Judge strikes down Utah's same-sex marriage ban as unconstit

I think it's a step in the correct direction, but inevitably the .gov should just stay out of it. I'm a distant relative of UT-dwelling Mormon polygamists, also have a gay uncle who lives there too and it is also my state of birth. I personally think they should not be legally disallowed from their chosen lifestyle. All parties involved consider themselves Mormon too........

Gingerbread, considering that Pastafarianism has groups that pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, finding a religious group that would cater to same-sex marriage probably isn't too difficult. If not, somebody can fabricate it in this day and age. I worked with a kid earlier in life who'd biggest life ambition was to be a pro-wrestler, thought the world of Dungeons and Dragons was reality and was about the biggest space cadet I had ever met. A few years after that this clown is an ordained minister who legally performs the marriage ceremony for an old friend from my teenage years. This was a marriage of all sorts of colorful characters, such as the groom's stepfather showing up in his finest button down Insane Clown Posse shirt and his morbidly obese mother in a tank top and pajama shorts with holes in them. I'm tempted to break out the pictures for the laughs. That being said, nobody there was truly religious to any faith (Unless there is an ICP religion now), the couple had considered themselves married for years, and the only purpose of "Chris the Wrestler" was to bring recognition to their marriage by the state.

To me marriage is where two people create a spiritual bond that will remain intact forever regardless of state or religious recognition. Considering that people of faith get divorced and Atheists get married, I personally think that "legal marriage" has very little basis in religion and is based on what the state deems appropriate.

On that note, just out of curiosity I googled and found this list of LGBT affirming churches that I presume would perform same-sex marriage rituals. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

A friend of mine brought up a good point being that the current tax structure giving credits to people married and with children unfairly taxes those who aren't living a typical "Christian" existence, and incentivizes irresponsible reproduction and the things that come with that. I find this true, when I worked in retail car audio tax season always brought in lots of unmarried parents spending thousands of dollars on car systems and cell phones they didn't need. A decent amount of the cellphone contracts signed would end up unfulfilled too. It came off a lot like giving money to irresponsible people to be irresponsible with. If we are truly to have separation of church and state we need to have both Christian morality and the .gov removed from the picture. In the situation we're in with the .gov still in control I feel that recognizing any parties that wish to share the same legal benefits afforded to a "traditional" couple in the only path to equality, possibly a step to get it removed from the picture entirely to the system you've laid out here.

B35, you have a respectable position on this. I personally find it neither moral or immoral but do find it odd. On the same note, considering the travesty that is frequently made of marriage, I don't think government recognition really means anything. My mother and stepfather have never have been legally married, have two adopted children (mom couldn't have more kids, he's a lot younger) and have been together for 14 years now. My stepdad's sister started thinking about divorcing her first husband on her honeymoon in Hawaii. The whole marriage lasted seven months.

I think marriage is more of a moral and spiritual institution than a religious one at this point, and although the original foundation is certainly based on religion, it is a concept that should evolve. I'm sure that no culture or religion has ever subscribed homosexuality to a purely universal homosexual moral conduct as it would be condemnation to extinction in a single generation. I would also agree a two parent male and female household is on average better, speaking as somebody that was raised by a single mother, it sucks. I don't personally know how much I agree with surrogate parenthood, but on the same note if parenthood is their pursuit to be their highest selves, I don't feel we legally can deny that, even if it isn't agreed with by the majority. As for adoption/fostering children, I feel that is a good way to go. I spent a week in a foster home. It was like going to jail for my parent's fuckups, and it was horrible. Much rather would have spent the week with some of the gay people I've met in life. If I was orphaned same deal. Much better than spending my entire childhood and teenage years in a group home filled with juvenile delinquents and other kids who had fuckup parents. Two moms or dads is better than zero of either IMO, possibly better than one of either.

That being said, why should we award people for getting married when it is such a travesty anymore? Why should we reward people for irresponsible reproduction? I should be taxed more because I haven't found a mate I could see myself around the rest of my life as per the construct of marriage, but two morons who get drunk in Vegas should get a tax break until divorced? If marriage is to be a legal institution with certain protections afforded it has to be detached from religious morality to be constitutional IMO. Especially since so many people that do not identify with any religion at all get married. Considering how many arguments of multiple parties I've seen over who gets to claim the product of their irresponsible reproduction on their taxes, it's a travesty.

A marriage is only as valid as a contract between two people and their community as witnesses and the action itself is not inherently moral. If somebody gets married and cheats on their spouse all the time, they are not any more moral than some dood who brings home different ladies from the bar every night of the week. They should not be benefitted by a tax break based on a morality they aren't following. Same deal with reproduction, why should teenage parents and people who can't figure out how to use a pill or condom correctly get a break while people who can figure out these basic things are penalized? How is somebody who can figure out to either abstain from sex or to cover the bases less moral than some dumbass that sleeps with people recklessly and ends up with five kids they can't morally or financially support?

