Tomorrow is the day that SCOTUS will hear a marriage equality case that could make marriage equality for LGBT the law of the land.

I thought I would post some memorable videos produced that helped get us to this point.

Outside the COB:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5WtA3Zzf5Y

Prop 8 protest in Utah:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ_JLdFhW4o

Produced videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&playnext=1&list=PL3CA7F194CC17A5AF&feature=results_main

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0PNHFRgU&feature=relmfu

Wahls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Golden Girls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xxpd3Ye0zA

Even some videos from countries outside the USA helped!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ganRbr-WBiI



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2015 08:09PM by MJ.

May our SCOTUS stand for what we stand for; liberty, justice and equality for all.

wine country girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> May our SCOTUS stand for what we stand for;
> liberty, justice and equality for all.
**********************************************
What can I say but "AMEN!"

Huge day to be sure.

Thinkin' of our brother, flattopSF.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 12:03PM by Timothy.

Me too, Timothy. Me, too.

Thanks Timothy for reminding us of him today.

Good luck! It is long overdue. The US is backwards in many categories.

Only about 9.7% of the countries of the world have gay marriage. The USA would make it about 10%. I would hardly say that make the USA "backwards".

Then if you count countries that allow gay marriage in some jurisdictions, the USA would be in the 11% of countries that allow gay marriage in at least part of the country.

No, sorry, I do not see the claim of "backward" is valid. It seems the USA is leading most of the rest of the countries on this issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 03:18AM by MJ.

Fighting the fundies took a long time, in the "home of the free."

Many European countries have been years ahead of the US as far as acceptance. The laws are gradually catching up.

My cousin died of AIDS. He was a Mormon youth leader, left five children. Luckily his wife and youngest children didn't contract it.

When people are being supportive, why be so confrontational? (Lori... ) Most people here support human rights.

Only about 9.7% of the countries of the world have gay marriage. The USA would make it about 10%. I would hardly say that make the USA "backwards".

Then if you count countries that allow gay marriage in some jurisdictions, the USA would be in the 11% of countries that allow gay marriage in at least part of the country.

No, sorry, I do not see the claim of "backward" is valid. It seems the USA is leading most of the rest of the countries on this issue.

Yeah, you can exclude countries to manipulate it so the USA looks bad, but that really makes you look worse.

Then your limiting it to Europe shows how little you understand the issue.

Less than half of the European countries have gay marriage. Compare that to over 66% of USA states that have gay marriage. If you want to compare the USA to Europe, Europe, as a whole, lags behind the USA.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 07:14PM by MJ.

...and to be seen as equal is amazing, although I have to say...being gay here has never ever been an issue. In fact if you bring up any bigotry against gays in conversation the one speaking the bigotry will get the boot. It's been amazing to live where there has never been any fight for being gay. In that one respect it's been as free as I've ever felt. It will be great for the US to feel that way too.

So, you are saying that a "couple of years ago" NZ did discriminate against gays in regards to getting married, then go on to say that "being gay here has never ever been an issue".

Sorry either being gay was "never an issue" and gays could always marry, or it has been an issue in the past.

I believe he's saying that there's a difference between legislation and the social reality of being gay in a particular environment. While gays can get married in 36 states in the U.S., it's still pretty scary to be gay here (speaking from experience).

Now out and open in Utah and have seen no reason to fear.

But to claim there was never discrimination in NZ is simply not true, by the poster's own admission.

To claim there is no anti-gay bigotry in NZ would also not be true:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860634



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 07:09PM by MJ.

I've had plenty of reason to fear for being gay and have been verbally and physically attacked for it. It's not one or the other and it's not specific to the U.S...of course there's anti gay bigotry almost everywhere, whether it's legislated or not.

I have been abused and attacked for reasons other than being gay, but not for being gay, not even in Utah. All the Utah Mormons I know and work with are just fine with me being gay. Many have changed their minds on gay marriage because of me.

Perhaps it is because people do not sense any fear (thus a vulnerability) in me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 07:27PM by MJ.

It is very arrogant to suggest that you have not been attacked for your homosexuality because of your personal strength. I am happy that you have not had that experience but that does not make it universal or suggest anything about you other than that you are lucky. Race, location, appearance, gender nonconformity, dress, and socioeconomic status also play into it. Many people are still physically and verbally attacked, fired, disowned, raped, etc., for being gay. Yours is not a universal experience.

Because you say you live in fear because you are gay

I do not live in fear (which is different than personal strength).

It is a difference I see between you and me, which may suggest a possible reason we are treated different.

As I said above, not having fear is not the same as having personal strength. Many people show great personal strength in over coming their fears. That is not what I am doing or claiming for myself. Not have fear does not require personal strength. Pleas stop using the personal strength stawman.

It is well established in nature that fear is viewed as weakness. Bullies prey on the fearful.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 07:43PM by MJ.

