|
I wonder how long until the Mormon Church reverses its stance on something yet again and proclaims that it would love to host gay weddings in its temples and how all of God's children should be treated equally. I'm guessing 2-3 years.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
It's hard for there to be any real blowback when a bunch of states still have constitutional bans. I honestly think when the day comes that invalidates those bans, things aren't going to get that messy. Yes, there will be some people who will refuse to marry gay people, but in a few years after that the issue will fade away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
SG-83 posted:I wonder how long until the Mormon Church reverses its stance on something yet again and proclaims that it would love to host gay weddings in its temples and how all of God's children should be treated equally. I'm guessing 2-3 years. Unlikely. It wasn't until 1978 that the LDS church let black people hold priesthood and they still haven't officially recanted old teachings saying that black people are inherently more sinful than white people and cannot attain the highest level of heaven. If they're that slow on the uptake for racial equality, it's gonna be even longer before they accept LGBT people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Yeah, it'll be a couple of decades at least. Yknow what? Fine. When it comes, we'll revise our doctrine to understand that God has a place in His kingdom for all families. It'll be slow but it'll come. And maybe when we have gay folks doing the interior design in the temples, they'll look a lot classier and up to date.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Seeing Utah as blue on wikipedia just seems so...weird and amazing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's hard for there to be any real blowback when a bunch of states still have constitutional bans. I honestly think when the day comes that invalidates those bans, things aren't going to get that messy. Yes, there will be some people who will refuse to marry gay people, but in a few years after that the issue will fade away. A federal finding that a gay marriage prohibition is unconstitutional under federal law defeats state constitutional amendments requiring bans just the same as it does state-level legislation. The only thing that trumps a federal finding that gay marriage prohibitions are unconstitutional under federal law is an amendment to the US Constitution. EDIT: As a matter of fact, Utah's ban was implemented via state constitutional amendment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
I wonder if a bunch of red states will try to put together a constitutional convention for a federal marriage amendment (not that it would pass anyway; too many states are pro-gay marriage now). An amendment has never been passed via convention, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I wonder if a bunch of red states will try to put together a constitutional convention for a federal marriage amendment (not that it would pass anyway; too many states are pro-gay marriage now). An amendment has never been passed via convention, right? The last constitutional convention was the original one that wrote the constitution in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I wonder if a bunch of red states will try to put together a constitutional convention for a federal marriage amendment (not that it would pass anyway; too many states are pro-gay marriage now). An amendment has never been passed via convention, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
God drat it PA get your poo poo together, Utah beat you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I wonder if a bunch of red states will try to put together a constitutional convention for a federal marriage amendment (not that it would pass anyway; too many states are pro-gay marriage now). An amendment has never been passed via convention, right? The 21st was passed by state conventions. If you're talking about proposing amendments, that's never happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Just over a year ago, 6 states and DC had marriage equality. Now that number is 18. 12 states have gotten marriage equality since the 2012 presidential elections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Ahahahahahahahaha... As a fellow pro-marriage equality Mormon, heck yeah Sunday is going to be awesome. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Just over a year ago, 6 states and DC had marriage equality. Now that number is 18. It may take a few years, but seriously. By 2020 we'll probably have if not the whole country, at least most of it, where gay marriages will be legal. Things have gone so fast so quickly, and the momentum won't die down. Even when we thought it would, it hasn't (see the two states that legalized it this week).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
quiggy stardust posted:Unlikely. It wasn't until 1978 that the LDS church let black people hold priesthood and they still haven't officially recanted old teachings saying that black people are inherently more sinful than white people and cannot attain the highest level of heaven. If they're that slow on the uptake for racial equality, it's gonna be even longer before they accept LGBT people. In the last couple of weeks they actually outright acknowledged for the first time that those past teachings were incorrect and derived from bigotry, a surprising step. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darron-t-smith-phd/the-mormon-church-disavow_b_4440244.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
Is there any actual federal case law on whether same-sex marriages legally entered into can be retroactively voided by state law, or are people just hedging their bets that Article One, Section 10 applies? I mean, given that there's little that's actually concrete when it comes to Full Faith and Credit, which also seems an obvious thing, I'm not holding out hope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 10:23
|
|
|
Midelne posted:Lifetime Washington resident, was pleasantly surprised to see how smoothly the passing of our recent marriage equality bill went. One week the governor was giving a speech about how she had abruptly decided that marriage equality was an important issue, and it seemed like only a couple weeks later the signed bill is posted on her Facebook profile without any real hullabaloo. I lived in Seattle for 4.5 years, and northern CA almost as long. In my experience, the Seattle area is really the new Bay area in terms of social politics. SF is currently going as moderate as possible, which is admittedly still comparatively liberal to most places in the US, but kind've sucks relative to what it once was. As context, when I lived in SF public nudity was legal and I passed naked dudes regularly on my commute home through the Castro. All of that sort of "only in SF" activity is now illegal. (Symbolically enough one of the deciding votes against it was cast by the gay representative of the Castro district whose last name happens to be Weiner.) Meanwhile WA, OR, CO are all outpacing CA in every category for which progressives once lauded it. Except for managing to find a not absolutely terrible former-now-current governor previously elected in '78 whom the original Dead Kennedys sang against in singles such as "Kill the Poor." All of the aforementioned states contain significant conservative populations outside their respective urban centers, so claiming CO Springs etc. is like Denver is like saying Mountain View is nothing like SF. Sorry not to derail, but after living there half a decade as a lieberal gently caress I hate CA and SF: Rock on Seattle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
