After all the hate -- Virginia and Richard Loving, Prop 8, people killed, lives ruined -- what was it all for?

The only thing that I can say is...Hate Dies Hard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2022 06:36PM by anybody.

so-called !

But it's a step in the right direction.

The church will always be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

So too the country.

In fact, progress would at this point be movement a couple or three decades into the past.

What else can we call it?

The "Screw You Clarence Thomas Act"

The "Make a Fundie Cry Act"

The "Boyd Packer Memorial Act"

Voting for screw you Clarence Thomas. Not that I think he’d touch interracial marriage. His wife being white, but still fits.

He's already said that. In a concurring opinion in Dobbs, he wrote that the logic behind the overthrow of Roe implied similar rejections of the right to homosexual behavior, the right to contraception, and every other part of the "privacy" series of cases--with one exception: interracial marriage.

In other words, he wants to cut down the whole tree of jurisprudence except the single branch that forbids bans on interracial relationships. That twig is supposed to exist there, floating in air and yet strong enough to support the considerable weight of Clarence and dear little Ginni.

A great legal mind, that Clarence Thomas.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words, he wants to cut down the whole
> tree of jurisprudence except the single branch
> that forbids bans on interracial relationships.

I'm not a judge or a lawyer or even a legal secretary (any more) but still I have some dim glimmer of an idea that judges are duty-bound to be objective in their rulings.

I mean - that's a thing, right?

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I'm not a judge or a lawyer or even a legal
> secretary (any more) but still I have some dim
> glimmer of an idea that judges are duty-bound to
> be objective in their rulings.
>
> I mean - that's a thing, right?


You would think so, but they flat out lied on national television during their confirmation hearings.

That's the problem with religious fundamentalist zealots -- the ends justify the means.

Yes, they have a duty to be objective as well as to respect precedents. In reality, however, everyone's perspective on what is "objective" is itself subjective. That's why Congressional hearings are mandatory: they enable the senate to vet nominees to ensure that they evince a "judicial temperament" and respect for the ways the judiciary works.

The problem is that when a large portion of the senate conspires explicitly or implicitly with the White House to install candidates whose loyalty is to a political agenda rather than to the constitution and its precedential interpretation. So when the president announces that he will only nominate judges who have been approved by the Federalist Society or some other partisan body and a majority party in Congress confirm the elevation of those judges to the supreme court, the system has broken.

In the past the vast majority of both parties abided by the established procedures, thereby ensuring that the justices would all be fairly close to each other in judicial outlook and most decisions would be made with majorities if not consensuses. But over the last few decades that has changed, with almost all Republican senators abdicating their moral responsibility and voting to install partisans who are willing to lie to the Congress to achieve promotion and then disregard the constitution and its precedents.

That is probably the greatest ignominy, even greater than the party's role in the attempted coup of January 6th, for which today's GOP will go down in history.

maybe, bc some will surely say this is a compromise with evil; at the same time, others will agree that this legal change is desirable & needed

The actual signing ceremony was yesterday. ChurchCo had a representative there, though the article I saw neglected to identify who. The ceremony was a notable bookend in at least two respects.

It was ten years ago this month that Biden came out in favor of same-sex marriage, basically forcing then President Obama to do the same. This was almost certainly political theater, giving Obama cover to change his position, but it highlights how much the world has changed in just one decade. That was a deeply controversial move at the time.

Second, this is almost certainly the last signature Nancy Pelosi will attach to a major piece of legislation (i.e. one rating a signing ceremony). She signed the bill at the ceremony, attesting that it had been passed by the House.

Her very first speech when she was a new House member in 1987 was calling on then President Reagan to stop ignoring the AIDS crisis. so signing the Respect For Marriage Act is a fitting bookend to her career.

“The Arc of the Moral Universe is Long, But it Bends Toward Justice.”

The bill got 51 R votes between the House and the Senate, only one House member voting "Present" (why? The other three House members from Utah all voted YEA, after the endorsement by the LDS Church), Burgess Owens of Utah, so it was very bipartisan by today's standards, and is definitely a part of the arc toward justice IMHO.

Ah, found the LDS attendees: Jack Gerard, Seventy, head of LDS Public Affairs Dept, Republican Gordon Smith, former Area Seventy, former US Senator from Oregon, and Kyrsten Sinema, current US Senator from Arizona, former Mormon, instrumental in getting the bill amended to the Church's liking. SLTrib had a photo of her with the LDS representatives in attendance.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. :)

George Bernard Shaw said, "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

That's what I see happening both in the church and politically, when it comes to the younger generations.
They aren't going to wrestle with the pigs.

A lot of my younger friends just live together, sometimes they eventually get married, sometimes not.
Old people in government can call it whatever they want. They don't care.

My really young friends (the ones still in school) ALL know multiple kids who are gay or bi or non-binary.
That's just their normal peer group.
Old guys from church can call it whatever they want. They don't care.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens as time goes on.

> My really young friends (the ones still in school)
> ALL know multiple kids who are gay or bi or
> non-binary.
> That's just their normal peer group.

That generation doesn't really care about race either.

Reproduction, gender roles; lineage, race: those issues comprise the core of Mormonism--and young people in high school and college now are largely uninterested in such things.

The LDS church is out on a field fighting battles after everyone else went home.

Exactly.
The church can't hang onto young people.

If you want to keep people in the church, you need a bogeyman to make the outside world look scary.
Young people seem to realize the church IS the bogeyman.

"But Bishop, I really don't care whether the Methodists or the Baptists were closer to the truth in 1828."