If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   US Supreme Court halts Utah same-sex marriages pending appeal. Sorry, procrastinators   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 150
    More: Followup, Supreme Court, Utah, opponents of same-sex marriage, Supreme Court halts, U.S. Court of Appeals  
•       •       •

1261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jan 2014 at 1:35 PM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 03:05:25 PM
You guys are acting like this is a permanent change. Everyone knew they would do anything they could to stall for time, and filing appeals to stall is just another dick move in the GOP strategy.

A temporary halt is a dick move, but it isn't a permanent move. More than likely SCOTUS will review the appeal and allow same-sex marriages in Utah to resume as normally once they come to the inevitable decision that the federal ruling was correct.

Barring Scalia and Thomas ruling in favor of the assholes, there won't be strong enough support to overturn the Federal ruling. Most of them will shrug their shoulders and tell them to get over it.

Reviewing appeals is business as usual for SCOTUS, and we knew the GOP would be dicks about this. But this isn't the end of same sex marriage in Utah, this is just another road bump that we'll have to pass over and grumble about. But the GOP has lost this war, they're just going through the motions of using any ammunition they can find to stall for time.
 
2014-01-06 03:11:09 PM

Weatherkiss: just another dick move in the GOP strategy


Having a good dick move probably will lead to gay marriage, or at least a steady boyfriend.
 
2014-01-06 03:17:32 PM

Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon). I am not, nor will I ever be Mormon, therefore we can't be "sealed" in their temple as Mormon couples usually do.

My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen


You should try the beer with caffeine in it.
 
2014-01-06 03:19:54 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon). I am not, nor will I ever be Mormon, therefore we can't be "sealed" in their temple as Mormon couples usually do.

My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen

You should try the beer with caffeine in it.


I had to give up caffeine because of a heart rhythm condition or I would.
 
2014-01-06 03:21:49 PM

Tax Boy: Weatherkiss: just another dick move in the GOP strategy

Having a good dick move probably will lead to gay marriage, or at least a steady boyfriend.


Let's not be misogynistic here; many women would probably enjoy a good dick move as well.
 
2014-01-06 03:23:11 PM
Let me start by saying that I've looked at this issue from as many angles as I can find and there doesn't seem to be the slightest legal justification for withholding governmental benefits (tax breaks etc.) from same sex couples while allowing those same benefits to mixed sex couples. Barring some kind of amazing political or legal gymnastics it's a foregone conclusion that same sex marriage will be upheld at the federal level.

That being said, it's frustrating to see the same hollow anti-religious comments parroted in these threads by people that on the one hand criticize the group think that is prevalent in most religious movements and on the other hand spit out the same uneducated vitriol exactly like the sheep they love to mock.

While there appear to be a lot of religious morons that are against gay marriage because it's "icky", at an organizational level the vast majority of those opposing same sex marriage do so as a hedge against possible future infringement of their freedom of religion. Any objective analysis of their stance has to admit this fear is not unfounded.

Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

It's pretty clear that many people who deride the religious opposition to same sex marriage care more about bashing religion than they do about people's rights, or they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the rights of those who don't wish to be forced to participate in religious ceremonies that violate their most important beliefs.

I wish people on both sides of this issue would pull their heads out of their asses and realize that "marriage" consists of 2 parts: 1. The Ceremony and 2. Rights and Responsibilities. There doesn't seem to be a way to guarantee the rights of everyone involved until those 2 parts are well and truly separate. Let the religious nuts play dress up all they want without imposing governmental oversight and get the law to equal the playing field guaranteeing the same benefits for any couple regardless of their sexual orientation or any other factor.

Ignorance is ugly, but when I hear the religious masses decry the immorality of same sex marriage at least I can write off part of it to their indoctrination. When I see the other side of the coin expressed by so called rational people it's depressing to see how they're no less indoctrinated by some kind of anti-religious Cult of the Internet.

