Also: Indiana, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/supreme-court-gay-marrige_n_5938854.html

[Edited to correct my factual error because I was going too fast!!!]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2014 10:35AM by tevai.

well it's about time them robes got back to work

i see you're on the case as well

namaste

Good.

tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also: Indiana, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Washington
> (state).
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/supreme-c
> ourt-gay-marrige_n_5938854.html


You mean Wisconsin, not Washington. It's been legal there since voters approved a legislative measure in 2012.

vman455 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tevai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also: Indiana, Oklahoma, Virginia, and
> Washington
> > (state).
>
> You mean Wisconsin, not Washington. It's been
> legal there since voters approved a legislative
> measure in 2012.

You are right...and I was typing too fast with too many distractions going on!!! Thank you for the correction, vman!!!

It's a great day! It's about time that utah got marriage equality. Everyone has the right to marry the person they love.

wow, awesome!

SECULARISTS!!!! Well this is man's law so why should the 'decent' yet tolerable Saints bother observing it?

now bow your heads

and repeat the 11th aof

as we listen to the magistrate

she said deseret



*brigham smirk*

And before the thread closes I gotta say.

What a boffo wrap-up this is to the one hundred and eighty sick or whatever conference!

Great day in Utah!

The Brethren are WRONG again! What a bunch of idiots!

ahhh that makes up for my crappy conference weekend!

We are awaiting the ruling from the Sixth circuit here in the Volunteer State. I am hoping there is a correlation between their not having issued a ruling yet and waiting to see if SCOTUS granted cert to the other districts. I'm sure that if the bans are ruled unconstitutional, the states will immediately seek a stay pending appeal. Maybe they wanted more time for a stay to be in effect.

Our church is working with some other churches and clergy in the area to immediately jump into action when (if) the ban is overturned. There might be a very small window of opportunity for legal gay marriages in the state. Several clergy members will be at the courthouse to either immediately marry couples who want to be married on the spot, or send them just down the street to our church building where we are ready to have a nice setup, flowers, a photographer and our incredible minister performing marriages. We hope to be able to spring into action within 1 hour and have budgeted for what we need. Keeping our fingers crossed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2014 11:12AM by NormaRae.

The move by the SC is interesting. They could have just held out cert on Utah et al., waiting for the more conservative 6th Circuit to contradict those cases. That would force the SC to take up the issue immediately.

Instead, they sent a message across 3 districts in 11 states in the West, mid-Atlantic and Mid-West to go ahead with gay marriages. The intent may be to send a message to the 6th to fall into line and accept the Windsor (2013) decision as the final word from the SC. If the 6th ignores that message and cites Baker v. MN (1972) as the precedent, then the SC will have to intervene.

The Court refused to hear Prop 8 on a technicality. They don't want to force marriage on the entire US all at once. Spreading it to 11 states with 52 million citizens in 1 day makes it tough to go back, though.

I'm also waiting with bated breath on this one in the Volunteer State. Praying someone will see sense and overturn the ban soon.

no mo lurker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm also waiting with bated breath on this one in
> the Volunteer State. Praying someone will see
> sense and overturn the ban soon.


you bater

master much?

I sure hope TSCC feels stupid for spending all that money trying to prevent SSM, just to have it legalized in their lovely Deseret. Hahahahahahaha!

they didn't earn the money by their labor, the whole thing is balanced on the backs of the laboring masses, whom they dis-respect almost hourly.

30 million down the crapper

And the prophet never saw that coming. What a shocker.

Cool! My sister can now marry her partner of 25 years!

Why do gay couples want to get married. Marriage is a religous ceramony. They could enter into a legal contract granting each other's power of attorney concerning each other affairs. This is just another dig at trying to destroy religion. And no, I am not a mormon, I just find it stupid for people who claim no faith to insist that others change their faith to accomodate them. Very sad day in the Land of the Free.

Let me guess, you believe in Fox News' war on Christmas too, right?

I went to Target last week and they already have up Christmas decorations for sale.

Fox News has it backwards (as usual): Christmas is waging war on the rest of the year. It already ate Thanksgiving, advanced on Halloween and soon it will have Labor Day.