There is no way we can police who is a good parent or spouse, but on average in my personal experience with my age/peer group, most just aren't. About half the marriages fail, and literally 100% of the first children to people I closely know are out of wedlock. Realistically the only good thing I see out of state recognized marriage is marital privilege in legal proceedings. SInce that is a legal right, how can we deny it to two people for not following a religious institution? The government should stay completely out of marriage and reproduction. If people want to make the moral commitment of permanent monogamy, polygamy or polyamory they should be allowed to. If a group than can't naturally produce children wants one they should be put under close scrutiny as should any adoptive parent.

I don't want to argue the tax credit aspect too much further, you have lots of good points and logic to go with them. I'll leave it at saying I feel the current system incentivizes irresponsible reproduction and marriage habits. It's an opinion based on my observations in life and I don't have data to back it up, so I can't really speak to it further than an opinion. 

I would agree that for the most part morality, religion and spirituality can be lumped into the same category. My issue with restricting gay marriage being it is a moral drawn from religion. Morals drawn primarily from religion shouldn't be able to be held as law in a nation with separation of church and state. If marriage itself is a religious institution, than no special legal advantages should be assigned from it based on the state. If legal advantages are assigned, we can't discriminate based on the parameters of religion. 

But realistically here is two parts of the solution: We shouldn't be asking the government for permission to practice religious or spiritual rites. If that were the case, people would be married based on whether they considered themselves and conducted themselves as such between themselves and within the community. If there was no legal requirement for a marriage license, the problem would solve itself. The other half is the income tax, if this wasn't in place there wouldn't be issues with perceived discrimination by many parties. That really is a topic worth discussing in more detail.

I don't really have any argument against what you have to say. The Fair Tax Act was a cornerstone of Gary Johnson's campaign and helped solidify my vote for him. I also find it highly difficult to accept a tax system that is used as a political weapon and sent overseas to nations that hate us. The FTA unfortunately doesn't do anything for the $500 pencil for the navy you brought up earlier, but it makes a lot more sense and is much more transparent than the system in place now. I read into it some more after posting last night and the more I read about the more I like it. It would also help end the squabbling much as you describe, the second part of that ending the need for state permission for a marriage of any type.

I'd only offer that I feel their struggle is to become second class citizens like the rest of us. I would agree that there is no more place for specially protected demographics of people and for the most part inequality is coming full circle. In this new age of "tolerance" and "change" a straight pride parade or special interest group that benefitted only white people in a similar fashion minorities would receive sure wouldn't go over very well.

I couldn't agree more with your analysis of the current tax system. It's really too bad that the Fair Tax Act makes entirely too much sense for the common person to grasp, let alone corrupt politician and government/corporate entities. We are definitely seeing a new aristocracy and the system is well geared to create the disparity between "Haves" and "Have-Nots."

That is a lengthy list of actions taken for equality for homosexuals. For the most part, it looks like a huge list of red tape that any group would have to slice through to become a second class citizen. If it were interracial couples or just a racial minority in general that had been denied rights and were seeking them it would look very much the same. I will also state that this list is completely without citation and provided by a pro-obama PAC. It is going to bring up every single little detail related to this single issue, regardless of how significant or inconsequential. PAC's to me are just another cog in the machine to keep real candidates under the radar and unfunded compared to the mainstream guys. Here are the items I found disagreeable and definitely steps past equality and well into being favored.

"In July 2012, the Administration on Aging published clarifying guidance that LGBT older adults should be included as a population with a “greatest social need” for purposes of Older American Act programs and funding." - Yeah, that's way past the line. Favoring a particular group, no matter which one is discrimination against all other groups.

"The federal Prison Rape Elimination Commission proposed national standards to reduce sexual abuse in correctional facilities, including standards regarding LGBT and intersex inmates. In early 2011, the Justice Department proposed regulations to implement those standards." "In May 2012, the Department of Justice published final regulations creating national standards aimed at eliminating sexual abuse in America’s prisons, jails, and local detention facilities as mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). These standards directly address the needs of LGBT, intersex and gender nonconforming prisoners."Of course there is a federal Prison Rape Elimination Commission.   (we need a facepalm smiley) Don't want to get raped in prison? Don't go to prison! Problem solved, problem staying solved. I think the best way to reduce prison rape is to reduce the prison population. I can imagine the non-violent drug offenders are easier victims for the more rapey and stabby members of the prison population. 
 
"HHS awarded a $900,000 grant for the creation of a national resource center on LGBT aging issues to Services & Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Elders (SAGE). HHS also awarded a $13.3 million grant to the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center to create a model program supporting LGBT and questioning youth in the foster care system."  The elderly and youths in foster care/group homes are groups with special needs, sure, but they should be treated as a whole. 

"In June 2011, HHS awarded a grant to Heartland Alliance in Chicago to create the first-ever resource center for LGBT refugees being resettled in the United States." People of any type should be treated as a whole, with equal opportunities. 


