.

387

[Scratch]

It's not too early. Nine states provide gays a right to marry. I live in one of them. The world has not come to an end.


Is this the level of review that you apply to all political issues?

Also, I'm not sure if the information that we have gathered from nine states in the past 8 years (Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage 8 years ago) is enough to definitively ascertain what the impact will be. There are arguments to be made in support of your position, but the "we already know there are no negative consequences based on the social experiments that have already occurred" is not one of them.

[SeattleUte]

Only on message boards.

'Downright evil' is a strong term. By your standard all people are downright evil.

That statement also doesn't take into context the knowledge and prevailing beliefs and evidences at the time. Ways you think about things held to the same standard in the future may just label you as downright evil. Unfortunately we are all bound to the knowledge of our time.

I believe in absolute morality. Good and evil doesn't change with the times. However, we are lucky to have been born at a time and place extremely unique in the arc of human existence and history, in which a self-defined people seem continuously (albeit in a meandering and one step back two forwad sort of way) to be moving in the direction of figuring out good and evil. If we are here for a purpose, I think it's to learn tolerance and even love for those who differ from us in immutable ways. Notably, we tend to make progress in this fundamental aspect of morality with increased education. (As I've noted, the process started when Spinoza and others started a process of Biblical exegesis and to exress skepticism about the Bible's fantastic elements.)

I also hold those who claim to talk to God to a high standard. Considering what I consider to be our purpose for being here on earth, if you make such claims, you'd damn well get civil liberties right, practically before anybody else does, not among the last to figure out this crucial aspect of good and evil. Contrast LDS founders and past leaders general authorities with the uber-enlightened figures of our history like Paine and Thoroeau, who wrote and spoke about race, women, the environment, etc., in a timeless way, like they were the best of our age. That is what I would expect of my religious leaders, especially those who claimed "modern revelation".

[Rocker Ute]

I believe in absolute morality. Good and evil doesn't change with the times. However, we are lucky to have been born at a time and place extremely unique in the arc arc of human existence and history, in which a self-defined people seem continuously (albeit in a meandering and one step back two forwad sort of way) to be moving in the direction of figuring out good and evil. If we are here for a purpose, I think it's to learn tolerance and even love for those who differ from us in immutable ways. Notably, we tend to make progress in this fundamental aspect of morality with increased education. (As I've noted, the process started when Spinoza and others started a process of Biblical exegesis and to exress skepticism about the Bible's fantastic elements.)

I also hold those who claim to talk to God to a high standard. Considering what I consider to be our purpose for being here on earth, if you make such claims, you'd damn well get civil liberties right, practically before anybody else does, not among the last to figure out good and evil. Contrast LDS founders and past leaders general authorities with the uber-enlightened figures of our history like Paine and Thoroeau, who wrote and spoke about race, women, the environment, etc., in a timeless way, like they were the best of our age. That is what I would expect of my religious leaders, especially those who claimed "modern revelation".

Abraham Lincoln claimed modern revelation?

[SeattleUte]

LA, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice even the Pope disagrees with you.

[SeattleUte]

Abraham Lincoln claimed modern revelation?

In the second paragraph I was responding to your subtext, not your text.

As for Lincoln, Thoreau and Paine figured out what was wrong with slavery, why not him? Probably because ambition clouded his judgment.

[Scratch]

I also hold those who claim to talk to God to a high standard. Considering what I consider to be our purpose for being here on earth, if you make such claims, you'd damn well get civil liberties right, practically before anybody else does, not among the last to figure out good and evil. Contrast LDS founders and past leaders general authorities with the uber-enlightened figures of our history like Paine and Thoroeau, who wrote and spoke about race, women, the environment, etc., in a timeless way, like they were the best of our age. That is what I would expect of my religious leaders, especially those who claimed "modern revelation".

Why the assumption that God is concerned about social justice? We all know that bad things happen to good people, and God doesn't prevent that. Why couldn't the same thing apply to social justice? I believe that a necessary part of what I believe in is that *crap* happens, and that we need crap to happen for the divine plan that I believe in to be fulfilled. I also believe in a God who isn't a micro-manager. Even if I agree with your concept of morality consistently evolving to an absolute truth, in my view that doesn't mean that someone who speaks for God is going to nail that absolute morality every time.

