Utah man fasting for nullification

[Silhouette]

The logic here is fallacous.

No one is forcing anyone, gay or straight, to get married.

Putting aside the emotional component, marriage is a set of protections and privilages under the law.

So let's talk about what really has you upset. You are upset that the state is extending legal protections to people your magic sky man doesn't approve of.

No, actually I'll reply for him. The real upset is that gay is a behavior and subject to local regulation therefore, and not federal protection. And that local regulation exempts them from being able to marry in the state of Utah, along with minors and polygamists also prohibited. Minors from their age not being able to consent. Polygamists, like gays, because their sexual behaviors and appetites are not qualifying for sanction under the word "marriage" as the society of Utah has defined that word.

The "upset" is because one activist judge, again, has usurped the will of millions, a clear 2/3rds majority in Utah's case, who said in their vote, their bedrock power to govern themselves, that gay behaviors don't qualify for marriage in their state.

The "upset" is tyranny. The "upset" is one person acting as God over millions in a democratic government.

And speaking of god, there is another upset in Utah's case. Christians and other outbranches like islamics and mormons all are taught about the lesson of the city of Sodom being wiped off the face of the earth and all its inhabitants, gay or not gay but silent/acquiescing to it, condemned to the pit of fire forever.

This is an upset of faith, of religion of a law where the faithful are forced against their will to acquiesce to a cardinal sin.

In Jude 1 in the christian Bible and in Poets 26 of the Koran, the sin of passively or actively giving a leg up to homosexual culture and practices is as grave as homosexuality itself. So the "upset" is forcing a bunch of people as a matter of law to go to hell for eternity.

The only rebuttal you could offer to that is "religion is just silly anyway". And what you would then be proposing is that secular law in the US should wipe out religion. And that indeed is a question to put before the US Supreme Court.

And it's the reason this guy is starving himself. Perhaps he feels it is better to die protesting the homosexual fad and cultural wildfire than it is to meekly acquiesce and go to the pit of fire for eternity? Can't say I blame him...

 

[bodecea]

Power of attorney and medical proxy contracts would have solved that problem

Again, why should gay couples go through all these extra hoops, that straight people get by default just by geting married?

I am not against gay marriage. I just get tired of the people saying that a gay couple has had no options for controlling their health care when there have been inexpensive legal options available to them

IMO everyone married or not should have power of attorney and medical proxy contracts in force.

And really marriage is nothing the state should be concerned with other than merely recognizing the legal contract as any other contract.

There should be no special treatment of people because they decide to enter into a contract.

There are many states out there who refuse to recognise those powers of attorney and medical proxies. We avoid such states because they are like going to a 3rd world country for us.

 

[Flopper]

Hunger strikes rarely accomplish anything and quickly become yesterday's news.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hunger strikes rarely accomplish anything and quickly become yesterday's news.

Yepp.

 

[Jughead]

Mr. Meacham can end his fast. The U.S. Supreme Court has just put a hold to gay weddings in Utah.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Mr. Meacham can end his fast. The U.S. Supreme Court has just put a hold to gay weddings in Utah.

Actually he called for the State to exercise "Nullification", the State hasn't, they have continued to respect the rule of law and not chosen to simply ignore the Federal District Court Judges ruling.

If the State had done what he was going on a hunger strike for, they would have simply ignored the ruling.


>>>>

 

[AceRothstein]

Has he died yet?

 

[Jughead]

Mr. Meacham can end his fast. The U.S. Supreme Court has just put a hold to gay weddings in Utah.

Actually he called for the State to exercise "Nullification", the State hasn't, they have continued to respect the rule of law and not chosen to simply ignore the Federal District Court Judges ruling.

If the State had done what he was going on a hunger strike for, they would have simply ignored the ruling.


>>>>

Problem is that nullification has been determined to be unconstitutional. Both Federal and State courts have rejected it.

I'll bet though that with the current hold on gay weddings in Utah, Mr. Meacham will end his fast. No sense in further jeopardizing his health.

