RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage

Kiss your wedge issue good bye fellas.

You might recall conservatives fretting that a recognition of gay marriage could soon lead to legalizing polygamy and incest. Those concerns were typically scoffed at by liberals.

Associated Press :

• Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge's ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.
  
  U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

It's not for him, but his 'companions'.

This ruling has no connection to the theory that you had previously put forth.

If you thought it did, would that change your mind?

Why would I be changing my mind? And from what to what?

If the respective implication of both involves changing the parameters of the original format of marriage, then they correlate. I'm sure you have a victim complex, but not all issues relating to a given marriages antecedents revolve around your feelings of oppression.

...

Looks like you're just trying to fabricate a 'gotcha' moment like G-man attempted. The only thing that I put forth in my comment was that G-man's previous Carnac prediction that the gay marriage issue would be used to allow polygamy didn't pan out in the situation within the article he posted. If I thought that it had, then, naturally I would have an opposite view of what I posted. There's nothing there for you despite you trying to create something.

Looks like you're just trying to fabricate a 'gotcha' moment like G-man attempted.

I'm not trying to create anything. You've already alluded to skepticism towards the idea that changing the institution of marriage in one respect won't create precedent for changing it in another. Therefore, the mentality of your post is that it cannot be principally changed by such means. As such, I have doubts that the article would have held any relevance to you whatsoever.

Gay couples marry in Utah after judge overturns ban



SALT LAKE CITY - A federal judge struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban Friday in a decision that brings a nationwide shift toward allowing gay marriage to a conservative state where the Mormon church has long been against it.

The decision set off an immediate frenzy as the clerk in the state's most populous county began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples while state officials took steps to appeal the ruling and halt the process.

Cheers erupted as the mayor of Salt Lake City led one of the state's first gay wedding ceremonies in an office building about three miles from the headquarters of the Mormon church. Dozens of other couples were lined up to get marriage licenses.

Deputy Salt Lake County Clerk Dahnelle Burton-Lee said the district attorney authorized her office to begin issuing the licenses but she couldn't immediately say how many had been issued.
...

This ruling has no connection to the theory that you had previously put forth. The judge did not rule either bigamy nor polygamy legal. He just said that the state of Utah can't make people shacking up together who aren't married to each other illegal. You still can't be legally married to more than one person. Using the legalization of gay marriage doesn't seem to be a factor in this case as much as is just the right of the people to keep and overbearing government out of their private business.

Actually it seems where there's the most polygamy you also have the most anti-gay laws. Polygamists are more likely to be on your side with being against gays being married.

SALT LAKE CITY - Utah state lawyers have again turned to a Denver-based federal appeals court in their bid to put a stop to gay couples getting married, saying the state should not be required to abide by one judge's narrow view of a "new and fundamentally different definition of marriage."

About 700 gay couples have obtained wedding licenses since U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby on Friday declared Utah's gay marriage ban unconstitutional, but lawyers for the state are trying every legal avenue to halt the practice. Shelby on Monday denied their bid to temporarily stop gay marriage while the appeals process plays out, and they then quickly went to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Utah is the 18th state where gay couples can wed, and the sight of same-sex marriages occurring just a few miles from the headquarters of the Mormon church has provoked anger among the state's top leaders.

"Until the final word has been spoken by this Court or the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Utah's marriage laws, Utah should not be required to enforce Judge Shelby's view of a new and fundamentally different definition of marriage," the state said in a motion to the appeals court.

It is estimated that nearly two-thirds of Utah's 2.8 million residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Mormons dominate the state's legal and political circles. The Mormon church was also one of the leading forces behind California's short-lived ban on same-sex marriage.

The legal wrangling over the topic will likely continue for months. The 10th Circuit could rule as soon as Monday evening or Tuesday on whether to temporarily halt the weddings. But the same court likely will hear the full appeal of the case several months from now.

People began lining up Sunday night at the Salt Lake County clerk's office in the hopes of getting licenses amid the uncertainty of the pending ruling by Shelby. Couples then got married once every few minutes in the lobby to the sound of string music from a violin duet.

They anxiously eyed their cellphones for news on Shelby's decision, and a loud cheer erupted once word spread that he wouldn't be blocking weddings. "We feel equal!" one man shouted; his partner called it "this magic happening out of the clear blue."

Adam Blatter said he was in a panic to get married Monday morning before a judge could halt the issuance of licenses. He and his partner, Joseph Chavez, were elated when it became clear their wait was worthwhile, and they were shocked that it was happening in a state long known as one of the most conservative in the country.

"We expected Utah to be the last place we could get married," Blatter said.

Even if the 10th Circuit grants a stay, the marriage licenses that already have been issued probably will remain valid, said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond who has tracked legal battles for gay marriage. It's not entirely certain, however, because Utah's situation has unfolded differently than those of other states, and there's no direct precedent, he said.

Not all counties are issuing the licenses. In Utah County, one of the most conservative in the state, County Clerk Brian Thompson made a conscious decision to defy the judge's ruling and not grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. He said he wants to see if the appeals court grants the stay first.

"I totally understand the position I'm in," he said, "but I have a responsibility as elected official to proceed with caution."

The appeals court already has rejected two previous requests from the state due to procedural issues, but it has not yet considered the case based on merits.

The Mormon church said Friday it stands by its support for "traditional marriage" and hopes a higher court validates its belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

In court Monday, Utah lawyer Philip Lott repeated the words "chaotic situation" to describe what has happened in Utah since clerks started allowing gay weddings. He urged the judge to "take a more orderly approach than the current frenzy."

"Utah should be allowed to follow its democratically chosen definition of marriage," he said of the 2004 gay marriage ban.

In explaining his decision, Shelby said the state made basically the same arguments he had already rejected.

Adding to the chaos is the fact that Utah Attorney General John Swallow stepped down about a month ago amid a scandal involving allegations of bribery and offering businessmen protection in return for favors. The state has been relying on an acting attorney general, and Gov. Gary Herbert appointed a replacement Monday who will serve until a special election next year.

Peggy Tomsic, the lawyer for the same-sex couples who brought the case, called gay marriage the civil rights movement of this generation and said it was the new law of the land in Utah.

"The cloud of confusion that the state talks about is only their minds," she said.

Shelby said in Friday's ruling that the constitutional amendment that Utah voters approved violates gay and lesbian couples' rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. He said the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.

Legal scholars speculate that the case could someday be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court if the justices decide they want to weigh in on whether state same-sex marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution.

Tobias said that's a real possibility, but far from imminent. It will depend on what the appeals court decides and what happens with other court challenges in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia, he said.

...
There is no purpose for two gay men (or lesbians) to marry, other than to undermine traditional marriage and Christianity. No other reason.

....

Have you ever bothered to consider the precedent by which same-sex couples are motivated to marry, MEM?