roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
Ship of Fools

Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Leorning Cniht
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not quite. The Mormon decision focuses on one aspect of otherwise practicing faithful.
Your Christian example is about general disregard to the entire belief system.

Yes, it requires in addition "nobody being obstinately gay is a good Mormon", but I was under the impression that that was the standard Mormon line anyway.

IOW, my understanding of the standard Mormon position is that it doesn't make sense to talk about "otherwise practicing faithful" in gay relationships, and that this is just a formal clarification of that rather than anything new.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This also affects children whose parents have divorced. One parent is now in a same-sex marriage and the other is a devout Mormon; the former even if no longer Mormon is willing to have the latter raise the children Mormon. Now the church says they can't be treated as Mormon children.

spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In response to the turmoil ( a thousand Mormons resigned in a mass rally) the Mormon Church issued a clarification that children of divorced couples who were not residing with a same sex couple could have the benefits of the Church ceremonies.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In response to the turmoil ( a thousand Mormons resigned in a mass rally) the Mormon Church issued a clarification that children of divorced couples who were not residing with a same sex couple could have the benefits of the Church ceremonies.

However, this still means that a child living with same-sex parents cannot be baptized if they hadn't been already. Of course, they can always baptized after they die--I'm sure that's comforting for all. [Mad]

Life is just a bowl of cherries!

Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Due to the independent status of Native American nations, "Gay marriage is legal but not on tribal lands" (AP/Yahoo). The law depends on the particular tribe.

[ 28. November 2015, 00:35: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bumping this thread because a "clever" legislator in Kentucky has come up with what he thinks is a way around the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision [PDF]. The idea is fairly simple:

  1. Add something called "matrimony" to the civil code of Kentucky and specify that while anyone can "marry", only opposite sex couples who are married can enter into "matrimony".
  2. Remove all benefits currently assigned to "marriage" from Kentucky law and assign those benefits to "matrimony.

It's point #2 that will probably be problematic from Obergefell's point of view. For instance:

The bill is over 450 pages long because, once it defines “matrimony,” it proceeds to add the term throughout all of Kentucky law. For the statutes that define the basic parameters of marriage, duplicate language is added defining “matrimony” by the exact same parameters. But anywhere that the law outlines a privilege, benefit, or responsibility previously made available to marriage, the word “marriage” is replaced by the word “matrimony.”

For example, the bill amends Kentucky statute 216.515, which addresses the rights of residents of long-term care facilities. Where that law grants married residents the right of private spousal visits as well as the right to a shared room with their spouse if they both live in the same facility, HB 572 replaces the word “is married” to “has entered into matrimony.” Thus, the law would only apply to married different-sex couples, not married same-sex couples.

A cursory glance at the long bill suggests that it effectively removes all marital rights from every possible state statute, from parenting rights to insurance rights and so on — reserving these privileges only for couples that have “entered into a matrimony.”

The obvious problem here is that Obergefell wasn't about the word "marriage", it was about the state preferentially ascribing rights, privileges, and benefits to opposite-sex couples that it denied to same-sex couples, something which Mr. Fischer is apparently attempting to reinstate.

There have been numerous shipmates who have proposed a "semantic fix" to same-sex marriage (allow such unions but call them something other than "marriage"). This would seem to highlight the rather obvious problem with such an approach. Once you have a "separate but equal" legal regime in place, it doesn't take much tampering for "equal" to go away.

Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think the incompatibility with Obergefell is the only problem. IM, admittedly limited, E, the Supremes get a bit testy when you attempt to flout their rulings.

I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It swings back and forth over time, but nowadays a lot of courts are more interested in what something is, not in what you call it.

The point of the court decision is that it is not acceptable to give heterosexuals a status not available to homosexuals. Switching the label "marriage" from the 1st-class option to the 2nd-class option is not going to solve the problem whatsoever, though I'm not surprised that someone is simultaneously stupid enough and tricky enough to believe that it will.

Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Exactly. The authority against what is proposed is the old Brown v Board of Education, now 60 years old but good law now as it was when it was decided. Separate necessarily means not equal.

Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged

Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
  ship of fools