[LA Ute]

LA, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice even the Pope disagrees with you.

I don't. It appears that sexual orientation is a continuum -- for some, no choice, for others, a choice; for some it's a reaction to a traumatic event. I don't know that there are enough data to know how people are distributed on that continuum but I am inclined to think that for the great majority it is not a choice.

[Two Utes]

It's too bad this is even an issue for the Court. If humans were enlightened enough, gay marriage would have never been against the law in the first place. After all, who really cares if two consenting adults of the same sex want to get married?

Because we are not enlightened, we are forced to create a constitutional issue out of it which creates an utter cluster fuck (if a consenting adult has a constitutional right to marry who they choose why can't a consenting adult marry his direct sibling or parent?)

Take religion out of the debate and no one gives a shit about two gay men marrying each other.

[Dawminator]

I am pretty tired of this debate. One side expresses an opinion and the other says they are downright evil (the aforementioned phrase applies at least in part to both sides BTW). If America wants gay marriage then give it to them.

As a libertarian I have a hard time understanding why government cares about marriage at all. Taxes? If that's it that has got to be the most piss poor excuse to have a hand in the most important decision that most of us will make while we are here. To justify government involvement, regulation, and in part causing the problems we now face with this divisive argument just to raise a little tax revenue is downright pathetic.

(Warning anecdotal evidence time!) I talked to a friend not to long ago and proposed the common solution of getting the government out of marriage and giving anybody who wants a civil union the right to have one. Gay or straight. That would be equal protection. But she didn't like the idea because that means gay people couldn't say they were married. No matter how hard I tried to explain that of course they could (why does the government have to give us the okay before we can say we are married?) she just didn't get it. It wasn't until later that I learned she hates conservatives and wants to have same sex marriage on the books almost as if it were a punishment to the right. On the flip side of the coin, there are many social conservatives who wouldn't even favor civil unions because it's too close to marriage.

No one wants to compromise. There are very simple solutions. We are too divided to see them. I think it was SU who commented earlier about looking back at our country and seeing moments like this that made us great. I disagree. Looking back we will look at moments like this and realize why our system failed.

[SeattleUte]

Why the assumption that God is concerned about social justice? We all know that bad things happen to good people, and God doesn't prevent that. Why couldn't the same thing apply to social justice? I believe that a necessary part of what I believe in is that *crap* happens, and that we need crap to happen for the divine plan that I believe in to be fulfilled. I also believe in a God who isn't a micro-manager. Even if I agree with your concept of morality consistently evolving to an absolute truth, in my view that doesn't mean that someone who speaks for God is going to nail that absolute morality every time.

You've well stated your belief and I'm not going to say what you say isn't true. (I never attack a sincere expression of belief.)

With the benefit of historical perspective I believe that Mormonism arose and took root -- predictably in retrospect -- at a time and place where there were strong social and artistic movements (most prominently the Second Great Awakening and the Romantic Age) in reaction to the Enlightenment age that spawned our country and the inexorable modernism current. We all or most of us need even long for mystery, and actually there is plenty of it even in the strictly observable cosmos. You could call Mormonism the Islam of the New World in the sense that it started in the sticks, was founded by a charismatic leader who following a "first vision" brought forth a sacred book as contemporary revelation, and reacted to similar materialist values as did Islam. They also resemble one another in a more rural, Old Testament perspective and in many of their "comandments". As time has passed, and Mormonism has succeeded and even flourished in many ways -- there are many aspects of its message and culture that have natural appeal to many people, for better or worse, after all -- Mormonism has increasingly become the standard bearer for opposition to social progress. This is as true for its unique magic world view as sexual morality, gender, and race issues, and of course these positions are very attractive to many people including their more evil as well as virtuous selves. Meanwhile, the truly interesting and creative (and perhaps somewhat evil) Mormon founders are gone, and replaced by milquetoast bureaucrats whose primary preoccupation is preservation of the brand and the institution. Like Harold Bloom, I prefer the founders. Regardless, my rejection of Mormonism was more about its values than the nonsense or derivitive character of its abstract theology.

