|
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. "Any surgery designed to change gender identification shall void any and all marriage licenses".
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
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. None of their other arguments are at all consistent: why would you expect them to give up and concede to logic here? They let elderly couples get married even though they can't possibly have children. They allow second marriages even though Jesus called it adultery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Looks that way. I'm a layman, so I could be radically wrong here, but it sounds like what they actually asked for was a stay pending the stay hearing tomorrow. Utah basically asked for a stay on the ruling that would apply from the point when it was granted until a ruling on the longer-term stay resulting from tomorrow's hearing. Basically, a mini-stay that was only designed to cover the period tomorrow morning when county offices would be open and issuing licenses prior to the ruling. The court's response seems to be that the rules don't contemplate anyone asking for that, so the only rules to apply are what would apply to the longer-term stay. The motion filed doesn't meet those conditions (and apparently doesn't even try, since the state's argument was that those conditions shouldn't apply), so the motion is denied. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
From that article, it also seems like the case for the long-term stay will also be heard by Judge Shelby. Does this make him more likely to deny the stay?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
If Shelby was going to issue a stay, he would have done it when the ruling came out. The 10th might have denied the stay on a technicality, but they'd have issued one if they really wanted to. This is a "gently caress you, stopping gays from getting married isn't with coming into the office on a weekend"
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
Shelby is not going to put a stay on his own ruling. Among other things, he will not rule that the state has a likelihood of success on the merits. The 10th Circuit could go either way. I have no idea what's going on in the motion for a stay that was denied. I'm pretty sure it was a ridiculous and desperate effort but I might be missing something. Motion posted:Inasmuch as this motion is not a motion for a stay pending appeal, but only a motion for stay pending the district court’s consideration of a motion to stay, this motion will not address the criteria for a stay set forth in 10th Cir. R. 8.1. Order posted:[Defendants] state that they do not address the 10th Cir. R. 8.1 criteria because they do not seek a stay pending appeal, but rather a stay pending the district court’s decision on their stay motion. But the appellate and local rules contemplate only a motion for stay pending appeal, and the requirements are clear. e: Couples are camping out to get licenses as soon as the office opens.   
UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
drat those are some folks who really want to get hitched. How are they a threat to the institution of marriage again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:drat those are some folks who really want to get hitched. How are they a threat to the institution of marriage again? Sitting out in the cold for things we really want is a Utah tradition! (also an American tradition, especially when the thing that is wanted is of such importance) Also, anecdotal experience time: I was at my LDS church meetinghouse Sunday/yesterday, and yeah they brought up gay marriage and the institution of the family being eroded and so forth. Fortunately, during one of the breaks between church meetings, I was talking with a couple I've known for years, and when I mentioned the gay marriage ruling, they told me in no uncertain terms that the decision was fantastic and that while the Church can have it's views, we shouldn't be in the business of legislating morality. And they were in charge of the building's library, so people coming in to drop off borrowed books and chalk got an earful of this family's pro-marriage equality rhetoric, which was wonderful. This is a relatively middle-aged (late 30s early 40s) couple that I never suspected would be pro-marriage equality. I don't think that they're the vanguard of a new pro-LGBT LDS Church, but looking at groups like Mormons Building Bridges, Circling the Wagons, and the few hundred Mormons who march in Pride parades, being mildly pro-LGBT (or at least taking the view that we shouldn't be legislating against it) is tiny, but growing movement. It seems to be taking a bit of a libertarian trend rather than a social justice trend, but progress is progress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Sitting out in the cold for things we really want is a Utah tradition! (also an American tradition, especially when the thing that is wanted is of such importance) While you had a positive experience and that's good, I would wager many are also having very negative experiences. My anecdotal experience was profoundly negative: my mormon sister and her even more orthodox husband went nuts yesterday about how god's laws are more important than man's laws you can't legislate people into liking same-sex marriage, etc etc. Was quite sad to see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