 

[bendog]

a man fasting for nullification is ironic.

 

[Silhouette]

Looks like this guy's tenacity in Utah's core faith beliefs worked:

Supreme Court Orders Halt to Utah Gay Marriages

The Supreme Court has ordered a halt to same sex marriages in Utah.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor referred the issue to the full court and the court granted a request from Utah to block same sex marriages from proceeding, at least while the state appeals a district court decision that ruled the state’s ban on gay marriage violated the constitutional rights of gays.
Supreme Court Orders Halt to Utah Gay Marriages - ABC News

Why they wouldn't do this for California and it's Prop 8 lawful description of marriage is beyond me. It's patently unfair to the states.

 

[bendog]

umm, the granting of marriage licenses in Calif was halted until the Sup Ct dismissed the citizen complaint and restored the Circuit Court's holding.

 

[Silhouette]

umm, the granting of marriage licenses in Calif was halted until the Sup Ct dismissed the citizen complaint and restored the Circuit Court's holding.

Why was their appeal punted when it's clear this one or another just like it [probably this one] will be determined with finality since so many are being buckshotted at the SCOTUS?

And, do you think the US Supreme Court will set the precedent of aberrent sexual behaviors grabbing away the definition of marriage in Utah? Think "polygamy"...?

 

[WillReadmore]

umm, the granting of marriage licenses in Calif was halted until the Sup Ct dismissed the citizen complaint and restored the Circuit Court's holding.

Why was their appeal punted when it's clear this one or another just like it [probably this one] will be determined with finality since so many are being buckshotted at the SCOTUS?

And, do you think the US Supreme Court will set the precedent of aberrent sexual behaviors grabbing away the definition of marriage in Utah? Think "polygamy"...?

The CA case had a lot of baggage related to who had standing, etc. It will be better when there is a nice clean case resulting in a "yes, you can discriminate against gays" or "no, you need to consider gays to be equal citizens".

Polygamy?? That's sure a random interjection. Were you just trying for insulting?

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy?? That's sure a random interjection. Were you just trying for insulting?

The US Supreme Court does not consider "same or similar" potential future challenges, particularly in the state of Utah with regards to other consenting adults in non-traditional marriages, a "random interjection". I guarantee you that. In fact, when hearing the Prop 8/DOMA cases the Justices grilled the petitioners as to where they thought the Court might draw the line when it came to considering "consenting in love".

Did you just interject the accusation that I was being insulting to try to sideline the well made point about polygamy and gay marriage as same or similar challenges?

 

[Knightfall]

[MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION] - good input.

This is complicated by three facts:

1.) There is no baseline data from the past to compare any current studies vis-a-vis rise in sexual orientation / acceptance within a population group.

2.) Many of these studies are "junk" studies, commissioned by people with a partisan/ideological goal in mind. Here, sorting out the wheat from the chaff is not easy.

3.) Do we need any of this data to begin with? And that question is coming from a dyed-in-the-wool statistics lover.

Your final parapraph: spot-on!

I allow everyone his or her choice to what he or she wants, provided others are not hurt in the process. This also means that they have the right to behave in a stupid manner. Only, if a guy digs his own grave, why should I expend energy to get him out of it?

Again, people as extreme as this dude in Utah really do remind me of El Quaida.

Thanks!

1. I would think not. This isn't something that's really been studied until the modern age, right? Also, homosexuality was frequently closeted, so people would be admitting their orientation at their own social risk at the least.

2. In my experience, you should always be suspicious of anyone who gets paid to promote a cause for a living, and that includes most of the people who do studies. With that in mind, (I'm assuming you agree) how do you get to the truth? Stats appear to be your thing, so do you have some good suggestions on telling what it true and what's a load of crap? I'd be interested for you to show me some examples of picking apart stats. Not sure how we could do that if you were even willing, but...well, just let me know if you feel inclined and have any ideas.