Marriage is a legal status, not a religious one. People must get a permit from the state (not a religion) to marry.

No one cares what grand poo-bah you worship.

Religion is not involved in marriage (unless you choose to include it).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2014 12:03PM by eternal1.

If marriage were a purely religious ceremony, why then pray tell, have secular justices of the peace been able to marry people for years and years?

Yes, marriage can be a religious ceremony, but it is always a secular one. The marriage certificate is a legal contract. No one is forcing churches to marry gays in their churches.

Edited for grammar.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2014 12:05PM by Queen of Denial.

Queen of Denial Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If marriage were a purely religious ceremony, why
> then pray tell, have secular justices of the peace
> been able to marry people for years and years?
>
> Yes, marriage can be a religious ceremony, but it
> is always a secular one. The marriage certificate
> is a legal contract. No one is forcing churches to
> marry gays in their churches.
>
> Edited for grammar.


methinks her Majesty doth speak truth

marriage hath become a 3 party contract

in fact and de facto

oh yeah tommy

time for a new proclamation maybe

families r 4 ever

There are in fact religious gay people who want to marry including other churches who also support marriage equality. If you're against it, you're against it. But as for me and my house, I am celebrating today.

Your precious religion is not harmed one bit by gay marriage. Your straight marriage is also unharmed. Marriage has always been about property and money. Love and religion are a distant second and third. There are hundreds of legal benefits for married couples. A simple power of attorney would cover only a few. Turn off Faux News and read a book.

True. Heck. Traditional marriage and the family have been falling apart in the US long before gay marriage was even a serious reality. The gays didn't ruin the family. Parents putting money and their own interests over the well being of their children did.

If God objects to gay marriage, let him strike the Supreme Court down. Really. I don't think gay marriage is going to screw society up anymore than it's already is.

Sad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do gay couples want to get married. Marriage
> is a religous ceramony. They could enter into a
> legal contract granting each other's power of
> attorney concerning each other affairs. This is
> just another dig at trying to destroy religion.
> And no, I am not a mormon, I just find it stupid
> for people who claim no faith to insist that
> others change their faith to accomodate them.
> Very sad day in the Land of the Free.
*****************************************************
Marriage is NOT a "religous ceramony". It is a LEGAL affirmation of a partnership. Many weddings are non-religious.

So how come you think you're entitled to it but gay folks aren't?

but they should have the RIGHT to decide if they want to get married or not. They shouldn't have less rights than you do.

The only marriages effected by this is ones like MY MARRIAGE to my gay husband, who I have been "separated" from for 19 years. It is time that all people can choose to or not choose to marry those they are attracted to mentally, emotionally, psychologically, physically. It shouldn't matter who that person is as long as they are a consenting adult.

Do you know that churches cannot marry people in the US? Sure, lots of people get married in churches, but the piece of paper comes from the county courthouse.

When you die, your attorney sorts out your will and gives your spouse most of your stuff. When you divorce, a court divvies up your property. Your church can have your funeral and your clergyman can hold your hand during a divorce, but the legal issues are sorted out by the government, not the church.

You can get married with a churchman, but a church wedding that is not sanctioned by the government is just a commitment ceremony with no legal binding.

When will religious folks get out of defining marriage so that non-believers can have equal treatment under the law?

LOVE IT!!!

Next will be the polygamists lobbying for plural marriage to be legal. Now if polygamy becomes legal in Utah will the main stream church go back to openly practicing it? They still practice it in a spiritual sense but gave it up because of legal reasons.

so dead set against gay marriage. Wouldn't that be choice if polygamy became legal. I wonder how fast my sister would exit the lds church. She has always said she doesn't want to live in the CK because of polygamy. There is no way in HELL she would ever agree to that.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next will be the polygamists lobbying for plural
> marriage to be legal. Now if polygamy becomes
> legal in Utah will the main stream church go back
> to openly practicing it? They still practice it
> in a spiritual sense but gave it up because of
> legal reasons.

That was their excuse in the past, but they are too embarrassed by the doctrine now. They'll just ignore polygamy like they've done with all controversial doctrines of the past and say God, for whatever reason, doesn't want or need it practiced these days.