If you truly believe in equal rights, remember that people on both sides of this issue are entitled to them. Instead of acting like some kind of perverted Westboro Church of Anti-Religion let's get to the root of the issue and make sure everyone's rights are protected by getting the government out of the religion business and religion out of the government's business.

I have references for everything in this post if anyone's interested. Please everyone do some critical thinking and decide if you're truly on the side of equal rights or if you're on the side of "Internet Bandwagon Church of Religion Sucks"

Same Sex Unions need to be Federally protected, but so do the rights of the religious to practice their mumbo jumbo without the threat of government interference. The only way to accomplish both is to ensure the rights of ALL couples to tax breaks, visitation, inheritance, etc. etc. by decoupling those rights from any kind of outdated religious ceremony, regardless of its origin.
 
2014-01-06 03:26:23 PM

Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon)


Huh, I didn't know they did that in LDS churches. I'm not aware of any other church that provides a different sort of ceremony, in its building and officiated by its clergy, for interfaith weddings.
 
2014-01-06 03:26:23 PM

nekom: Pincy:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???

That may be one of the dumber ones out there.  My daughter is 6 and she's aware of gay people.  That conversation was super easy!  Daddy, what does gay mean?  "Oh, well you know how sometimes a man and a woman fall in love?  Well some people fall in love with people of the same gender.  So you may have a couple that are both men or both women."  "Oh, ok I get it."

So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.


SO FAR

SO FAR
 
2014-01-06 03:27:12 PM

push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.


Citation please?
 
2014-01-06 03:28:38 PM

nekom: A sad step backwards for equality.  But hey, 2013 was a great year for it.  Question for legal eagles out there:  What are the odds of someone using the new precedent of DOMA violating equal protection to challenge same sex marriage bans nationwide?  And more importantly, what are the odds of it working?  I seriously doubt there's any other way to get it in all 50 states without it going the route of the courts.


You don't challenge laws nationwide. You challenge your local law for violating Federal law and push it up the line until the Supreme Court applies the ruling nation-wide. Which is the likely result of this case (as opposed to New Mexico where it was deemed to viloate the state constitution).
 
2014-01-06 03:30:26 PM
push3r: Same Sex Unions need to be Federally protected, but so do the rights of the religious to practice their mumbo jumbo without the threat of government interference. The only way to accomplish both is to ensure the rights of ALL couples to tax breaks, visitation, inheritance, etc. etc. by decoupling those rights from any kind of outdated religious ceremony, regardless of its origin.

Very well put!  Separation of church and state should protect the state from the church, but also should protect the church from the state.  The best answer to all this is indeed to decouple marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a legal instrument.  As a religious institution, it's up to the individual churches to decide what it means to them.  As a legal instrument, it is merely an exclusive contract entered into by two natural persons.  To deny that right based on sexual orientation is nothing short of discrimination.  Whether or not a particular church will perform the ceremony, that MUST remain up to the church.  Though really, if the government tries to force me to perform a wedding I don't approve of, I just wouldn't do it.  What are they going to do, throw me in jail?

/I don't disapprove of same sex unions at all, and would be happy to perform such ceremonies
//internet ordained minister
///red letter Christian Buddhist agnostic
 
2014-01-06 03:30:31 PM

firefly212: tinfoil-hat maggie: firefly212: ampoliros: This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.

No... that isn't it at all... the federal judciary (Shebly) invalidated it, it is going to the next higher federal court, the to SCOTUS... the federal judiciary is elbows deep in this, and will be the arbiter of whether or not it is compliant with the US Constitution, regardless of which way it goes... there is no state avenue for this particular matter. The state itself has no standing to determine whether or not its own laws are compliant with the US Constitution, that's pretty plainly the responsibility of the federal judiciary.

I'd say it's because SCOTUS knows it will come to them and their decision if against Utah makes gay marriage legal everywhere in the US and they don't want to seem bias before it gets to them.

That's not the legal standard for having an injunction though... the legal standard is that the state would have to show that there could be irreparable harm were the injunction not to be issued. In this case, the state has repeatedly failed to show harm, and in many filings, even failed to declare that there would be any harm.


