In which I lose my **** over the marriage thing in Utah

[Professor Smooth]

http://news.yahoo.com/utah-won-39-t-rec ... 24363.html

Long story short.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Utah.
State freaked out and asked the Supreme Court to stop this while they had a chance to appeal marriage equality.
Supreme Court put a hold on same-sex marriages pending the appeal
Utah announced that they will not recognize the marriages of the 1,300+ couples who got married in between same-sex marriage becoming legal and the Supreme Court putting a hold on it.

Now. Let me see if I have this right. The government can decide which legal marriages that have already happened they can choose not to recognize? That's something that can happen now? One day, you're married and enjoying all the responsibilities and privileges that come with being a legally married couple, and the next day you're...not? All of those rights (and responsibilities?) are just *poof* gone? With no say-so on the part of you or your partner?

People who fight against same-sex marriage (people who are destined to be on the same side of history as those who sent wave after wave of men to die for the right of richer men to be able to keep slightly different colored people as property) do so in the name of "protecting the sanctity of marriage". Obviously, at the government level, they can't do so for religious reasons, because that would just *completely* obliterate that whole "separation of church and state" thing. So that's pretty much all they've got, yeah? "Protect the sanctity of traditional marriage?" Because marriage is IMPORTANT, yeah? Marriage is a SACRED BOND shared between two loving (well, consenting) people? A UNION which NOTHING can sever until DEATH do you part (at the earliest).

Pardon me if I've missed something (it happens), but this particular "Defense of the sanctity of marriage" seems a lot like "Forcibly divorcing 2,600+ people without consent". What part of "sanctity" and "till death do you part" jives with "your marriages are no longer recognized"? I know that a certain level of cognitive dissonance is required to be both "anti-marriage equality" and "a worthwhile human being" but this?

People talk about a slippery slope? This is a greased slip-and-slide down the side of K2. The government can choose not to recognize you as married anymore? They did it for same-sex couples. How about interracial couples? ****, that's only been legal in all 50 states since 1967. Or how about inter-faith couples? Jews shouldn't be allowed to marry Christians, for God's sake! Or, hey! How about couples that aren't Christian at all? Traditional marriage is based on Christian principles, right? (no) So why should atheists, Buddhists, Jews, or ESPECIALLY Mormons have marriage right?

I mean, there have always been laws restricting *certain* kinds of marriages. You can't marry children, for example. Oh, wait, you certainly can! Plenty of girls get married by the time they're 15 or 16 in the US. But, you can't marry your first cousin, can you? Well, in 20 different states, that's perfectly legal.

****.

[Computron]

To be fair, what the Utah Governor's office said is that anything that had been done before with the new licenses (name changes and the like) will still be honored, but from this point on, until the Appellate Court rules, no further changes can be made.

I don't agree with it, I don't think it is particularly just, fair or wise, but it is a bit more nuanced than it may seem on the surface. I do think it is ripe for a legal challenge though. It's one thing to stay issuance of a license, it is another to create a potential 14th Amendment violation by having a three tier marriage system. Hetero licenses, same sex licenses prior to the stay, and same sex licenses after the stay. Practically speaking though, a new lawsuit wouldn't be resolved until the 10th circuit rules anyways.

That being said, the fact that Utah potentially has more marriage equality than Wisconsin is amusing to me. We have a long way to go, but the U.S. is extremely close to having a majority of its citizens in marriage equality states. Once that threshold hits then it is game over, hopefully, for the anti equality crowd.

[Professor Smooth]

To be fair, what the Utah Governor's office said is that anything that had been done before with the new licenses (name changes and the like) will still be honored, but from this point on, until the Appellate Court rules, no further changes can be made.

Obviously, I defer to your expertise in this matter. But the attached article made it seem like marriages approved before the SC got involved would not be recognized.

I happily withdraw my **** losing, if that's not the case.