No, before that Civil Unions were the norm for 3 decades.

Ah, now you are talking about a segregated institution as if it were a good thing. The idea that NZ had straight only marriages, and a second class inferior institution for gay is similar the segregated south in the USA.

Please do not try to make me think that holding gays to an inferior institution is anything but suppression of gays.

ANd NZ is far from free of bigots

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860634

Remember in May 2014 when Dallin Oaks went to NZ and castigated the members for not being strident enough in defeating pro-gay legislation?

Oak's remarks went over like a lead balloon. Obviously, he was not aware of the prevailing culture in NZ. What a moron!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2014/05/reflections-on-the-new-zealand-regional-broadcast-why-censorship-is-sometimes-necessary/

Religious organisations will be allowed to continue with their discrimination.
The church is anticipating this, hence their willingness to allow lgbt individuals more civil rights.
The church will basically continue with legalised apartheid.

SCOTUS is not supposed to set policy. Only interpret passed laws and how constitutional they are. So, I figure that they will kick the rulings back and say that State powers matter.

If the State wants to decide that gays can legally have a contract that accepts their union for all legal matters, taxes, estates, assets etc then so be it. But Marriage will still be defined as man and woman according to whatever the states pass.

I would hope that the SCOTUS would at least declare that what is legal in one state will need to be accepted as those unions move to a state that may see it as illegal. But since the union took place in another state then the state must accept it.

At the end of the day, the states want to collect taxes so they don't want to turn away people that can help fill their coffers.

Thanks MJ for keeping us informed.
I'm not sure what to think about the gay's situation? I just realized that one of my old missionary comps has come out of the closet. I just never put two and two together but He posted a picture hugging his spouse at disney world? And there is a photo of his marriage license as well.

I've come to see that when it's someone you know very well, it's hard too see it all as abomination or just what to think about the gay situation? I'm still processing this.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 12:17PM by poopstone.

I'm gay, and like Dan Savage says, it's okay to find gay sex "icky" or not "your cup of tea". For every straight person who finds it so, there's a gay person who finds straight sex the same. All of this nonsense is because states and people were denying rights and hurting people (not allowing people to visit spouses in hospitals, property rights, taxes, retirements, etc...). All we're saying is people need rights protected, ideas don't. There is no basis for religious people's ideas to deny rights and protections to people.

Now climbing off my soap box. I'm afraid that the Supreme court will indeed kick it back to the States. There are too many "Constitutionalist" on the court to not send it back. Even if they are liberal thinking, marriage laws were always up to states; UNTIL MORMONISM HAPPENED. The Edmunds Act was a federal law that overturned any state laws that approved polygamy. So if Gay Marriage does become the law of the land, It is indeed, the Mormons we have to thank for it.

>It is indeed, the Mormons we have to thank for it.

That would ironic. Even better if SCOTUS mentions Edmunds Act was used as a basis for a Federal mandated umbrella law allowing Sam Sex marriage.

Why stop there; they should make it polyandrous, polygyny and polygamous relations as rights. But that's already been done and tends not to work out so well.


Straight sex / homo sex compared to "icky"

I suppose not even a tiny majority could get a state to say it's ok for Man + Dog to be together. There are laws against bestiality of course. The only argument they have and than SICK and cruelty to animals is that animals are unable able to speak the human languages and express opinion about farmer Bob.

Hopefully, society won't be so horrible that animal + human relations become a right.

Oy! Congrats on bringing up a straw man argument so out of place even faux news would find it embarrassing.

Um, ok? First of all, the issue with bestiality isn't that it's 'icky' (although it is, obviously). People find all kinds of things icky that shouldn't be illegal. The issue is that animals can't consent and it would be animal abuse, and that it leads to disease. Laws against incest are not because incest is 'icky,' it's because often incest involves child abuse and genetic disorders in children. Laws are not supposed to be based on human emotion. But laws against gay marriage are--there are no such arguments against a marriage between two same-sex consenting adults.

Also, marriage is about legal rights, not people's feelings. So in order for man + dog to marry, dogs would first have to be elevated to the level of a human citizen, with all the rights therein--to work for money, to have insurance, etc. Dogs would also have to be accountable to laws and be sent to jail if they broke them.

Basically STRAW MAN

The lgbt community in America could be in for a shock when the ruling comes out in June.
The Mormon church, I feel, already knows the outcome.
They will be free to discriminate against lgbt for years to come.
And this legalised bigotry will also include religious people who own businesses.
The USA looks like they could be heading back to the dark days of religious apartheid, only this time lgbt will be the targeted group for the divisive treatment.
I hope I am wrong, but the indicators seem ominous.

I do not know any gay or lesbian that thinks the ruling will apply to religious institutions. So, if the ruling does not affect religious institutions, I doubt there will be many shocked gays and lesbians.

BTW, the informed know that gays and lesbians are fighting for CIVIL not RELIGIOUS recondition of marriages.