Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

yep. My step-grandma recently moved back to England for their healthcare.

Stego Lily wrote:Portia, I think we're kindred spirits. Let's be friends. :)

Yes, let's!

The likelihood of you maintaining a close friendship with your non-spousal opposite-gender friend is probably not high.

My best friend is a married male whom I have known my whole life. We see each other at least once a week and frequently chat on the phone or online. I feel like this is an attitude more typical of the type of conservative who doesn't, say, want California to have proportional representation. The other recent-ish Harry and Sally-ish question was weird to me, too. There is nothing sexual about our friendship. (How could there be when you're closer in age and experience than siblings?)

Portia wrote:

The likelihood of you maintaining a close friendship with your non-spousal opposite-gender friend is probably not high.

My best friend is a married male whom I have known my whole life. We see each other at least once a week and frequently chat on the phone or online. I feel like this is an attitude more typical of the type of conservative who doesn't, say, want California to have proportional representation. The other recent-ish Harry and Sally-ish question was weird to me, too. There is nothing sexual about our friendship. (How could there be when you're closer in age and experience than siblings?)

Yeah, I don't get this either. I think that just means your relationship is kind of unhealthy.

Portia wrote:How to propose was adorable!

Here's my own attempt. . . .

TBS: This one I imagine being the most down-to-earth. You have to get married now, in solidarity!

I'm super surprised to admit this, but I actually have proposal plans in my head already. And they don't amount to, "So... Let's get married?" I don't even know who I am anymore.

This question is one that can be challenging. Honestly, any question that relates to the core of testimony is challenging. And not because testimony is so fundamental to someone's beliefs. No, I think these questions are tough because so often the answers take one of two tracks. First, pray more and everything will be fixed. Second, some really long and complicated response that gives several possible ways to deal with the situation.

Now, there are times when one of these common answers is right. Sometimes someone really just needs comfort from the Spirit and praying will be all they need. Other times someone wants to know that this question has been thought through, considered, and studied. They want to know they aren't alone, and getting some insight as to how others look at it is an immense help.

What Tally gave here was a balance I don't often see. She gave an answer that wasn't a bandaid. It was thought out and a solution. I know it might not be the solution, but there really isn't one solution for everyone anyways. And it was so simple. She answered directly, kindly, honestly, and thoughtfully. Thank you, Tally M.

Concorde gave me a serious answer to a serious question. Hoorah! Crazy how much a situation can change in 100 hours. O_o

I hope at the very least Utah honors the validity of the marriages performed. It would be unprecedented to dissolve a legal marriage in this country ex post facto.

Portia wrote:It would be unprecedented to dissolve a legal marriage in this country ex post facto.

Well, sort of. It's important to mention the caveat that the definition of "legal" is pretty hazy here. Then-Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom issued a bunch of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004; later that year, the California Supreme Court voided all of those marriages. But then it didn't void the marriages that were performed between its ruling that same-sex marriage was mandated under the California Constitution and the passage of Prop 8.

Those 2004 marriages were legal in the sense that they were issued by the proper clerk's office. The California Supreme Court ruled that Mayor Newsom got it wrong—he couldn't issue the licenses. It's not clear how the Tenth Circuit saying that Judge Shelby got it wrong is different in any important way.

Anyway, Utah's situation matches neither the Newsom situation nor the Prop 8 situation (court issues rulings; marriages legal; then the law itself changes, rather than an erroneous interpretation being corrected). The court that interpreted the Constitution to require same-sex marriage in Utah wasn't the highest court that could do so (like the California Supreme Court was, interpreting the California Constitution), so considering that the state immediately appealed, it's not obvious that the marriages were "legal." If the ruling is affirmed by a court of last resort, then yeah, the marriages were legal all along. But the whole reason you stay a ruling is because you're not sure the ruling got the law right—in other words, whether it sanctioned actually legal things.

It's more correct to say that Utah is facing a situation that no other state has faced. If they win in the Tenth Circuit and void the marriages, it will only really be a "first" because no other state has faced this particular situation.

Anyway, regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriage, this is why Judge Shelby should have stayed his ruling. These things get very complicated very quickly.

Shelby didn't stay the ruling because it wasn't filed properly. It is also very unusual for a judge to stay his own ruling. That's usually done by the court that would hear the appeal. It is perhaps a bit unusual that the 10th circuit court of appeals didn't stay the ruling.