[SeattleUte]

Take religion out of the debate and no one gives a shit about two gay men marrying each other.

:clap:

[LA Ute]

Take religion out of the debate and no one gives a shit about two gay men marrying each other.

Right. Let everyone have a civil union and let private organizations (churches among them) "solemnize" the union. That's the law in Guatemala, for example, and probably many other countries. This way churches would no longer have to worry about interference in their marriage-related religious practices.

[Rocker Ute]

In the second paragraph I was responding to your subtext, not your text.

As for Lincoln, Thoreau and Paine figured out what was wrong with slavery, why not him? Probably because ambition clouded his judgment.

My subtext was actually in reference to Lincoln and his views of black people at the time. While he obviously was visionary in the desire to abolish slavery, he also was bound to the faulty knowledge of his time, and was not an advocate for full privileges for black people even after being released from slavery.

Two steps forward and one step back. I don't believe Lincoln was a downright evil man. As for religious men, that is another discussion altogether that I'm not particularly interested or available to discuss today. Maybe another time.

[concerned]

Right. Let everyone have a civil union and let private organizations (churches among them) "solemnize" the union. That's the law in Guatemala, for example, and probably many other countries. This way churches would no longer have to worry about interference in their marriage-related religious practices.

Why do they worry now, anymore than they worry about civil marriages now? Are you saying the LDS Church will be required to perform gay marriages? Cant you solemnize a civil marriage just as well as a civil union?

[LA Ute]

Why do they worry now, anymore than they worry about civil marriages now? Are you saying the LDS Church will be required to perform gay marriages? Cant you solemnize a civil marriage just as well?

I am worried about any church of good will (including my own) being marginalized. More later.

[SeattleUte]

I am worried about any church of good will (including my own) being marginalized. More later.

What is a "church of good will"?

[Pheidippides]

I am worried about any church of good will (including my own) being marginalized. More later.

The church has marginalized itself already. Do you know why I changed my views on this issue, and why my wife did? It was directly because of the church's involvement in Prop 8. After being forced to face the issue, after listening to nothing but the church's arguments, I couldn't find a single compelling reason why gay marriage is wrong. The nice flowery language and arguments about what is best for children are a red herring - the real reason the church offers, when stripped to its core, is "because God says so." Which is an argument they and others have fallen on far too much over the past two centuries. Our church lost all credibility on this issue in the 1850s, although it took us until 1904 and 1978 to realize it.

Frankly, the entire debate is little more than an academic exercise at this point in my opinion. Wrong or right, gay marriage opponents have lost. It might take two months or it might take two years, the change since as late 2010 has been astounding. They're queer, they're here, get used to it. And in the meantime, maybe we can finally get back to learning what Jesus actually did say?

<snark not intended as a personal affront to LA Ute, who I like>

[SeattleUte]

As for religious men, that is another discussion altogether that I'm not particularly interested or available to discuss today. Maybe another time.

I think we agree about Lincoln. As for religious men, suit yourself. I'm only trying to help.

[DU Ute]

I think there is a great solution for all those people who are worried about how children will be affected by marriage equality. We let gay couples marry, but we cap it. We let gay coupes adopt and once every child is in a 2 parent home, we cut the gays off. Since there aren't enough people stepping up to give children the "ideal" situation of a father and mother, we give the rest of them a chance to at least have a 2 parent home. Problem solved.

[DU Ute]

The church has marginalized itself already.
Our church lost all credibility on this issue in the 1850s.

Quotes like these make it hard to argue that marriage between one man and one woman is some sort of everlasting ideal and that gay marriage will lead to the downfall of civilized society. It sounds like monogamy was once held in similar regard:

"It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome...was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her."
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202


"Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious."
- The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128


"...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people."
- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227


"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..."
- The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862


"This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,..."
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195


"We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations."
- Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291


"I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22


"Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. "
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262

[LA Ute]

What is a "church of good will"?

I don't care if jihadist Muslim sects are marginalized.