TheMammoth posted:I lived in Seattle for 4.5 years, and northern CA almost as long. In my experience, the Seattle area is really the new Bay area in terms of social politics. SF is currently going as moderate as possible, which is admittedly still comparatively liberal to most places in the US, but kind've sucks relative to what it once was. Yeah, Seattle just elected a literal Marxist to the city council.  Seattle has the rest of the country beat in the area the left-wing politics.Question: What do you guys think are the chances of a 14th Amendment equal protection case going to the Supreme Court in 2014? I have a strong feeling that sometime within the next two years the SCOTUS will declare same-sex marriage legal nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
Sevcik (Nevada) should have oral arguments in Appeals Court early next year. SCOTUS can grab a case whenever they like but there will be at least one case with nowhere left to go by the Fall conference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:As a fellow pro-marriage equality Mormon, heck yeah Sunday is going to be awesome. What are you guys going to do when you start getting checks in the offering plate from the joint accounts of gay married couples? Besides the heart attacks that elderly volunteer treasurers will have when they see a check from the account of "Adam and Steve Johnson", obviously 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:What are you guys going to do when you start getting checks in the offering plate from the joint accounts of gay married couples? Besides the heart attacks that elderly volunteer treasurers will have when they see a check from the account of "Adam and Steve Johnson", obviously There's no offering plate; we're supposed to send the bishop (who would be equivalent to a catholic deacon, I think? LDS Bishops have authority over only a single large congregation) a tithing paper in private, or otherwise just catch him and give him the envelope with the tithing slip when he's not in a meeting in church. Also, non-members can't donate directly to the church. However, unless you specifically ask to have your name taken off the records, it's still there no matter what you do, so you could still theoretically see your scenario, if one of the individuals in an LGBT relationship was baptized LDS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
I live in Utah and my in laws are super conservative mormons. I can't wait to hear them bitch and moan at the next christmas party and at church tomorrow. Hell, my wife's aunt was offended when two missionaries were riding a two person bike. I am glad that the ban was struck down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Edgar posted:I live in Utah and my in laws are super conservative mormons. I can't wait to hear them bitch and moan at the next christmas party and at church tomorrow. Hell, my wife's aunt was offended when two missionaries were riding a two person bike. I am glad that the ban was struck down. I live in Pennsylvania and we had Mormon missionaries visit our house this morning. The last time that happened was 2 years after we moved here in 1991. I like to think it wasn't a coincidence after yesterday's Utah ruling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:AP confirms licenses have started being issued in Utah. The Salt Lake county clerk ordered the courts to stay open late and marry anyone who showed up to be married. Party at the courthouse. Crowds of gay-marriage proponents showed up just to have fun and show support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
quote:
Covered extensively in the last few pages but my god. Can you imagine golfing with Scalia, you sink a putt and turn around like "how easy it is, indeed how inevitable. What's wrong Antonin? You appear to be on the ground."
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Covered extensively in the last few pages but my god. Can you imagine golfing with Scalia, you sink a putt and turn around like "how easy it is, indeed how inevitable. What's wrong Antonin? You appear to be on the ground." I'm giddy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Oh my god... I remember when we were joking about this last week, but I never imagined it would actually happen... I guess they're going to shut it down in a week or two. Grab your marriage while its hot!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Looks like Weber County will be the next Utah county to give out marriage licenses when it opens on Monday, after some confusion today. No news on any other counties, but thankfully, Weber and Salt Lake are the only two counties in Utah with any large number of LGBT folks. Thankfully meaning it's good that they're open, even if other counties aren't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Looks like Weber County will be the next Utah county to give out marriage licenses when it opens on Monday, after some confusion today. No news on any other counties, but thankfully, Weber and Salt Lake are the only two counties in Utah with any large number of LGBT folks. Thankfully meaning it's good that they're open, even if other counties aren't. Washington had a few today, apparently, so I assume they'll be open Monday. I heard on the local news a bit ago that Davis(?!) might be available, too, but I can't find online confirmation. What's the potential timeline and probability of a stay being granted? Will the lack of an AG have any effect on anything?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Not gonna lie, the idea of being a fly on the wall when Scalia got that story makes me feel like an 8-year-old on Christmas morning. I'm sure the rage caused one of his supporting bile sacks to rupture. They're probably repairing it as we speak. Gygaxian posted:Looks like Weber County will be the next Utah county to give out marriage licenses when it opens on Monday, after some confusion today. No news on any other counties, but thankfully, Weber and Salt Lake are the only two counties in Utah with any large number of LGBT folks. Thankfully meaning it's good that they're open, even if other counties aren't. I have to imagine Summit County (Park City) has a pretty decent population too. At the very least the only counties to vote against the ban were Summit and whatever county Moab is in, so I'd think they'd at least be cool with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