[Computron]

To be fair, what the Utah Governor's office said is that anything that had been done before with the new licenses (name changes and the like) will still be honored, but from this point on, until the Appellate Court rules, no further changes can be made.

Obviously, I defer to your expertise in this matter. But the attached article made it seem like marriages approved before the SC got involved would not be recognized.

I happily withdraw my **** losing, if that's not the case.

The article left out some important details. Per the Governor's order to this agencies.

"Wherever individuals are in the process of availing themselves of state services related to same-sex marital status, that process is on hold and will stay exactly in that position until a final court decision is issued. For example, if a same-sex married couple previously changed their names on new drivers licenses, those licenses should not be revoked. If a same-sex couple seeks to change their names on drivers licenses now, the law does not allow the state agency to recognize the marriage therefore the new drivers licenses cannot be issued."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/0 ... 62488.html

However, the Federal Government just announced it will recognize all the marriages that have been performed.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01 ... -says?lite

Basically this is setting up for one giant Equal Rights challenge.

[Shanti418]

People who fight against same-sex marriage (people who are destined to be on the same side of history as those who sent wave after wave of men to die for the right of richer men to be able to keep slightly different colored people as property) do so in the name of "protecting the sanctity of marriage". Obviously, at the government level, they can't do so for religious reasons, because that would just *completely* obliterate that whole "separation of church and state" thing. So that's pretty much all they've got, yeah? "Protect the sanctity of traditional marriage?" Because marriage is IMPORTANT, yeah? Marriage is a SACRED BOND shared between two loving (well, consenting) people? A UNION which NOTHING can sever until DEATH do you part (at the earliest).

That's part of the problem: many of the largest "scientifically proven" facts against same sex marriage (Children prefer biological parents! Children need mothers/fathers! Gay marriage undermines marital fidelity! Gay marriage separates marriage from its procreative purposes! Gay marriage diminishes expectations of parental commitment!) are either A) already gone out the window because of the preponderance of divorce/blended families, non-marital cohabitors, and single parents or B) defending things that serve no secular good. You have to have a moralistic view of sexuality to say "Hey, you people are having sex without procreating, stop that!" or "Hey, you people are married and non-monogamous? Blasphemy!," other wise who really gives a s***. In sum, these are the reasons they put forth when they want a non-religious justification to be against same sex marriage, but these reasons are really just raging against something that died a long time ago: the demographic and social dominance of the nuclear family.

[Computron]

Honestly the moment interracial marriage was legalized, birth control pills became available, and no fault divorce hit the states it was all over for the old view of marriage as "For Procreation" only. Those three events each destroyed a key pillar of old societal views on marriage.

Interracial marriage promoted marrying "who" you love over who you "should" love.

Birth control eleminated procreation as a driving force.

No fault divorce meant single parent homes or re-married couples became common and while there are of course difficulties, kids survived.

Of course the real nail in this coffin is the fact that all the dire warnings about same sex marriage haven't come true in the other states that have enacted it. It's hard to say your defending traditional marriage when traditional marriage seems to be doing quite well thank you, in all those other states.

Edit

Honestly, I think a lot of it is closeted old males feeling scared they will suddenly become gay or something. Or admitting they actually are gay or bi and dooming their souls. That part really amuses me. Christ made it abundantly clear what he thought about rich people abusing the poor and yet didn't say a word about gay people. Yet nowadays people cling to their money thinking they'll be saved, all while cursing gay people.

[bumblemusprime]

Having lived in Utah for five years, I can offer a small cultural lens...

Utah is an extraordinarily conservative place. It is dedicated to the free market, and by consequence riddled with open pit mines, with some of the worst air quality in the USA from working steel mills. There's also a lot of business innovation that comes out of Salt Lake. In SLC the university and the downtown area nurse a counterculture.