[Solon]

Quotes like these make it hard to argue that marriage between one man and one woman is some sort of everlasting ideal and that gay marriage will lead to the downfall of civilized society. It sounds like monogamy was once held in similar regard:

"It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome...was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her."
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202


"Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious."
- The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128


"...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people."
- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227


"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..."
- The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862


"This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,..."
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195


"We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations."
- Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291


"I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22


"Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. "
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262

Great stuff. Did you cull these yourself out of JD?
These will come in handy when my tea-party uncle tries to tell me that Rome's acceptance of homosexuality caused it to decline and fall (to which I reply that Rome never really did accept homosexuality; he's thinking of the Greeks and even then he's oversimplifying).

[LA Ute]

The church has marginalized itself already.

I'm not talking about that kind of marginalization. I'm talking about the marginalization that goes with being a church that in our day and age, still teaches interracial marriage is wrong in the sight of God. Such a church and its ministers would be pariahs. It's not hard to understand why believing Mormons would be dismayed to see the church become a pariah, although that might happen anyway.


<snark not intended as a personal affront to LA Ute, who I like>

It's "whom," I believe. Donuthole isn't here, so someone's got to uphold standards!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I believe in absolute morality. Good and evil doesn't change with the times. However, we are lucky to have been born at a time and place extremely unique in the arc of human existence and history, in which a self-defined people seem continuously (albeit in a meandering and one step back two forwad sort of way) to be moving in the direction of figuring out good and evil. If we are here for a purpose, I think it's to learn tolerance and even love for those who differ from us in immutable ways. Notably, we tend to make progress in this fundamental aspect of morality with increased education. (As I've noted, the process started when Spinoza and others started a process of Biblical exegesis and to exress skepticism about the Bible's fantastic elements.)

I also hold those who claim to talk to God to a high standard. Considering what I consider to be our purpose for being here on earth, if you make such claims, you'd damn well get civil liberties right, practically before anybody else does, not among the last to figure out this crucial aspect of good and evil. Contrast LDS founders and past leaders general authorities with the uber-enlightened figures of our history like Paine and Thoroeau, who wrote and spoke about race, women, the environment, etc., in a timeless way, like they were the best of our age. That is what I would expect of my religious leaders, especially those who claimed "modern revelation".

Well said, SU.

[Pheidippides]

I'm not talking about that kind of marginalization. I'm talking about the marginalization that goes with being a church that in our day and age, still teaches interracial marriage is wrong in the sight of God. Such a church and its ministers would be pariahs. It's not hard to understand why believing Mormons would be dismayed to see the church become a pariah, although that might happen anyway.



It's "whom," I believe. Donuthole isn't here, so someone's got to uphold standards!

You don't think we got our share of pariahdom from prop 8 already?

Also, as a descriptive and not a prescriptive grammarian, it will be a cold day in hell when I use a word so impersonal as whom about a friend. Correctness be damned.

[LA Ute]

You don't think we got our share of pariahdom from prop 8 already?

It could be much worse.

[concerned]

I'm not talking about that kind of marginalization. I'm talking about the marginalization that goes with being a church that in our day and age, still teaches interracial marriage is wrong in the sight of God. Such a church and its ministers would be pariahs. It's not hard to understand why believing Mormons would be dismayed to see the church become a pariah, although that might happen anyway.


It's "whom," I believe. Donuthole isn't here, so someone's got to uphold standards!

But certainly any church's fear of marginalization or of being on the other side of popular sentiment cannot be a legitimate or practical consideration in determining whether gays have a right to marry or not.

The Catholic church and many others will be marginalized at least as much. so it is not like polygamy or denying blacks the priesthood, where the church was on an island, or even your example, denying interracial marriage.

[LA Ute]

But certainly any church's fear of marginalization or of being on the other side of popular sentiment cannot be a legitimate or practical consideration in determining whether gays have a right to marry or not.

No, it can't. That's a personal worry and hope for me, on behalf of religious folks generally.

EDIT: And I should add that what I am talking about is a discussion that needs to take place in "the public square," not in court.

[Pheidippides]

It could be much worse.

True. But nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[SeattleUte]

No, it can't. That's a personal worry and hope for me, on behalf of religious folks generally.

EDIT: And I should add that what I am talking about is a discussion that needs to take place in "the public square," not in court.

