Interesting (Update, Update II)

This statement from the LDS Church on the situation in Utah right now sort of jumped out at me:

On Friday, the Mormon church issued another statement that explained its beliefs on gay marriage.

"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established," the statement said. "God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Leaders said they and others who oppose same-sex marriages are entitled to express their views without fear of retribution. Likewise, the church urged its members to be kind and respectful to proponents of same-sex marriage.

The reason I found this interesting may not be obvious: it's the first time that I can remember that a religious denomination has actually admitted that civil law and church doctrine are separate things. The LDS Church has been skirting the whole thing since Shelby handed down his decision. My own surmise is that, given that the LDS Church is a very secretive organization, they don't really want any more attention after the blowback from the Prop 8 debacle. Unfortunately, since this is happening in Utah, they have to say something, but they seem to be working very hard at keeping a low profile.

It's from this story about the Justice Department's announcement that it will recognize those marriages celebrated in Utah before the Supreme Court granted a stay on Judge Shelby's ruling. Here's the video of AG Holder's announcement:

And a transcript, courtesy of The New Civil Rights Movement:

“Last June, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision – in United States v. Windsor – holding that Americans in same-sex marriages are entitled to equal protection and equal treatment under the law. This ruling marked a historic step toward equality for all American families. And since the day it was handed down, the Department of Justice has been working tirelessly to implement it in both letter and spirit—moving to extend—federal benefits to married same-sex couples as swiftly and smoothly as possible.

Recently, an administrative step by the Court has cast doubt on same-sex marriages that have been performed in the state of Utah. And the governor has announced that the state will not recognize these marriages pending additional Court action.

In the meantime, I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages. These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds. In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled – regardless of whether they are in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages. And we will continue to provide additional information as soon as it becomes available.”

This is pretty much a no-brainer, but get a load of Brian Brown's reaction:

It is outrageous that the Justice Department would move so brazenly and publicly to undermine Utah's standing constitutional provision regulating marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is the right of states to determine marriage, and the voters and legislature of Utah have done just that. Their right to do so is encoded in the U.S. Constitution, and was explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court this summer in the Windsor decision. But with this move, the Department of Justice under this Administration signals that it simply has no regard for the Constitution and the rule of law. The Justice Department's edict today expressly contradicts the determination of Utah's Governor and Attorney General, and represents one of the most significant overreaches of federal authority imaginable. Furthermore, Attorney General Eric Holder is now doing the very thing that the Supreme Court in Windsor v. United States held the federal government could not do - use a definition of marriage for federal law purposes that did not respect the policy choices made by the individual states. This determination should be reversed if the State of Utah's sovereignty-or really any state's-is to be upheld and respected.

Via Joe.My.God.

Yeah, I know -- yadda yadda outrageous yadda yadda no regard for the Constitution yadda yadda flying spittle yadda yadda (hmm -- he forgot "lawless"). . . . But this is the fun part:

Furthermore, Attorney General Eric Holder is now doing the very thing that the Supreme Court in Windsor v. United States held the federal government could not do - use a definition of marriage for federal law purposes that did not respect the policy choices made by the individual states.

A multiple choice quiz:

1) Brown hasn't read the decision in Windsor

2) Brown doesn't care what the decision actually says because it conflicts with his agenda.

3) All of the above.

Brown is taking the somewhat singular position that the states get to dictate federal policy. That's not what the Court said. The Court said that the government cannot treat the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples differently than those of straight couples for purposes of federal benefits. So DoJ is following the Court's instructions.

Damned activist judges.

A footnote: In case you haven't seen anything about the State of Utah's decision not to recognize those marriages performed in the window between decision and stay, here's the story from Fox's local affiliate. This, from the newly christened AG, Sean Reyes, is, in light of Brown's outburst, very funny:

“I want to be clear that we are not saying those marriages are invalid,” Reyes said in an interview Wednesday with FOX 13. “However, as a state we cannot recognize those marriages.”

Reyes insisted that by refusing to recognize the marriages, the state was not effectively invalidating the unions by pointing to other states that recognize same-sex marriages.

“It’s not invalidating it in the same way that if they went to Hawaii, they could potentially apply for benefits there based on the marriage that took place. They can’t be recognized (here),” he said. “There is a very fine distinction, but a very important distinction based on those two things.”

Apparently, the idea that the State of Utah cannot recognize those marriages under state law but admits that they are valid for federal purposes and in other states is too much for Brown to wrap his head around.

Although I have to say, at this point it looks like the governor and his administration are flailing around throwing shit at the wall and hoping desperately that something sticks.

Good luck with that.

Update: It seems a freshman congressman from Texas (where else?) has come up with a response to Holder's statement. Click through and read Kincaid's post -- it's worth it.

Update II: Rep. Weevil (R-FRC) is getting some wonderful reactions. The headline from Wonkette says it all:

Texas Congressman Takes Backdoor Approach To Screwing Gays