I don't really like it but SCOTUS decided for the stay without discussion from what TFA said and they get to do what they want.
 
2014-01-06 03:32:04 PM

push3r: And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.


You can file a lawsuit over whatever you want, the law is perfectly clear that they have no case. Even if statutory anti-discrimination laws went that far, which they don't, and even if such laws had anything to do with whether or not SS civil marriage is legal, which they don't, then the 1st Amendment would still completely prohibit forcing any church or any religious officiant to perform a wedding they didn't want to. 

Try going to your local Catholic priest and getting him to marry a Hindu and an athiest. Try getting your local unreconstructed anti-miscegenation preacher to marry a black man and a white woman. 

Find me one example, in the entire history of the United States, where a church or religious officiant has been forced to solemnize a marriage against their wishes. You won't find one, because it hasn't happened, ever. 

This argument is a ridiculous red herring. It literally says nothing about civil marriage equality- it's at beast an objection to anti-discrimination laws, which are an entirely separate category of law.
 
2014-01-06 03:33:53 PM

Churchill2004: Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon)

Huh, I didn't know they did that in LDS churches. I'm not aware of any other church that provides a different sort of ceremony, in its building and officiated by its clergy, for interfaith weddings.


It was a generic ceremony, similar to what you would get from a Justice Of The Peace.
 
2014-01-06 03:33:54 PM
Hey, sometimes due process is a biatch.  Apparently these dipshiats are just as entitled to their day in court getting their ass handed to them as someone else is with a legitimate case.

We just have to wait around for a while, but this changes nothing.
 
2014-01-06 03:37:52 PM

Beerguy: Churchill2004: Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon)

Huh, I didn't know they did that in LDS churches. I'm not aware of any other church that provides a different sort of ceremony, in its building and officiated by its clergy, for interfaith weddings.

It was a generic ceremony, similar to what you would get from a Justice Of The Peace.


Hey, whatever floats your boat. My marriage ceremony was officiated by my grandfather-in-law, on top of an ancient Indian mound in a state park for no real reason other than I liked the topography (my husband insisted we make sure we were on the ceremonial mound and not the burial one a few hundred meters away!), followed by a brief JP civil ceremony out of state in Dubuque because Wisconsin doesn't recognize our (same-sex) marriage yet. I just find it surprising that a Mormon officiant in a Mormon church would have no problem conducting a non-Mormon wedding.
 
2014-01-06 03:41:50 PM

Churchill2004: push3r: And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

You can file a lawsuit over whatever you want, the law is perfectly clear that they have no case. Even if statutory anti-discrimination laws went that far, which they don't, and even if such laws had anything to do with whether or not SS civil marriage is legal, which they don't, then the 1st Amendment would still completely prohibit forcing any church or any religious officiant to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
Try going to your local Catholic priest and getting him to marry a Hindu and an athiest. Try getting your local unreconstructed anti-miscegenation preacher to marry a black man and a white woman.
Find me one example, in the entire history of the United States, where a church or religious officiant has been forced to solemnize a marriage against their wishes. You won't find one, because it hasn't happened, ever.
This argument is a ridiculous red herring. It literally says nothing about civil marriage equality- it's at beast an objection to anti-discrimination laws, which are an entirely separate category of law.


Thank you, very well put.
 
2014-01-06 03:44:21 PM

Musikslayer: nekom: Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?

The civil rights. The first part of the sentence should have been "The opinions of the majority of the people", not "rights". There is plenty of precedent, from women voting to slavery and all sorts of other issues.

If one asked people in Arkansas "Should we kill all Mooslims?", the majority might vote yes. That's not how things work, fortunately. Just because a majority "wants" something doesn't mean it will apply to any sort of law. The majority of a state might want the speed limit to be 100, the majority of the US might want a Congresscritter to make $30K a year.


"Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one." - Kurt Cobain
 
2014-01-06 03:50:34 PM

Beerguy: Churchill2004: Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.