Religion is society's aging parents.

[LA Ute]

Religion is society's aging parents.

Q. What is so ironic about atheists?
A. They’re always talking about God.

[SeattleUte]

Q. What is so ironic about atheists?
A. They’re always talking about God.

What it's like debating marriage equality with LAUte:


When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked him if — outside the marriage context — he could “think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens,” he could not. When Justice Elena Kagan asked him to describe “what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples” would occur if same-sex couples were allowed to marry, he failed to provide a single example. He also contended that “debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples” should be left to the states but could not explain why the Constitution would permit this kind of discrimination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/opinion/the-california-marriage-case.html?hp&amp;_r=0

[tooblue]

I believe in absolute morality. Good and evil doesn't change with the times. However, we are lucky to have been born at a time and place extremely unique in the arc of human existence and history, in which a self-defined people seem continuously (albeit in a meandering and one step back two forwad sort of way) to be moving in the direction of figuring out good and evil. If we are here for a purpose, I think it's to learn tolerance and even love for those who differ from us in immutable ways. Notably, we tend to make progress in this fundamental aspect of morality with increased education. (As I've noted, the process started when Spinoza and others started a process of Biblical exegesis and to exress skepticism about the Bible's fantastic elements.)

I also hold those who claim to talk to God to a high standard. Considering what I consider to be our purpose for being here on earth, if you make such claims, you'd damn well get civil liberties right, practically before anybody else does, not among the last to figure out this crucial aspect of good and evil. Contrast LDS founders and past leaders general authorities with the uber-enlightened figures of our history like Paine and Thoroeau, who wrote and spoke about race, women, the environment, etc., in a timeless way, like they were the best of our age. That is what I would expect of my religious leaders, especially those who claimed "modern revelation".

Modern revelation and enlightened caprice are two different things and serve two different purposes. One has the potential to render an idea universally accessible, in time and with permanence. The other is imbued with the potential to render an idea revolutionary—which is inherently immediate and impermanent.

Revolutions result in great change accompanied by great tumult. The tumult is fraught with peril, especially for the masses of souls who are in effect the grist that makes any and all transformation possible.

Are we mere matter and the raw material means to someone else’s end? Or, are we the idea—the mechanism of change itself? And any means to an end is ours to determine for ourselves, with time and with universally accepted permanence?

Enlightenment is inherently capricious. Revelation is inherently forseeable and knowable. Revelation is knowledge one already possesses. Conflating a philosopher with a revelator is an error of distinction. The merits of each may overlap but they are not equatable. Certainly not in the sense you wish to render them.

[LA Ute]

What it's like debating marriage equality with LAUte:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/opinion/the-california-marriage-case.html?hp&amp;_r=0

Now you're relying on an unsigned New York Times editorial for an account of what went on, instead of a transcript of the proceedings? The words "unintentional self-parody" come to mind....

By the way, a transcript is here:

http://documents.latimes.com/gay-marrrage-supreme-court-prop-8/?aslkasjdl

[SeattleUte]

Modern revelation and enlightened caprice are two different things and serve two different purposes. One has the potential to render an idea universally accessible, in time and with permanence. The other is imbued with the potential to render an idea revolutionary—which is inherently immediate and impermanent.

Revolutions result in great change accompanied by great tumult. The tumult is fraught with peril, especially for the masses of souls who are in effect the grist that makes any and all transformation possible.

Are we mere matter and the raw material means to someone else’s end? Or, are we the idea—the mechanism of change itself? And any means to an end is ours to determine for ourselves, with time and with universally accepted permanence?

Enlightenment is inherently capricious. Revelation is inherently forseeable and knowable. Revelation is knowledge one already possesses. Conflating a philosopher with a revelator is an error of distinction. The merits of each may overlap but they are not equatable. Certainly not in the sense you wish to render them.

Granted enlightenment is the arm of flesh at work, and revelation is divine. However, I would expect a genuine revelator who is not a charlatan to give me at least some enlightenement, and certainly not fight it at every turn. Also, the Enlightenment of which I speak was fundamentally an intellectual phenomenon and casting it as a "revolution" is misleading. Our "American Revolution" is a misnomer. The history of true revolutions is not really a history of progress; actually, more a history of genocide.