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. It already happened in the UK. During the report stage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, there was an amendment tabled by the Lib Dems and some of the more liberal Tories that would allow existing marriages to remain after a Gender Recognition Certificate was issued to one of the parties. The government of the day, who was consulting on civil partnerships at the time, said this: David Lammy, MP posted:Based on a fundamental principle, the Government stand by the requirement that marriage is for opposite-sex couples. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's proposal is well intentioned towards transgendered people who are together, but the Government's position is that such a possibility is remote, and in those circumstances, we believe that ending such a marriage and beginning afresh would not be unreasonable. On that basis, I am unable to accept the new clause. 151 couples thus had to annul their marriage because of it, including one couple I'm well acquainted with. It still hurts them to this day. And then when same-sex marriage was passed this summer, the Tories were insistent on including a clause that allows cis spouses to veto a trans person's gender recognition. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
Hawkeye posted:While you had a positive experience and that's good, I would wager many are also having very negative experiences. My anecdotal experience was profoundly negative: my mormon sister and her even more orthodox husband went nuts yesterday about how god's laws are more important than man's laws you can't legislate people into liking same-sex marriage, etc etc. Was quite sad to see. I was very much hoping to be in church this past Sunday to hear reactions, but I had an out-of-town guest so I didn't make it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Hawkeye posted:While you had a positive experience and that's good, I would wager many are also having very negative experiences. My anecdotal experience was profoundly negative: my mormon sister and her even more orthodox husband went nuts yesterday about how god's laws are more important than man's laws you can't legislate people into liking same-sex marriage, etc etc. Was quite sad to see. Yep. My sister-in-law is a Mormon and she won't even make eye contact with me and grouses whenever "my lifestyle" is exposed to her children. She once told me - with a hint of pride mind you - her family donated $10,000 to Prop 8 -- money well-spent  I don't imagine her taking this well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
I've always thought it was funny you can have a Judge put a stay on an unconstitutional law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
The 10th circuit has denied a stay on marriages in Utah until the appeal is heard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The 10th circuit has denied a stay on marriages in Utah until the appeal is heard. Your user name goes well with the news you bring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The 10th circuit has denied a stay on marriages in Utah until the appeal is heard. EDIT: Still haven't found a news source, but there's a lot of tweets confirming. Wooo! Thesoro fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Judge Shelby has refused to stay his ruling, so now the 10th Circut has to make an actual decision about whether or not to issue a stay. Despite what is being reported, their second rejection was on the same grounds as the first and was without prejudice so it's still up in the air what they will do from what I understand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
TinTower posted:And then when same-sex marriage was passed this summer, the Tories were insistent on including a clause that allows cis spouses to veto a trans person's gender recognition. Holy poo poo that's insane. Does the spouse have to actively object to the change, or do you have to get a signed permission slip saying "Here government my spouse says it's okay to change the gender marker on my IDs"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
A federal judge declared in a ruling that applies only to death certificates that Ohio's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. In his decision Monday, Judge Timothy Black ordered state officials to recognize such unions on death certificates. Although his ruling applies narrowly, his statements about Ohio's gay-marriage ban are sweeping and expected to incite further litigation challenging the law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
There's a sea of the usual lame comments on most of the news sites in Utah, but this one rocked my socks:quote:Whiskey_Tango 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:There's a sea of the usual lame comments on most of the news sites in Utah, but this one rocked my socks: indeedDude's alright in my book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
It's and all and I'm glad at least some people are willing to admit they were wrong, but seriously, "Utahn"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
made of bees posted:It's It's apparently either that or 'Utahan', which is even worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
made of bees posted:but seriously, "Utahn"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Judge rules request for a stay in Utah denied again, and any clerk who refuses licenses to a couple will be in contempt and could face charges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Yay! But expect a bunch of "persecuted martyrs" to face charges over the next several weeks. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
So can the polygamists marry both a woman and a man now, or do they have to pick one gender and stick with it?