Also, I think it is probably more accurate to say that the main reason to stay a ruling is because that's what the precedent is when a ruling is appealed.

But yeah, Portia, technical accuracy mandates that you say it would be unprecedented for a legal ruling to dissolve a class of marriages in this country ex post facto, as laws have often criminalized certain marriage behavior, or further penalized them (well, often is probably a stretch, but it has happened.)

Huh? The Tenth Circuit denied the interim motion for a stay on procedural grounds—i.e., it wasn't filed properly—but that wasn't the reason Shelby denied the motion before him. He denied that one because Utah simply regurgitated arguments that he'd already rejected in the opinion. You may be remembering that Shelby didn't include a stay with his original order because the state hadn't requested one by then, which was definitely an oversight by them (although, in fairness to the state, his ruling was unexpected).

Not sure what you mean by "the main reason to stay a ruling is because that's what the precedent is when a ruling is appealed." If stays were simply what you do when rulings get appealed, then both Judge Shelby and the Tenth Circuit would have granted stays. Stays get denied all the time. The formal test (which varies by circuit) generally examines whether one party will be irreparably harmed without a stay. Irreparable harm is easier to prove with big changes in the law that are uncertain against prior precedent, like this one.

Also not certain it's "very unusual" for judges to stay their own rulings; Judge Walker temporarily stayed his ruling in the Prop 8 case to give the plaintiffs time to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The judge in that big NSA ruling in New York a few weeks ago stayed his own ruling. Just earlier today, Judge Chang in the Chicago gun sales case stayed his own ruling. It's not at all uncommon in high-profile stuff like this when everyone knows an appeal is going to proceed immediately.

Anyway, this is all boring and increasingly technical, and we're half a breath from splitting hairs. No question Utah botched the litigation, but the irony of all this is that all the (totally justified) hubbub about same-sex couples being left in limbo is exactly why Utah won its stay before the Supreme Court. It's a total mess, which is why it should have been stayed from the beginning.

This is boring? To whom?

*raises hand*

But that's why I'm not participating. Except this. But now I'm done.

The set of people who find legal procedure enthralling is pretty small.

Stay tuned for the ratings of the next Law & Order "Ripped From the Headlines" episode.

List of murdered popes, because Divya.

My favorites:

... a beating by a jealous husband (Pope John XII)
John XXI (1276-1277): While visiting the construction of a church, the roof collapsed on him, leading to conspiracy theories
Pius XI (1922-1939): Allegedly (though unlikely), in connection with his doctor's having been the father of Benito Mussolini's mistress

Also list of people executed by the Holy See.

I grit my teeth and read that question, finally, and wow, she sounds like 19-year-old me. (Nota bene, I was annoying.) For those watching at home, all of my many, many male love interests have been the oldest son in their family, usually with at least one married sibling, and were good at fixing things. Sorry I took them all, but y'know. I was just so hot.

Here's my incredibly picky list.

Makes more money than me.
On track to make a lot more money in the future.
Pays for my meals when we eat out.
Is an atheist or at least agnostic.
Kind to young children, waiters, and airline attendants.
Has a melodious last name.
Preferably blond.
Heterosexual (this should come earlier).
Less-insane family than mine (this is not hard).
Not in a rush to settle down, but not not in a rush, either.
Swears around me but not around my family.
Drinks but not to excess. If non-drinker, conducts self well at cocktail parties.
Non-smoker.
Can name three operas. (This one has the importance of "priesthood holder" for most Mormon chicks.)
Sarcastic but not cruel.

... very few of these are standards I don't hold myself to (the last name is a fait accompli at this point), so I think that's more-or-less reasonable.

Lovely job on the Chicago question to yay & Stego Lily. I second the recommendation to go to Giordano's. If you ever find yourself in Chicagoland, go eat pizza there. I keep trying to type a sentence about it and there are no words. Behold.

thatonemom wrote:Lovely job on the Chicago question to yay & Stego Lily. I second the recommendation to go to Giordano's. If you ever find yourself in Chicagoland, go eat pizza there. I keep trying to type a sentence about it and there are no words. Behold.

Yes, the museum and Giordano's are impressive. It's always deathly humid in September, though. Late October is probably nicer.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/75834/

Seriously impressed Divya was able to find the movie played nearly 20 years ago. Nice.