Dallyforth Oaks again puts his foot squarely in his morgbot mouth.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/50307880-90/oaks-marriage-constitution-federal.html.csp

The comment section at the SL Trib article are priceless.

I love it when he places Mormonism in the same sentences as Jehovas Witnesses and Muslims calling them small and unpopular.

On the positive side, Oaks says he and the Morg have been part of the current excess of ugliness and contentiousness.

On the silly side of Oaks is he total lack of self-awareness and exposure to the Morg's institutional participation in the vary acts he decries.

You silly boy Dally!

"LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks celebrated the Constitution’s 223rd birthday on Friday with a speech asserting that states have the primary power to define marriage, and a federal court ruling to the contrary would upset the proper balance of powers."

they seriously don't know when to quit do they? this will just end up being one of the infamous "signs of the times", and still working in favor of the church. i can already see it. either way they win.
if prop8 is again reversed in favor of the church it will be declared an act of god. if it continues to remain unconstitutional it will simply be a sign of the times and the whole constitution hanging by a thread. that is what oaks' talk is setting up to.

but this part is brilliant:
-------
Clifford Rosky, a University of Utah law professor who is a member of the legal panel for Equality Utah, a gay rights group, disagreed with Oaks. He noted that the Supreme Court in 1967 overturned a Virginia law that had banned interracial marriage.

“That was a federal court saying that a state marriage law was invalid,” so such a thing has already happened, and the Prop 8 litigation may not change a balance of power between states and the federal government, Rosky said.

Brandie Balken, executive director of Equality Utah, added, “I worry about what happens to people when they are married in one state, but move to another state that doesn’t recognize their marriage.

“What happens to their marriage status? Their children’s status?”

Balken said she has seen hospitals deny a same-sex spouse visitation rights and the ability to make health decisions.

“Those are the sorts of questions I have if we choose not to have a national standard for marriage,” she said. “It is important to engage in this debate.”
-----
and this reader comment:
"I don't get it. I'm an ardent supporter of states rights, but marriage is a legal status recognized at a federal level. When I file my IRS taxes, Social Security benefits, FMLA, etc. I declare a legal status of Married, Single, etc.

If it's a federal legal status, why should marriage be defined by the states?"

thanks for posting this cricket

Muslims are certainly not a small, minority, religion.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Muslims are certainly not a small, minority,
> religion.


LOL That's for sure. What rock has he been hiding under?

the sltrib site is throwing me an error when i click on page 2

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

14 Fundamentals on following the profit- ETB

the GAs are selected with ONE GOAL IN MIND:

that is LOYALTY TO TSCC, at all costs, even Intellectual Dishonesty.

But see, all the reasons, Facts, and logic that tell that tscc is a Hoax... those are 'of Satan' (just like Divorce)...

So it's O.K. to be bigoted!

Don't worry. In 20-25 years, we'll be sitting here writing about how the Maxwell Institute guys are explaining that "he was just speaking as a man." And none of these teachings about homosexuality were really "doctrine," but just Mr. Oaks' opinion.

Look at it now. George Romeney "marched" with Martin Luther King, Jr. And working women, once the bane of Mormonism and one of the three evil enemy groups poised to bring down the one true church are...gasp...in advertisements for TSCC.

There will probably be some new bogeyman at that point to focus Mormons' attention.

In the meantime people are suffering, and why pay people 10% of your income just to be 20 years behind social trends of acceptance?

from someone who knew what they were talking about - the Law Prof.

Facts always trump blather.

And was anyone ever heard of a reason for supporting states' rights which doesn't involve institutional discrimination against some minority or other?

DHO would mind a little word substitution?

“The power to make laws on segregation is one of those powers not granted to the federal government and therefore reserved to the states,” said Oaks.

Oaks said the “dominance of state law in these [racial] matters” would be changed if “federal courts could decree that a state law on [segregation] is invalid under the U.S. Constitution.”

You're a real paragon of civil rights, aren't you?

When I click on the link, I see nothing about "small, unpopular, etc."

Have they changed it?

Did they see this thread and cut out the offending bit?

Or am I just half-blind?