The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

But crucially, an individual cleric can refuse to perform such a ceremony. The bishop then drafts in someone who will, instead. Priests themselves aren't being forced to perform ceremonies against their will.

That is because you are dealing with an organization and not a person. But a small church with only one clergy, or one in which the parishioners themselves do not want their religious sanctuary used for what they believe to be a sinful act, what recourse do they have?

 

[Joel]

It is so ordered.

 

[Dennisch]

It is so ordered.

That makes it sound so sassy.

 

[Liquid]

This is the 2nd most upvoted comment from that article:

Lawyers who say that the states should decide the matter are ignoring the fact that the equal protection of the laws and our rights under the Constitution are NOT amenable to revocation by the states. If they were, I imagine we'd still have slavery, or at least Jim Crow, in several states in the south. The old call for "states' rights" has long been a cover for attempts to refuse Constitutional protections to citizens, and it's certainly that in this case.

Is this a sound assesment (I haven't even started looking into how decisions like this are made so am very much the legal noob)?

If it's in the constitution, the states don't have a say in it. The feds do.

But that's where the argument therein lies, if it's in the constitution. A lot of people like to squirm over words and context.

That is because you are dealing with an organization and not a person. But a small church with only one clergy, or one in which the parishioners themselves do not want their religious sanctuary used for what they believe to be a sinful act, what recourse do they have?

Well, for want of a better phrase, tough titties. The state extends marriage to a church, the state has to protect the rights of those who wish to use that. This is what you get for having an established church, something which is very typical of European monarchies past and present. Priest doesn't want to do it? A scab is drafted in who will.

The solution? As you and others have rightly pointed out several times, for marriage to not be anyone's business but those participants involved.

 

[DK]

To build on what @Liquid said, the Church of Denmark is the established church of that country and IIRC pretty much gets all of its funding from the Danish state.

 

[zzz_pt]

Yea... that's all in the last few months (except the pres. who was re-elected slightly earlier).

Are we in the America thread or the homosexuality thread? That's the context of my posts in this thread.

Those other things are positive but nothing related to this topic.

 

[Danoff]

Both.


The lawsuits have already occurred and in some states it is required for businesses to practice equal protection.

And where they can't when lawsuits now you know they will push for laws to be strengthened on that.

Denmark has even passed a law to require churches to perform same sex marriages.

Well, that would be a different story if those things were ruled incorrectly. None of that invalidates proper interpretation of equal protection in this case. If people want to try to force religious institutions to perform social marriage ceremonies (that have nothing to do with the legal contract), those people should be struck down by the same courts that ruled for equal protection in this case.

This is the 2nd most upvoted comment from that article:

Lawyers who say that the states should decide the matter are ignoring the fact that the equal protection of the laws and our rights under the Constitution are NOT amenable to revocation by the states. If they were, I imagine we'd still have slavery, or at least Jim Crow, in several states in the south. The old call for "states' rights" has long been a cover for attempts to refuse Constitutional protections to citizens, and it's certainly that in this case.

Is this a sound assesment (I haven't even started looking into how decisions like this are made so am very much the legal noob)?

Yes but.. it's not quite that simple. There are times when equal protection doesn't apply. I tried to summarize here.

@squadops

Skimmed Thomas' dissent. It's not particularly good. He always argues from the right starting point, but in this case he doesn't get persuaded far enough away from that starting point to reach the proper conclusion. His starting point is generally "it's not the government's place to decide", and he simply isn't sufficiently persuaded that there is no material distinction between gay and straight marriage to make it an equal protection issue. He argues that there are material differences (and makes an analogy to differences in statutory rape laws that distinguish on the basis of gender), or at least that the lack of material differences isn't properly motivated.

So at least the thought process is roughly correct (as is usual for Thomas) even though the conclusion is botched. He takes a broader view of marriage than simply a legal institution, and that's why he fails to see the lack of difference between gay and straight marriage. I think in this case he'd have been better served to look at it not as a social institution (which is not defined by law anyway), but as a legal institution.

 

[Danoff]

Are we in the America thread or the homosexuality thread? That's the context of my posts in this thread.

Those other things are positive but nothing related to this topic.

You're the one who brought up the general topic of social news from the states.

 

[KSaiyu]

Well, for want of a better phrase, tough titties. The state extends marriage to a church, the state has to protect the rights of those who wish to use that. This is what you get for having an established church, something which is very typical of European monarchies past and present. Priest doesn't want to do it? A scab is drafted in who will.

So....hold churches to ransom?

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, that would be a different story if those things were ruled incorrectly. None of that invalidates proper interpretation of equal protection in this case. If people want to try to force religious institutions to perform social marriage ceremonies (that have nothing to do with the legal contract), those people should be struck down by the same courts that ruled for equal protection in this case.

