Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeannyM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
epan said:
Yes, you are correct. The 10th circuit has not ruled on the merits. However, it’s too late. The cat is out of the bag. By the time that the 10th Circuit takes up the matter, there will be hundreds (perhaps) of legal marriages in Utah, and there is no reversing that.

Meanwhile, clerks in conservative areas are breaking the law, and abjuring their sworn oaths, by not issuing licenses. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Click to expand...
Chances are the 10th circuit will rule to approve a stay by the end of this week. And it won’t be too late.
 
JamesTheJust said:
How did I commit the bandwagon fallacy? Not once did I say anything along the lines of, “Everybody’s doing it, so we should too,” as you did.

I never said that Pope Francis was “obsessed with sex”. I said that you misinterpreted him.

“We don’t have to talk about this all the time” does not equal “I’m giving up on this and I’m moving on”.
Click to expand...
Ah… so you rile at the application of your own logic to yourself. Interesting.

When did I say that everyone is doing anything?

But rather than engage in such trivial argument, let’s just agree that is is time to move on to more important things. It is important to choose one’s battles. Gay marriage no longer rises to a place of such importance, for the simple reason that defeat is inevitable. So, why not move on to issues which are more important, anyway.

You will never convince me that protection of the unborn even comes close to rising to the level of importance as protecting someone who wants to have sinful sex from himself or herself. The former case is one of a defenseless victim, the latter is an adult with the capacity of freewill.

I will probably never agree that the elimination of the middle class, and denying basic medical care, food and shelter to everyone who needs it (which was can easily afford to do) is as important as regulating sexual behavior.
 
epan said:
Ah… so you rile at the application of your own logic to yourself. Interesting.

When did I say that everyone is doing anything?
Click to expand...
Quote:

“But more importantly, I think that this demonstrates a tide of social change which is more then 100 years in coming to this point. It is folly to think that the momentum can be altered. It’s time to move on. My guess of Pope Francis’ turning his attention to more important matters is, in part, motivated by a recognition of this fact.”
 
JamesTheJust said:
Quote:

“But more importantly, I think that this demonstrates a tide of social change which is more then 100 years in coming to this point. It is folly to think that the momentum can be altered. It’s time to move on. My guess of Pope Francis’ turning his attention to more important matters is, in part, motivated by a recognition of this fact.”
Click to expand...
Yes, precisely. It is time to move on to the more important matters. Finally, we agree.
 
epan said:
Yes, you are correct. The 10th circuit has not ruled on the merits. However, it’s too late. The cat is out of the bag. By the time that the 10th Circuit takes up the matter, there will be hundreds (perhaps) of legal marriages in Utah, and there is no reversing that. Once you have one same sex couple who is married and entitled to Federal benefits (or other), etc… and then you deny another couple to marry and enjoy those same benefits, then you have an equal protection issue, and any law denying equal rights in that situation is struck down. All it takes is one legal marriage to occur, and then the legal fight is over.

Meanwhile, clerks in conservative areas are breaking the law, and abjuring their sworn oaths, by not issuing licenses. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Click to expand...
Unlike California, the Utah Constitution already enshrined traditional marriage. If the Constitutional provision is upheld, all of those marriage could be declared invalid.

Either way it will be interesting.
 
epan said:
Yes, precisely. It is time to move on to the more important matters. Finally, we agree.
Click to expand...
No, we don’t. That was a quote from an earlier post of yours in which you committed the bandwagon fallacy. That’s what your post was asking for, if I’m not mistaken.
 
Dawnia said:
Unlike California, the Utah Constitution already enshrined traditional marriage. If the Constitutional provision is upheld, all of those marriage could be declared invalid.

Either way it will be interesting.
Click to expand...
Once one marriage is legally performed, then the game changes. It moves to the Federal level, and nothing in the state constitution is relevant anymore.

I did not read the ruling. I actually read all of them at the start of this trend. But my guess is that the Utah constitutional provisions were reversed because they violate recent rulings base on the US Constitutional decisions in Federal courts.

Perhaps I am wrong. I am no lawyer. But it appears to me that the gay marriage battle is over. All that is going on now is rounding up the rogue combatants, and letting them know that it is all over, and to get used to the new order of things.
 
JamesTheJust said:
No, we don’t. That was a quote from an earlier post of yours in which you committed the bandwagon fallacy. That’s what your post was asking for, if I’m not mistaken.
Click to expand...
OK, so let’s just agree that you favor continuing the losing battle, and that Pope Francis and I have moved on to other more important things to focus on.

This does not suggest that Pope Francis in any way endorses gay marriage. It simply recognizes that he and I both agree that there are more important issues to deal with.