Can a devout Mormon marry a non-Mormon and it be condoned by the church? Don't you like have to have a temple name, magical underwear, etc. to have an LDS wedding? Did you go through the motions, did she not care about having a church wedding, or did she convert after you wed?

We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon). I am not, nor will I ever be Mormon, therefore we can't be "sealed" in their temple as Mormon couples usually do.

My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen


Does she understand that she will never be able to ascend to the celestial kingdom?  And that is that is the case then there are all sorts of other sins that are open to her, but that will do no harm to her standing in the afterlife?  if you haven't pursued this line of argument in your pursuit of more debauchery with your wife, I think you should.. :D

Unless said debauchery is already there, in which case I would start asking her why expend any effort at keeping up lame appearances?  Just get the tattoos and body piercing, dye the hair and be done with it..
 
2014-01-06 03:51:21 PM
Really SCOTUS? you could at least offer some justification of your ruling on the stay in the order?   Not that i can think of ay legal standing UTAH had in getting a stay.

Seriously the SCOTUS needs to put on their collective big boy pants and rule gay marriage is legal as legislative action is just not gonna happen as in too many states to even suggest legalizing gay marriage is tantamount to political suicide.
 
2014-01-06 03:51:24 PM
push3r: Let me start by saying that I've looked at this issue from as many angles as I can find and there doesn't seem to be the slightest legal justification for withholding governmental benefits (tax breaks etc.) from same sex couples while allowing those same benefits to mixed sex couples. Barring some kind of amazing political or legal gymnastics it's a foregone conclusion that same sex marriage will be upheld at the federal level.

That being said, it's frustrating to see the same hollow anti-religious comments parroted in these threads by people that on the one hand criticize the group think that is prevalent in most religious movements and on the other hand spit out the same uneducated vitriol exactly like the sheep they love to mock.


I'm going to have to disagree with you based on one word: uneducated. Fark isn't the most religiously friendly site to begin with, but lets not mince words here. The Mormon church has been VERY active when it comes to suppressing Gay Marriage. When you are oppressed, it is natural to want to lash out at your attacker.

While there appear to be a lot of religious morons that are against gay marriage because it's "icky", at an organizational level the vast majority of those opposing same sex marriage do so as a hedge against possible future infringement of their freedom of religion. Any objective analysis of their stance has to admit this fear is not unfounded.

Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.


Freedom of Association. The Mormon church can choose to disallow people from marrying in their church. I know there are a number of hoops to jump through so you can marry in a Catholic church, I'm sure Mormons are the same.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

And they will (and should) fail based on Freedom of Association.

It's pretty clear that many people who deride the religious opposition to same sex marriage care more about bashing religion than they do about people's rights, or they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the rights ...

What rights are being dismissed? The right to try to control a word that they feel they have proprietary ownership of despite the convention existing well before their creation (by a few thousand years in the case of the Mormons)?
 
2014-01-06 03:51:52 PM

PawisBetlog: an more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one." - Kurt Cobain



Nice.
 
2014-01-06 03:52:22 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?


The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.
 
2014-01-06 03:54:23 PM

PawisBetlog: Hey, sometimes due process is a biatch.  Apparently these dipshiats are just as entitled to their day in court getting their ass handed to them as someone else is with a legitimate case.

We just have to wait around for a while, but this changes nothing.


If your partner dies while the state is appealing to keep you unequal, this changes everything... you aren't married, you don't get survivors benefits, you get taxed like you're a stranger, including getting taxed out of your own house... even while they're in the hospital and just critical, you aren't married, so you don't get to be their medical decision maker if some random family member challenges you on it. There absolutely is irreparable harm caused by granting this injunction, whereas there would be no harm in making the state issue the licenses pending resolution of its case.
 
2014-01-06 03:56:42 PM

push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.


Citing another country in a discussion about a state law in the US?  That has absolutely no bearing here.  Try again.
 