Whether the cases get ruled incorrectly or not has little bearing in the situation. These small businesses are just owned by one or two people. Most wedding photographers I know are someone who enjoyed photography and was good at it decided to make money off of it on the side of after retirement. They can't afford the lawsuit at all.

Ultimately, religious-owned, small businesses can be shut down without the court trial progressing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That is because you are dealing with an organization and not a person. But a small church with only one clergy, or one in which the parishioners themselves do not want their religious sanctuary used for what they believe to be a sinful act, what recourse do they have?

Then that cleric can refuse to perform the ceremony as is her or his choice. The couple wishing to get married are still able to do so either elsewhere or with another cleric

So....hold churches to ransom?

Most modern law is moving out of the realm where it blindly protects religious morality. No church is "held to ransom" with this clarification of the Constitution - in fact no church's express (and sole) view can be made into law according to the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

 

[Danoff]

Whether the cases get ruled incorrectly or not has little bearing in the situation. These small businesses are just owned by one or two people. Most wedding photographers I know are someone who enjoyed photography and was good at it decided to make money off of it on the side of after retirement. They can't afford the lawsuit at all.

Ultimately, religious-owned, small businesses can be shut down without the court trial progressing.

Doesn't really apply to this ruling. You can't say that equal protection doesn't apply to these people because you're worried that future lawsuits will overstep.

 

[Danny]

Wondering if men from now on will marry each other and same for women ,how will we make future generations by having children so the universe circle will continue? Seriously am confused how the logic would work if this become the trend

 

[FoolKiller]

Doesn't really apply to this ruling. You can't say that equal protection doesn't apply to these people because you're worried that future lawsuits will overstep.

But it opens the door to those lawsuits not getting shut down immediately, which was what I originally stated, "it opens the doors." There is room in a court trial to determine what equal protection laws do and don't apply to, much like general welfare can be defined broadly or narrowly in courts.

That said: I have not fully compiled my thoughts on the equal protection clause here and it's full scope. But basically, marriage is a state-level regulation. As I understand equal protection, a state must recognize the rights of people from other states while in their borders. That does not mean the people who live within a state gain the rights that another state grants the moment they deem them rights. So, in this instance, I believe equal protection in this case should require a state that has not legalized gay marriage to recognize those rights in a homosexual couple that marries in another state. It should not require a state to instantly have legalized gay marriage.

For example: You can't leave Colorado and smoke pot in Kentucky, but Kentucky can't arrest you for suspicion of drug possession merely because you are from Colorado.

If there was a federal marriage law, that would be a wholly different debate.

 

[Dennisch]

Ah yes, Facebook comments. YouTube comments' twin sibling.

 

[Danoff]

But it opens the door to those lawsuits not getting shut down immediately, which was what I originally stated, "it opens the doors."

I don't agree. Those lawsuits could have been filed before, and have the same reasons for getting shut down immediately now as they did before.

That said: I have not fully compiled my thoughts on the equal protection clause here and it's full scope. But basically, marriage is a state-level regulation. As I understand equal protection, a state must recognize the rights of people from other states while in their borders. That does not mean the people who live within a state gain the rights that another state grants the moment they deem them rights. So, in this instance, I believe equal protection in this case should require a state that has not legalized gay marriage to recognize those rights in a homosexual couple that marries in another state. It should not require a state to instantly have legalized gay marriage.

For example: You can't leave Colorado and smoke pot in Kentucky, but Kentucky can't arrest you for suspicion of drug possession merely because you are from Colorado.

If there was a federal marriage law, that would be a wholly different debate.

Equal protection means that the law can't discriminate based on arbitrary basis. It is the reason we cannot have a law that says "black people must ride the other bus" or "men can vote but women can't".

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't agree. Those lawsuits could have been filed before, and have the same reasons for getting shut down immediately now as they did before.



Equal protection means that the law can't discriminate based on arbitrary basis. It is the reason we cannot have a law that says "black people must ride the other bus" or "men can vote but women can't".

Then that goes back to federalism vs. states rights.

It should also be added that many states did not create a law. They amended their constitutions.

 

[Danoff]

Then that goes back to federalism vs. states rights.

Yup. Equal protection trumps states rights. States don't have a right to violate it.

 

[GTsail]

Yup. Equal protection trumps states rights. States don't have a right to violate it.

I agree:tup:

This made me think of the Loving v. Virginia case (that was earlier mentioned)

Loving v. Virginia case from Wiki

At the time of the Loving case, there were 17 States that had some sort of anti-miscegenation laws on their books.