Or do you agree with Francis and me?
 
At present, same-sex marriage is legal in Utah. If the ruling is stayed, the ban will be reinstituted while the legal fight continues and no more marriage licenses will be issued. A plaintiff’s attorney said marriage licenses issued to that point will be valid, but the state said marriages would be declared invalid if its appeal succeeds.

sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57292943-78/marriage-utah-ruling-sex.html.csp

That most states will eventually recognize same sex marriage is very likely. It won’t force churches to perform such marriages though.
 
epan said:
OK, so let’s just agree that you favor continuing the losing battle, and that Pope Francis and I have moved on to other more important things to focus on.

This does not suggest that Pope Francis in any way endorses gay marriage. It simply recognizes that he and I both agree that there are more important issues to deal with.

Or do you agree with Francis and me?
Click to expand...
The Bandwagon Fallacy is committed whenever one argues for an idea based upon an irrelevant appeal to its popularity.

Examples:
Everyone is selfish; everyone is doing what he believes will make himself happier. The recognition of that can take most of the sting out of accusations that you’re being “selfish.” Why should you feel guilty for seeking your own happiness when that’s what everyone else is doing, too?

Joe: "Bill, I know you think that 1+1=2. But we don’t accept that sort of thing in our group. "
Bill: “I was just joking. Of course I don’t believe that.”

Epan says that James and the Catholic Church should move on from homosexual “marriage” because it’s part of an “irreversible tide of social change”.

I’d like you to provide a quote where Pope Francis says that he’s “giving up” or “moving on”. I don’t think you can. What he has said, however, is that gay marriage shouldn’t be the only thing we talk about. That’s a completely different animal.
 
JamesTheJust said:
The Bandwagon Fallacy is committed whenever one argues for an idea based upon an irrelevant appeal to its popularity.

Examples:
Everyone is selfish; everyone is doing what he believes will make himself happier. The recognition of that can take most of the sting out of accusations that you’re being “selfish.” Why should you feel guilty for seeking your own happiness when that’s what everyone else is doing, too?

Joe: "Bill, I know you think that 1+1=2. But we don’t accept that sort of thing in our group. "
Bill: “I was just joking. Of course I don’t believe that.”

Epan says that James and the Catholic Church should move on from homosexual “marriage” because it’s part of an “irreversible tide of social change”.

I’d like you to provide a quote where Pope Francis says that he’s “giving up” or “moving on”. I don’t think you can. What he has said, however, is that gay marriage shouldn’t be the only thing we talk about. That’s a completely different animal.
Click to expand...
OK. Feel free to wallow in that. While the rest of us move on.

But be advised, Pope Francis’s and my view are the more generous. Yours might be the more selfish and self serving. The use of such distorting rhetoric does not imply generosity. It rather implies selfishness.

This, of course, was the problem which Francis is trying to reverse - the problem of narrow mindedness as opposed to generosity. I admire him for taking up this issue.
 
JamesTheJust said:
I see you ignored my post. OK. Feel free to feel like you’ve beaten me.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Thanks for your generosity. But you miss the point once again. I have no sense of beating you, and doing so would not appeal to me in any way.
 
epan said:
Thanks for your generosity. But you miss the point once again. I have no sense of beating you, and doing so would not appeal to me in any way.
Click to expand...
I have no sense of needing to “wallow”. But thanks for your generosity.

What would really make me happy would be for you to respond to my post with a counter argument, so we can proceed in a rational discussion.
 
epan said:
But be advised, Pope Francis’s and my view are the more generous. Yours might be the more selfish and self serving. The use of such distorting rhetoric does not imply generosity. It rather implies selfishness.

This, of course, was the problem which Francis is trying to reverse - the problem of narrow mindedness as opposed to generosity. I admire him for taking up this issue.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed the edit.

How exactly am I being self-serving? Again, I politely ask you to provide a quote or reference for all these attitudes and policies that you claim Pope Francis has. In reality, the good man has never said we should give up on SS"M".

My suspicion is that you’ve had an unhealthy dose of mainstream media.
 
gilliam said:
I doubt churches will ever be forced to recognize such a civil arrangement. We don’t have to recognize divorce.
Click to expand...
Agree. However, that doesn’t mean someone won’t try to force the issue. People is silly like that.
 
JamesTheJust said:
I have no sense of needing to “wallow”. But thanks for your generosity.

What would really make me happy would be for you to respond to my post with a counter argument, so we can proceed in a rational discussion.
Click to expand...
You made the ridiculous “bandwagon” analogy, and now claim to want a rational discussion on that basis. Absurd.

Let’s just both move on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top