[Two Utes]

On a somewhat related note, this article is interesting:

http://living.msn.com/family-parenting/the-family-room-blog-post?post=111d418d-82b2-4b6a-9064-144d9eecd55d

I go to the gym in the morning. It's Sugar House, so there are a decent amount of gay men at the gym. I always wonder how it is ok that gay men dress and shower in the men's locker room with humans who they are physically attracted to. There is no way they would let me go shower and dress in the women's locker room. It would seem to me that there should be a third locker room option. Or, maybe that is one of the perks of being gay.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

388

389

[SeattleUte]

On a somewhat related note, this article is interesting:

http://living.msn.com/family-parenting/the-family-room-blog-post?post=111d418d-82b2-4b6a-9064-144d9eecd55d

I go to the gym in the morning. It's Sugar House, so there are a decent amount of gay men at the gym. I always wonder how it is ok that gay men dress and shower in the men's locker room with humans who they are physically attracted to. There is no way they would let me go shower and dress in the women's locker room. It would seem to me that there should be a third locker room option. Or, maybe that is one of the perks of being gay.

What about a fourth. I hate looking at naked men, especially dumpy naked men. It hurts my eyes and is one thing that keeps me away from gyms. Guys that sit around in the gym naked make me want to barf. Maybe there's something wrong with me.

[Scratch]

On a somewhat related note, this article is interesting:

http://living.msn.com/family-parenting/the-family-room-blog-post?post=111d418d-82b2-4b6a-9064-144d9eecd55d

I go to the gym in the morning. It's Sugar House, so there are a decent amount of gay men at the gym. I always wonder how it is ok that gay men dress and shower in the men's locker room with humans who they are physically attracted to. There is no way they would let me go shower and dress in the women's locker room. It would seem to me that there should be a third locker room option. Or, maybe that is one of the perks of being gay.

If you were going to do something along these lines, "humans who they are physically attracted to" couldn't possibly be the standard, because everyone in the third locker room would be potentially attracted to each other. You would need individualized locker rooms.

[tooblue]

Granted enlightenment is the arm of flesh at work, and revelation is divine. However, I would expect a genuine revelator who is not a charlatan to give me at least some enlightenement, and certainly not fight it at every turn. Also, the Enlightenment of which I speak was fundamentally an intellectual phenomenon and casting it as a "revolution" is misleading. Our "American Revolution" is a misnomer. The history of true revolutions is not really a history of progress; actually, more a history of genocide.

It is not misleading. It is accurate. Intellectual enlightenment is mental violence—a revolution in and of the mind—a change in paradigms. Tumult! Charlatan is a loaded term. It does little to support your premise. Furthermore, what may be considered enlightenment is subjective. Early leaders of the church certainly had some revolutionary ideas—highly enlightened ideas for which they were heavily persecuted. But, again, enlightenment and revelation are not the same thing.

[tooblue]

On a somewhat related note, this article is interesting:

http://living.msn.com/family-parenting/the-family-room-blog-post?post=111d418d-82b2-4b6a-9064-144d9eecd55d

I go to the gym in the morning. It's Sugar House, so there are a decent amount of gay men at the gym. I always wonder how it is ok that gay men dress and shower in the men's locker room with humans who they are physically attracted to. There is no way they would let me go shower and dress in the women's locker room. It would seem to me that there should be a third locker room option. Or, maybe that is one of the perks of being gay.

We share the same genes and body type. So, in a sense I have seen you naked. Take it from me. I don't think you have much to worry about.

[Rocker Ute]

On a somewhat related note, this article is interesting:

http://living.msn.com/family-parenting/the-family-room-blog-post?post=111d418d-82b2-4b6a-9064-144d9eecd55d

I go to the gym in the morning. It's Sugar House, so there are a decent amount of gay men at the gym. I always wonder how it is ok that gay men dress and shower in the men's locker room with humans who they are physically attracted to. There is no way they would let me go shower and dress in the women's locker room. It would seem to me that there should be a third locker room option. Or, maybe that is one of the perks of being gay.