The Mormon Church has been politically active in defense of conservative family ideas over the last forty years at least. In 1980 they rallied against the Equal Right Amendment, which started active discontent among the Church's more liberal members. (See: http://ordainwomen.org/ ) The Church rallied against the first major effort to legalize gay marriage in 2000, with politicizing from the pulpit in Alaska, Hawaii and California. Because the Church has almost no presence in places like Massachusetts, their next battle didn't come till Proposition 8, and that one got messy. It was the most divisive and ugly thing I've seen among my family and friends, as people were essentially told "It is the will of God that you stump for Prop 8." So many Mormons took up the cause and couldn't see why anyone wouldn't fight for "traditional marriage." Of course if your God told you differently--like "judge not, lest ye be not judged,"--you got crap all over church, even if you were a football (gridiron) star (see: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=4686916).

This point of view, though, is really not applicable to anyone non-Mormon becauuuuuse it relies on the idea that Mormon leaders are prophets speaking the word of God. Here is that sticking point. Look at all these awesome counterarguments you have about gay marriage. Go to Utah (barring SLC) and tell someone that it isn't bad for children, doesn't redefine anything and they will argue with you--because GOD SAID IT.

You can't solve that with argumentation. You simply can't convince someone that God is a different person through argumentation. Maybe you can create a chink in the armor, but it will take a full-blown existential crisis to change faith.

That said, trying to reconcile the presence of gay people in the world with a god that doesn't want them to be gay--THAT can instill said crisis. In people who are self-aware enough.

So yeah, this is crappy and not legit, but as far as some of the participants are concerned, this is God vs. the USA.

[Computron]

This point of view, though, is really not applicable to anyone non-Mormon becauuuuuse it relies on the idea that Mormon leaders are prophets speaking the word of God. Here is that sticking point. Look at all these awesome counterarguments you have about gay marriage. Go to Utah and tell someone that it isn't bad for children, doesn't redefine anything and they will argue with you--because GOD SAID IT.

You can't solve that with argumentation. You simply can't convince someone that God is a different person through argumentation. Maybe you can create a chink in the armor, but it will take a full-blown existential crisis to change faith.

Faith that hasn't been tempered by critical thinking is like brittle porcelain. It is perfectly unyielding until it suddenly isn't, and when it is broken, it lays shattered all over the place. Sometimes the only thing you can do is hope they meet a gay or lesbian person in their personal life and realize they aren't some monster intent on destroying their lives and that they have bills, mortgages, fears, hopes and dreams just like everyone else. I mention this because it seems like conservatives are against something until it affects them personally.

I'm against gay marriage! Oh wait, my son is gay? I'm for gay marriage! - See Ohio Senator Rob Portman & Dick Cheney

I'm against abortion. Oh wait, my daughter needs an abortion? Well that's different. - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/2 ... -Abortion#

I'm against providing subsidies for health care! Oh wait, that would affect my congressional staff? We'll we need subsidies! http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/j ... 97634.html

Maybe the same can be said for Mormons. If they ever left Utah I suppose.

[Yaya]

I mention this because it seems like conservatives are against something until it affects them personally.

I'm against gay marriage! Oh wait, my son is gay? I'm for gay marriage! - See Ohio Senator Rob Portman & Dick Cheney

I'm against abortion. Oh wait, my daughter needs an abortion? Well that's different. - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/2 ... -Abortion#

I'm against providing subsidies for health care! Oh wait, that would affect my congressional staff? We'll we need subsidies! http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/j ... 97634.html
.

This is very true. Many of the staunchest supporters of an idea tend to hold on to it only until it challenges them on a personal level, after which there is an about face. It's kind of like when you only get to really know someone truly when things aren't going their way. Suddenly, their true colors are exposed. Such it is with faith. For those who ascribe to a faith, to be tested in it is a very scary ordeal. Because how you handle that ordeal will reveal what you truly are. Did one believe in something because it was easy for them? Or did they believe in something because they felt it to be the truth?

[Kaylee]

Great discussion- very interesting