3. I don't know. We track so many aspects of people and then use the data to tell people what they are doing wrong with their lives. On one hand, you can say that this is the only logical way to approach the challenges of the day. On the other, you could say this is a half step away from madness where we live in cages gilded with facts and figures. I suppose it's up the individual how they want to make their decisions, but for my money, I wouldn't mind for the statistic experts to hold their tongue more often, and by that, I don't mean you but those types who tell you salt is bad for you one month and tell you it is good the next. Who needs it?

That might be a bit tangent to what you meant by the question, but that's what came to my mind in response.

 

[Silhouette]

[MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION] - good input.

This is complicated by three facts:

1.) There is no baseline data from the past to compare any current studies vis-a-vis rise in sexual orientation / acceptance within a population group.

2.) Many of these studies are "junk" studies, commissioned by people with a partisan/ideological goal in mind. Here, sorting out the wheat from the chaff is not easy.

3.) Do we need any of this data to begin with? And that question is coming from a dyed-in-the-wool statistics lover.

Your final parapraph: spot-on!

I allow everyone his or her choice to what he or she wants, provided others are not hurt in the process. This also means that they have the right to behave in a stupid manner. Only, if a guy digs his own grave, why should I expend energy to get him out of it?

Again, people as extreme as this dude in Utah really do remind me of El Quaida.

Thanks!

1. I would think not. This isn't something that's really been studied until the modern age, right? Also, homosexuality was frequently closeted, so people would be admitting their orientation at their own social risk at the least.

2. In my experience, you should always be suspicious of anyone who gets paid to promote a cause for a living, and that includes most of the people who do studies. With that in mind, (I'm assuming you agree) how do you get to the truth? Stats appear to be your thing, so do you have some good suggestions on telling what it true and what's a load of crap? I'd be interested for you to show me some examples of picking apart stats. Not sure how we could do that if you were even willing, but...well, just let me know if you feel inclined and have any ideas.

3. I don't know. We track so many aspects of people and then use the data to tell people what they are doing wrong with their lives. On one hand, you can say that this is the only logical way to approach the challenges of the day. On the other, you could say this is a half step away from madness where we live in cages gilded with facts and figures. I suppose it's up the individual how they want to make their decisions, but for my money, I wouldn't mind for the statistic experts to hold their tongue more often, and by that, I don't mean you but those types who tell you salt is bad for you one month and tell you it is good the next. Who needs it?

That might be a bit tangent to what you meant by the question, but that's what came to my mind in response.

The universities are usually the best place to look for impartial studies and reviews. Read the whole article and its citations. Then you should have a pretty peer reviewed idea of sexual orientation and its genesis. Pages 314 to 321 list the studies cited to arrive at the conclusions. There appear to be roughly 350 studies cited to support the conclusions.

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001 http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

 

[Statistikhengst]

[MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION] - good input.

This is complicated by three facts:

1.) There is no baseline data from the past to compare any current studies vis-a-vis rise in sexual orientation / acceptance within a population group.

2.) Many of these studies are "junk" studies, commissioned by people with a partisan/ideological goal in mind. Here, sorting out the wheat from the chaff is not easy.

3.) Do we need any of this data to begin with? And that question is coming from a dyed-in-the-wool statistics lover.

Your final parapraph: spot-on!

I allow everyone his or her choice to what he or she wants, provided others are not hurt in the process. This also means that they have the right to behave in a stupid manner. Only, if a guy digs his own grave, why should I expend energy to get him out of it?

Again, people as extreme as this dude in Utah really do remind me of El Quaida.

Thanks!

1. I would think not. This isn't something that's really been studied until the modern age, right? Also, homosexuality was frequently closeted, so people would be admitting their orientation at their own social risk at the least.

2. In my experience, you should always be suspicious of anyone who gets paid to promote a cause for a living, and that includes most of the people who do studies. With that in mind, (I'm assuming you agree) how do you get to the truth? Stats appear to be your thing, so do you have some good suggestions on telling what it true and what's a load of crap? I'd be interested for you to show me some examples of picking apart stats. Not sure how we could do that if you were even willing, but...well, just let me know if you feel inclined and have any ideas.