The X-man cometh fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:So can the polygamists marry both a woman and a man now, or do they have to pick one gender and stick with it? Even straight men can't marry multiple wives now--they're just not going to jail for "spiritually" marrying multiple women while legally only having one spouse and consenaully cohabitating with a bunch of other ladies. From the article: quote:So, the effect is now that — if a man is married (to either a man or a woman) and he establishes additional cohabitating relationships (again, with either men or women or both), he and his cohabitating partners will not be subject to criminal prosecution and potential jail time for entering into those cohabitating relationships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Sorry, should have clarified that it was a joke. It's interesting that if you found a minister who was okay with it, you could have a same-sex legal marriage and an opposite-sex spiritual marriage, and be one big happy family. Of course, the article points out that people already do this everywhere, but only Mormons were being prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Heh, wasn't sure, but there's the Technical Answer if anyone wants it. From what I hear (and read in comments sections), a lot of Mormons in Utah are terrified that both gays and polygamists will demand that they be allowed to marry in Mormon temples. For people so obsessed with the US Constitution, you'd think they'd have an actual understanding of it. (Especially considering our history. As I've pointed out to many Mormons, nobody forced us to marry interracial couples in Mormon temples after the 1968 Loving decision, precisely because the government keeps its hands off of religious institutions.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:A federal judge declared in a ruling that applies only to death certificates that Ohio's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. In his decision Monday, Judge Timothy Black ordered state officials to recognize such unions on death certificates. Although his ruling applies narrowly, his statements about Ohio's gay-marriage ban are sweeping and expected to incite further litigation challenging the law. Ohio falls in '14. Book it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Ohio falls in '14. Book it. Hell, I can even see the arguements now. "It's legal to receive death benefits from a same sex spouse, why not life benefits? You're basically already marrying the people, it only just applies after one of them dies" In the bag
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Holy poo poo that's insane. Does the spouse have to actively object to the change, or do you have to get a signed permission slip saying "Here government my spouse says it's okay to change the gender marker on my IDs"? The latter; basically, what happens is that if you're married and apply to the gender recognition panel, you get an "interim" certificate, which is time-limited and effectively useless in anything but in marriage annulment proceedings. Your partner then has to sign a statutory declaration consenting to the continuation of the marriage. Even if your spouse is fully supportive with your transition (as was the case with my friend), it takes months to take effect. It's not unheard of for cis spouses to drag out annulment procedures as long as possible just to deny the issuance of the full GRC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
A federal judge dismissed the Governor but not the county clerk from the Virginia suit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
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 Can Mormons be excommunicated for "active homosexuality"? If so, would LDS couples getting gay-married run the risk of discovery and/or being ousted from the Church?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:A federal judge dismissed the Governor but not the county clerk from the Virginia suit. I'm not a legal expert. What does this exactly mean, and does this alter the chance for success at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
AGirlWonder posted:Can Mormons be excommunicated for "active homosexuality"? If so, would LDS couples getting gay-married run the risk of discovery and/or being ousted from the Church? In my experience most gay people in Utah comfortable enough with their relationship and partner to seek getting married do not have an ongoing relationship with the Church. They're either transplants or former mormons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'm not a legal expert. What does this exactly mean, and does this alter the chance for success at all? quote:the Virginia Governor lacks the requisite special relation to the enforcement of the challenged laws to be a proper defendant in this action...In contrast, both Roberts and Rainey have responsibility for Virginia’s marriage laws and are proper party defendants. Moreover, Harris and Duff have standing to assert a claim against Roberts, the Staunton Circuit Court Clerk, in his official capacity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
So if the judge rules in favor of same-sex marriage how does that work considering we have a constitutional amendment banning it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:So if the judge rules in favor of same-sex marriage how does that work considering we have a constitutional amendment banning it? Supremacy; state governments cannot pass any law, constitutional or not, that violates the amendments of the Constitution that have been incorporated to the states (i.e. the Fourteenth; it's like the original Walker ruling in Perry)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:43
|
|