The Supreme Court ruling in 1967 in-validated all of these various State laws that had prohibited interracial marriage.

In the Loving case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I think it's a reasonable decision. I'm glad to see a somewhat reasonable response for the most part, with a few exceptions. My home city of Fort Worth started issuing marriage licenses nearly immediately. There is an enormous LGBT community in Texas. It's quite a good day for wedding planners in the south.

 

[Joey D]

I'm glad adults can now marry any other legally consenting adult they want to, that's how it should have been all along. If the government is going to allow special benefits to married couples, it should be open to all married couples, not those that religious institutions deem morally acceptable.

Also I've seen a lot of comments around the web saying this will some how ruin marriage and it's infringing on the rights of Churches, neither of which I understand. Same-sex marriage isn't going to ruin marriage anymore than opposite sex marriage since marriage is just more or less a piece of paper saying two people have entered a contract with one another. It might ruin someone's idea of marriage, but ruining marriage flat out seems a bit silly. As for infringing on the rights of the Church, as far as I'm aware a church doesn't have to perform a wedding if it doesn't want to. The only marriage "ceremony" that should be enforced is the issuing of a marriage license, anything else should be up to the marriage performer.

Now that this backwards thing is behind us, maybe now we can quit wasting tax dollars fighting something that won't destroy the country and actually start focusing on moving forward with things that will make America a better place to live.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm glad adults can now marry any other legally consenting adult they want to, that's how it should have been all along. If the government is going to allow special benefits to married couples, it should be open to all married couples, not those that religious institutions deem morally acceptable.

Also I've seen a lot of comments around the web saying this will some how ruin marriage and it's infringing on the rights of Churches, neither of which I understand. Same-sex marriage isn't going to ruin marriage anymore than opposite sex marriage since marriage is just more or less a piece of paper saying two people have entered a contract with one another. It might ruin someone's idea of marriage, but ruining marriage flat out seems a bit silly. As for infringing on the rights of the Church, as far as I'm aware a church doesn't have to perform a wedding if it doesn't want to. The only marriage "ceremony" that should be enforced is the issuing of a marriage license, anything else should be up to the marriage performer.

Now that this backwards thing is behind us, maybe now we can quit wasting tax dollars fighting something that won't destroy the country and actually start focusing on moving forward with things that will make America a better place to live.

The idea of marriage and in fact the word marriage both predate Christianity. There's no reason they can't create a new special, consecrated, "Christian Marriage" that has some special significance in the eyes of the church, but equal to others in the eyes of the law. In a way, it would be essentially like becoming a Priest or Pastor or what have you. To the law, a Priest is the same as any other citizen, but within his Church it is a significant and honored position. I just don't get why we can't be reasonable like this.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm glad adults can now marry any other legally consenting adult they want to, that's how it should have been all along.

The incestuous and the polygamous are still out of luck though aren't they?

 

[Liquid]

So....hold churches to ransom?

It isn't holding churches to ransom. If the Church (whole sect, not an individual building) is an extension of the state, and the established Church of Denmark in question is, then it is the state fulfilling its duty to offer and protect equal marriage rights on state property.

If it is forcing this upon a disestablished Church, that is a separate matter. But the Church of Denmark is not disestablished.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The incestuous and the polygamous are still out of luck though aren't they?

Even in Idaho?

 

[niky]

The incestuous and the polygamous are still out of luck though aren't they?

Give it another few decades for the latter. Maybe a century for the former. Though with the entanglement with the issue of pedophilia and the abuse of authority, maybe not ever.

 

[Danoff]

But the Church of Denmark is not disestablished.

This being the biggest problem.

 

[KSaiyu]

Give it another few decades for the latter. Maybe a century for the former. Though with the entanglement with the issue of pedophilia and the abuse of authority, maybe not ever.

Why wait? Surely this triumph should spur on the equality movement to champion the right for everyone. Equality's equality right....or are some more equal than others. Homosexuals and heterosexuals who don't believe in polygamy/incestuousness can definitely be guilty of paedophilia. You're sounding like you're associating two groups with paedophilia....

 

[squadops]

It's a good time to become a lawyer or judge

 

[KSaiyu]

It's a good time to become a lawyer or judge

I actually grew up on Law and Order and ER and couldn't decide which I wanted to be. Reading the last few pages and trying to keep up has given me enough of a headache to know I probably made the right decision. I do hope these events inspire more kids to take up the law profession. I also find it interesting how there's a big push in this country for a greater representation of of BME/state school educated doctors but not solicitors/judges. Can only guess people care more for their freedom than their lives.

Good morality lessons from both shows though, and I still watch Law and Order Criminal Intent for psychological analysis tips.