"President Obama issued LGBT Pride Month proclamations in 2009 and 2010, the first since 2000, and held the first-ever Pride events at the White House." All these honorary months for different groups and causes are pretty dumb. The "pride-fest" going to DC is no surprise, every group views this as a step towards their struggle. Adam Kokesh thought it was a good idea....... More on my thought on sexual pride lower in post. 

"Early in 2009, the administration added the United States to a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an end to criminal penalties based on sexual orientation or gender identity, a measure that former President Bush had refused to sign. In June 2011, the administration also supported a first-ever UN Human Rights Council resolution condemning violence and discrimination against LGBT people." "In December 2011, President Obama issued a memorandum creating a strategy for U.S. government agencies to combat LGBT human rights abuses internationally." Here we go with that policeman of the world garbage again. It's not our place to serve as the moral guideline enforcers of the world, and if nations/regions criminalize homosexuality, that's their business, not ours. On the same note, just the .gov picking sides in which human rights offenses happen to be convenient to oppose.

"In response to an epidemic of anti-LGBT bullying and youth suicides, the President and numerous other high-level officials recorded video messages of support as part of the “It Gets Better” Project." Better than Move.gov, but effort better spent towards the veteran suicide epidemic, or just suicide as a whole. Suicide sucks. Two people I know indulged last year, neither was gay or a veteran. Looks like a pretty universal problem, but at least we aren't as bad off as Japan.....

I agree that many do enjoy the shock value. Concerning "Pride-fests" and "Pride-Parades," I have a mental picture of these as depicted in Borat, and my sister's photography of an event here in Denver. (she's an avid people watcher) Parading down the half naked wearing leather bondage gear is pretty damned immoral, and should be kept at home. The same would apply if there was a straight pride parade and some guy was marching down the street with his wife on an OSOE dog collar and leash in a monokini. I can see how this commonly depicted image is offensive. I find it the exception and not the rule myself, but it is a common perception. In either case it is publicly displaying pride in your sexuality, which I find immoral in general. It is completely acceptable to not be ashamed in who you are and to be open with it, it is another entirely to let your bedroom spill into the streets. 

On that note, I don't find it too different than people who open carry to bait ordinary citizens and cops into getting lectured on the 2A and out rights as citizens, especially when they would never ordinarily carry a gun for defense. "Starbucks Appreciation Day" pretty much brought the fight to people who didn't really care and brought a lot of negative attention to our movement. Every struggle has their idiots and they tend to be the most publicized. 

The constant political correctness is out of line, yes. I could honestly give zero effs about the Duck Dynasty guy. I don't watch TV, and reality TV was a nail in the coffin of why. It is an employer's right to terminate somebody over public comments found detrimental to their message. It is also our right as a mass to think they are jackasses for suppressing an opinion and trying to politicize everything. Firing somebody in the spotlight for their country life for speaking towards a moral people like that commonly hold isn't a violation of the First Amendment, but it does spit in it's face. For once, I think the masses realize how ignorant it looks. To suppress one opinion is to claim infallibility on the other and makes all opinion hold less value. It usually blows up in their faces. Chik-fil-a, a chicken sandwich joint founded by Christians announced they didn't support gay marriage, and a boycott was called. Our local franchise is always "line around the store drive-thru" busy, but it was "no room in the parking lot smashed busy" for a couple weeks after that. 

Of course with all this "political correctness" a group that extended benefits only to whites and a straight pride parade would be entirely too offensive for this world of "Equality," although other groups can get away with it. 

That being said, I understand and agree completely with people wanting to live life as they choose. I see how it could be perceived there is unequal favorable treatment, and that list did provide great positive citation of your opinion. I think that an overspill of favor for any group will happen when they seek equality. The Civil Rights Movement for blacks was a long, bloody and National Guard involved struggle, and we got things like Martin Luther King Jr., The NAACP and The Black Panthers out of the deal. It wasn't easy, and I'm sure that many people perceived that they blacks were struggling for more than the same rights as others. 

Yeah, I'm with B35 on the felony count thing. If you're a career criminal with that many arrests, well, it's time to go. Rape, murder and pedophilia should be immediate death sentences, sorry, no one recovers from rape. Theft and fraud folks go to prison for a long time. Drugs, I think personally, should be de-criminalized. Really, alcohol is a destructive substance and it's lawful. Still, regulate the behaviors surrounding it like no driving etc and move on.

On the tax system, yeah, it's overly complicated and designed to be so for a reason. It's a tool to oppress, it's a tool to carve out niches for political donors, it's a tool to harass, it's a tool to modify behaviors and it's made to progressively heavy the more you succeed. It's wrong and unconstitutional. All that out there, it's a statist tool and it's greatest attribute is that it requires you to report all your financial dealing with the big government entity. Think about it. You have to report on yourself under fear of criminal prosecution, HELLO? FIFTH AMENDMENT ANYONE?!? How repugnant is that to liberty?

I'd also like to say, this thread is the one reason F&L was created. Civil discussion of controversial topics without disrespectin' each other.