It is like topless beaches in Europe. On paper it might seem awesome, but once you get there you are scarred for life. The bad far far far far far far outweighs the good.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

It is like topless beaches in Europe. On paper it might seem awesome, but once you get there you are scarred for life. The bad far far far far far far outweighs the good.

Not if you approach it like trail mix. If you pick out the M&Ms and ignore the nuts and fruits, it can be very enjoyable.

[LA Ute]

Apart from the emotion surrounding the issue, legally this is a complex problem facing the Justices. From Instapundit (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/165990/):


DOMA AND POTENTIAL FEDERALISM CHAOS: If the Supreme Court invalidates the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on states’ rights (federalism) grounds– as many have urged it to do (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-doma-infringes-on-states-rights/2013/03/20/fa845348-90bb-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html?wprss=rss_george-will)–there will be potential legal chaos, as same-sex married couples move from state-to-state.

If Congress doesn’t have the power to define “marriage” for purposes of federal statutes/benefits (which is what DOMA does), then leaving it solely to the States to define will result in a patchwork quilt effect, with a same-sex couple enjoying federal benefits (joint tax filing status; Social Security survivor’s benefits, etc.) while residing in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage (e.g., Massachusetts), but then losing those benefits if/when they move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage (e.g., Alabama).

I agree with Ed Whelan at NRO that this would be a very messy result (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/344220/federalism-ruling-against-doma-would-create-legal-chaos-ed-whelan).

This is the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in the Constitution that underlies the case:


Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Congress relied on this authority for its effort in DOMA to decide when a marriage in one state would be recognized in others. 86 senators voted for it. But there's no real precedent, so the Supremes need to figure out if the Constitutional language does authorize DOMA.

The key provisions of DOMA:


Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Section 3 is the one before the Supreme Court right now. Personally, I find the fact that same-sex couples don't get tax and survivors' benefits offensive. Bt the situation is what it is - same-sex marriage is legal in some states and not in others. The egg is scrambled.

This could indeed result in a mess. It's not easy. That's why they say hard cases make bad law.

[concerned]

Here is a interesting commentary from Ezra Klein on Justice Scalia's comment about disagreements among sociologists about the effects of being raised by same sex parents v. opposite sex parents.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/29/scalias-gay-adoption-claim-even-wronger-than-i-thought/?hpid=z2

[LA Ute]

Here is a interesting commentary from Ezra Klein on Justice Scalia's comment about disagreements among sociologists about the effects of being raised by same sex parents v. opposite sex parents.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/29/scalias-gay-adoption-claim-even-wronger-than-i-thought/?hpid=z2

The American Sociological Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, et al., are activist groups with a distinctly liberal bent. I think their views deserve as much skepticism as the NRA or Family Research Council on the right. They are certainly just as predictable. (So is Ezra Klein, for that matter.)

[concerned]

The American Sociological Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, et al., are activist groups with a distinctly liberal bent. I think their views deserve as much skepticism as the NRA or Family Research Council on the right. They are certainly just as predictable. (So is Ezra Klein, for that matter.)

Well, that is one response. Probably Scalia's too.

[LA Ute]

Well, that is one response. Probably Scalia's too.

I don't think their views should be dismissed. I just think they deserve healthy skepticism. All trade associations do. They all have agendas.

[concerned]

I don't think their views should be dismissed. I just think they deserve healthy skepticism. All trade associations do. They all have agendas.


but then who are the sociologists, pediatricians or others who disagree or dissent? is there healthy debate or no? (And I don't mean professionals like the Evergreen people).

[LA Ute]

but then who are the sociologists, pediatricians or others who disagree or dissent? is there healthy debate or no? (And I don't mean professionals like the Evergreen people).

I am not sure we are really disagreeing all that much. Think of the ABA. If you are a lawyer and don't really care much about the ABA's political activities, you don't participate. I let my ABA membership lapse. The AMA is the same way. Pediatricians (I know lots of them) might belong to the AAP, but they don't take part in or care about the group's political activities. It is the activists within each group who push various agendas. This means nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the agendas, just that a trade group's positions in political matters are not necessarily authoritative.