3. I don't know. We track so many aspects of people and then use the data to tell people what they are doing wrong with their lives. On one hand, you can say that this is the only logical way to approach the challenges of the day. On the other, you could say this is a half step away from madness where we live in cages gilded with facts and figures. I suppose it's up the individual how they want to make their decisions, but for my money, I wouldn't mind for the statistic experts to hold their tongue more often, and by that, I don't mean you but those types who tell you salt is bad for you one month and tell you it is good the next. Who needs it?

That might be a bit tangent to what you meant by the question, but that's what came to my mind in response.

[MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION]

Number 2: I think that independent research agencies are the best. In 2012, one of the presidential election pollsters, Angus Reid, was a Canadian company with no vested interest in swaying the election.

In Germany, there are some polling agencies that under the control of no partisan group: EMNID, FORSA, TNS INFRATEST . Their job is purely that of collecting data, which they do very well.

But even then, it is a stab in the dark, but at least an educated stab in the dark. And I'm just not sure how far we need to delve into peoples' sexuality with research data. Seems to be pretty private stuff to me.

You will probably never find the truth in just one poll, but if there is a commonality between a plethora of polls, then the average is likely pretty damned close to reality.

For instance, if you have 11 polls that show that US citizens approve of gay marriage by margins between +3 and +18, with most margins around +10, and not one single poll shows a negative margin, then what you are seeing is a statistical average that is hard to ignore. And should that average grow or decline steadily over time, then that would be a trend.

As with polling, studies usually don't have exactly the same conditions, but when the overwhelming majorities show the same results, that too is hard to ignore.

Unfortunately, you can hardly find points of data that will not be used by one side of the spectrum to clobber the other. It's really kind of sad.

 

[Knightfall]

@sillhouette

Oh gosh, that's going to take forever to read. I appreciate the data though, and I'll take a look at it later today. Is there anything in particular I should be learning from it. I have no doubt about sexual imprinting, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of this.

I know many of the universities have prestigious study programs, but universities are often over represented by liberals, so it seems it would be easy for bias to seep into the study. Without a group being ignorant of where they get their funding, it seems like it would be difficult to trust any study program.
[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

It makes sense that the impartial would be best, but how so you know if a group is truly impartial? Almost everyone will claim they try to be objective. Even if a group has no stated agenda, they are always financed by someone or some group that does have an agenda.

I agree that sexuality should be a private concern, yet it has become a political issue. Even before that, it was a cultural issue, and I can see why people would want data on it for either of these reasons even if I don't care much about it myself. Personally, I'm a live and let live kind of guy. I want the government to stop regulating marriage altogether. I can see people wanting statistics on homosexual marriage in regards to adoption because you would want to prove hat gay homes are either good or bad for the child, but beyond that, I don't see why the issue is a mainstream American political issue. It of my list of concerns for the nation, this probably ranks about fiftieth.

Side question, if you are in Germany, why are you concerned with US politics.

Your reasoning on looking at the consensus of polling makes sense. If people are slanting on both sides in opposite directions, is should even out.

 

[Avatar4321]

Mr. Meacham can end his fast. The U.S. Supreme Court has just put a hold to gay weddings in Utah.

Actually he called for the State to exercise "Nullification", the State hasn't, they have continued to respect the rule of law and not chosen to simply ignore the Federal District Court Judges ruling.

If the State had done what he was going on a hunger strike for, they would have simply ignored the ruling.


>>>>

Problem is that nullification has been determined to be unconstitutional. Both Federal and State courts have rejected it.

I'll bet though that with the current hold on gay weddings in Utah, Mr. Meacham will end his fast. No sense in further jeopardizing his health.

The question is will he? The fast was foolish to begin with. If he failed to use prudence to begin with, will he now? I hope so for his sake.

 

[Avatar4321]

a man fasting for nullification is ironic.

Maybe it's just be but I don't see the irony.