What's new
By:

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

just found this:

(Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Wednesday temporarily blocked an appeals court ruling that struck down Idaho's gay marriage ban.

The brief order issued by the court said that gay marriage supporters should file a response to the state's emergency request by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday. The court will then decide whether to issue a more permanent stay. In the meantime, gay marriages in Idaho will not be able to proceed.
Click to expand...

https://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/08/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSKCN0HX1GL20141008

So does this only apply to the Idaho ban? It's not clear to me...
 
Edgewriter said:
Protests, lawsuits, it's how they stay relevant. There has to be a big bad holding them down and it will be those churches that refuse to marry them.
Click to expand...

Protests require anger by a sizable segment of the populace, or they fizzle. When activists can't tap into people's anger, because the conditions that caused the anger have diminished, they go on to other things. The whole narrative built around "activists stirring things up" seems like a self-defense mechanism, allowing you to downplay the problems people face, the real pain they are in.

Lawsuit require some legal basis.

Edgewriter said:
I would hope that the first amendment would be adequate protection, but when people start calling a refusal to perform gay marriages discrimination and get public opinion behind them, things happen.
Click to expand...

The LDS church may indeed change policy in response to public pressure or outcry, but not because of a lawsuit.
 
One Brow said:
Such a case would be laughed out of court. To this day, no interracial couple has been able to sue to use a religious building, and it won't happen with gay couples, either.

Now, there may be suits regarding land/buildings owned by religious groups, but available for public use. In the law, these are very different things from religious buildings. Your temples will be safe havens for bigotry.
Click to expand...

As is your own mind. Very distateful and shameful comment One Brow.
 
Stoked said:
That is how I am reading it. Idaho only. Leads me to wonder if there is something specific about the Idaho case that the Justice wants to review. Wonder what he sees...
Click to expand...

the original ruling only applied to Nevada and Idaho and apparently Idaho's was the only appeal filed at this point

The order came minutes after Idaho on Wednesday filed an emergency request for an immediate stay. The state's request said that without a stay, state and county officials would have been required to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at 10 a.m. EDT.

Kennedy's order requested a response from the plaintiffs involved in Idaho's gay marriage lawsuit by the end of day Thursday.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada on Tuesday, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized same-sex marriage in 30 other states.
Click to expand...

LINK
 
maybe on Idaho's part this is simply a way to request for more time to get updated language on their forms or something?

we can only hope...

:-)
 
Stoked said:
As is your own mind. Very distateful and shameful comment One Brow.
Click to expand...


The truth is often distasteful and shameful to those who would prefer it otherwise. Denying gay marriages in temples, churches, cathedrals, etc., is institutionalized bigotry, and having a religious source does not alter that. Bigotry inspired by religious beliefs is still bigotry.
 
One Brow said:
The truth is often distasteful and shameful to those who would prefer it otherwise. Denying gay marriages in temples, churches, cathedrals, etc., is institutionalized bigotry, and having a religious source does not alter that. Bigotry inspired by religious beliefs is still bigotry.
Click to expand...

Passing your opinion off as truth does not make it so. No matter how much you wish it.

Keep on preaching your own form of bigotry. Cheers!
 
Stoked said:
Passing your opinion off as truth does not make it so. No matter how much you wish it.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's not my opinion that makes it bigotry, it's the differential treatment, which exists regardless of the opinions either of us hold.

Stoked said:
Keep on preaching your own form of bigotry. Cheers!
Click to expand...

What, no rubber/glue mention? Bring out the hard ammo!
 
One Brow said:
I agree. It's not my opinion that makes it bigotry, it's the differential treatment, which exists regardless of the opinions either of us hold.



What, no rubber/glue mention? Bring out the hard ammo!
Click to expand...

Your own form of hate isn't worth anything more.
 
To me he is clearly showing his own bigotry towards religion. You can try to word play and deflect all you want but that is what I see.

Nice attempt though GVC but no.
 
Stoked said:
This is why people are dimissive towards you.
Click to expand...
meh.

FWIW, OB is clearly stating his disapproval of institutionalized discrimination based on sexual preference/consensual sexual behavior. He's had many respectful discussions about religion in the past. That you're offended says much more about you than it says about him. Take a step back from your knee jerk reaction, and consider his point. Some people don't think "because God says so" is a legitimate/reasonable justification for discrimination.
 
One Brow said:
The truth is often distasteful and shameful to those who would prefer it otherwise. Denying gay marriages in temples, churches, cathedrals, etc., is institutionalized bigotry, and having a religious source does not alter that. Bigotry inspired by religious beliefs is still bigotry.
Click to expand...

And this type of talk is why I think we will see an ongoing slew of lawsuits after legalization of gay marriage. (again I am not against it. Gay couples getting married is none of my business.)
When the gay activist groups can't cry out against the states and government bans on their marriage rights, who will they have left to go after? You call the temples bastions of bigotry. Sounds like you already have the headlines ready for the ongoing fight to me.

You argue against religious reasons for what you call bigotry. There is where the activists will strike. Gay marriage in temples may not be their first attack, but what about our meeting houses? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but what about individual bishops? It may just take one misstep where one bishop allows the church buildings to be used for a kind of public purpose that gives lawyers a foothold.

All because of people like you who will call it Institutionalized Bigotry and because of a movement that needs a bad guy to fight. Suddenly instead of a force for good, for teaching good values, for helping others, providing disaster relief, Mormons will be portrayed in the media as a bastion of hate.

That's when our religious rights will be at risk.

Now it may seem crazy on the surface to some people but there are real threats here. I'm not saying I believe for sure that this will happen, but I find the possibilities frightening.
 
Last edited:
jazzman12 said:
I think gays are silly and quite often I don't care for how they dress but I'm for anything that rocks the old school establishment because as it turns out, I'm quite the rascal.
Click to expand...
 
Stoked said:
To me he is clearly showing his own bigotry towards religion. You can try to word play and deflect all you want but that is what I see.

Nice attempt though GVC but no.
Click to expand...

If you do not believe that the exclusion of gays constitutes bigotry then make that argument.

Religious groups are responsible for the bulk of the negative views and negative treatment towards homosexuals. It is religious people and groups that oppose same sex marriage. It is religious groups that refer to homosexuality as an abomination. What other group is more responsible for the mistreatment and exclusion of gays than religion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top