A friend of mine and his fiancé were actually the very first same-sex couple to get a marriage certificate in Utah. My Facebook feed the last day has been a huge party as everyone celebrates their wedding. They're the nicest dudes on the planet and it's been awesome and amazing. Being friends with a large community of liberal Mormons/Utahans is great. So many other people around here are upset about it, and it's nice to see all the support that it's been getting from even a lot of very active Mormons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
endolithic posted:Washington had a few today, apparently, so I assume they'll be open Monday. I heard on the local news a bit ago that Davis(?!) might be available, too, but I can't find online confirmation. From what I understand the timeline on the stay is that they have a hearing with the judge whom made the ruling at 9:00AM on Monday morning. It's pretty unlikely that he will stay his own ruling, so the state has already filed for a stay with the 10th circuit. Seeing how the 10th circuit, as noted in this thread, is a cesspool hardcore conservatives and libertarians, is pretty likely to issue a stay unless someone wants to make a jump onto the right side of history. I guess the mystery is how long it takes for the first judge to make his decision (hopefully he drags his feet a bit) and for the 10th circuit to take up the issue if he declines. The Weber office not opening was really tragic, but if there was a silver lining it was the optics of it. Both newscasts I saw tonight had it as their lead, and the imagery was really striking- KUTV featured an interview with a couple of sobbing children pleading for their parents be allowed to marry, and the crowd shots reflected the reality that LGBT folks are of every stripe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
MokBa posted:A friend of mine and his fiancé were actually the very first same-sex couple to get a marriage certificate in Utah. My Facebook feed the last day has been a huge party as everyone celebrates their wedding. They're the nicest dudes on the planet and it's been awesome and amazing. Being friends with a large community of liberal Mormons/Utahans is great. So many other people around here are upset about it, and it's nice to see all the support that it's been getting from even a lot of very active Mormons. It's actually even been getting attention and support from some liberal Mormon politicians; State Representative Brian King,a Mormon who represents the very LGBT-friendly Avenues district in Salt Lake City, wrote a Facebook post about his support for the decision. And the County Mayor Ben McAdams is an LGBT-friendly Mormon (he's the dude who kept trying to pass the statewide LGBT non-discrimination ordinances), so it's not like he'll try and stop the County Clerk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Indiana Court of Appeals rules that Indiana marriages are still valid even if one party transitions to another gender: http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2013/12/ind_decisions_c_2204.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
I just realized I have no idea what the general rule for that kind of thing is. Do most states with gay marriage bans still allow the marriage if one of the members transitioned into the same gender? As in, it's two dudes getting married but legally one of them is still considered female if he was born that way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:I just realized I have no idea what the general rule for that kind of thing is. Do most states with gay marriage bans still allow the marriage if one of the members transitioned into the same gender? As in, it's two dudes getting married but legally one of them is still considered female if he was born that way? The IN Court of Appeals cited Indiana's DOMA state law saying that a change of gender isn't noted in state law as invalidating a marriage since when it was originally made, it was between one man and one woman. They also noted that there is a child involved and invalidating the marriage could cause problems in terms of parental visitation and child support. Since the trial court ruled differently, it'll surely be appealed to the IN Supremes. I'm sure there is no general rule because marriage restrictions and the type vary from state to state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
The 10th circuit denied the emergency stay application, if my Breaking News headlines are correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:The 10th circuit denied the emergency stay application, if my Breaking News headlines are correct. Looks that way. http://fox13now.com/2013/12/22/10th-circuit-court-denies-utahs-emergency-motion-for-temporary-stay/ quote:SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert filed seeking an Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay following a federal judge’s ruling that struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, and on Sunday the United States Court of Appeals Tenth District denied the motion. http://localtvkstu.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/emergency-motion-to-stay-denied.pdf So they denied the stay because Utah asked for a stay pending 10th Circuit decision and not stay pending appeal which is the only way you can actually ask for a stay in Federal Court...I think? Plinkey fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:I just realized I have no idea what the general rule for that kind of thing is. Do most states with gay marriage bans still allow the marriage if one of the members transitioned into the same gender? As in, it's two dudes getting married but legally one of them is still considered female if he was born that way? This is an interesting "gotcha" to me, because either enemies of LGBT rights have to say "OK, you really count as the same gender of your partner now, hence transgender people are valid but your marriage is not", or vice versa. Either they have to "put up" with a loophole into same-sex marriage because they think gender reassignment doesn't count (but the couple doesn't have to care what opponents think anyway), or they "protect" traditional marriage by validating progressive gender concepts. Zero VGS fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
Zero VGS posted:This is an interesting "gotcha" to me, because either enemies of LGBT rights have to say "OK, you really count as the same gender of your partner now, hence transgender people are valid but your marriage is not", or vice versa. Either they have to "put up" with a loophole into same-sex marriage because they think gender reassignment doesn't count (but the couple doesn't have to care what opponents think anyway), or they "protect" traditional marriage by validating progressive gender concepts. That was precisely what I was thinking when I was turning it over in my head. Although I came to the conclusion that they would support whatever side hosed over the couple the most 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 03:17
|
|