2014-01-06 03:57:46 PM

push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.


so... you have no citation in the US, where we explicitly forbid congress from making laws interfering with religion, and it would take a constitutional amendment to make churches be subject to that whole equal rights thing... got it. Seriously, in the US, churches can get away with anything, you can have whites only churches, straight-only churches, men-only staff... whatever kind of discrimination you want is ok for a church... what you're saying, about some wacky possibility of gays forcing churches to do their bidding... is just so wildly unrealistic that it serves only to undermine your own credibility.
 
2014-01-06 04:01:20 PM

firefly212: PawisBetlog: Hey, sometimes due process is a biatch.  Apparently these dipshiats are just as entitled to their day in court getting their ass handed to them as someone else is with a legitimate case.

We just have to wait around for a while, but this changes nothing.

If your partner dies while the state is appealing to keep you unequal, this changes everything... you aren't married, you don't get survivors benefits, you get taxed like you're a stranger, including getting taxed out of your own house... even while they're in the hospital and just critical, you aren't married, so you don't get to be their medical decision maker if some random family member challenges you on it. There absolutely is irreparable harm caused by granting this injunction, whereas there would be no harm in making the state issue the licenses pending resolution of its case.


I get it, I didn't say I agree with it, but I understand the reasoning.  It would be great if we could make it so nothing slipped through the cracks but in a population of 300MM+, that's tough.
 
2014-01-06 04:03:40 PM

push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.


Ah, commerce clause. Well, lets again, go back to what you were saying religion would originally be afraid of: being forced to marry homosexuals. I will again point to: Freedom of Association.

The reason that Freedom of Association does not apply to the the commerce clause cases you have brought up is simple: they are open in nature. Anyone can walk into a shop and ask for service, and, despite the desire of the clerk, or the photographer they pretty much have to serve you. I'll be honest, I cannot remember the exact term used to explain why this is, but the court has upheld it several times.

Churches are categorized differently. To marry in a church you, almost universally, have to be a member of the church. The church gets to control who becomes a member. That is their association. They can choose to designate people as non-members. This is freedom FROM association, which is part of freedom of association. See Boyscouts of America v. Dade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale). The church will not be forced, as a private organization, to include someone they believe is antithetical to their being. It simply isn't going to happen.
 
2014-01-06 04:05:55 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Churchill2004: push3r: And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

You can file a lawsuit over whatever you want, the law is perfectly clear that they have no case. Even if statutory anti-discrimination laws went that far, which they don't, and even if such laws had anything to do with whether or not SS civil marriage is legal, which they don't, then the 1st Amendment would still completely prohibit forcing any church or any religious officiant to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
Try going to your local Catholic priest and getting him to marry a Hindu and an athiest. Try getting your local unreconstructed anti-miscegenation preacher to marry a black man and a white woman.
Find me one example, in the entire history of the United States, where a church or religious officiant has been forced to solemnize a marriage against their wishes. You won't find one, because it hasn't happened, ever.
This argument is a ridiculous red herring. It literally says nothing about civil marriage equality- it's at beast an objection to anti-discrimination laws, which are an entirely separate category of law.

Thank you, very well put.


If only it were that easy, but it's not.

There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.

Unless you're some kind of super constitutional lawyer from the future there's no way to predict exactly how the rulings will break down once same sex unions of some sort are inevitably (and correctly, I might add) legalized at the Federal level. Using the Mormons again as an example. There's a dude in this very thread that was married in one of their chapels while not himself a member of their religion. Not a temple, I understand, but given the New Jersey ruling can you really see the Mormons successfully making the case that even though they allowed this dude to get married there that they should be able to refuse the same to a same sex couple? Even if they could, would it be right?

The majority of people on both sides of this issue seem to be level headed, if maybe misguided. But there are definitely extremists on both sides that won't be happy until they either force all religious institutions to recognize their homosexual awesomeness or on the other hand make all the Godless sinners admit they're heathens that don't deserve the same tax breaks as their upstanding Republican neighbors.

As long as there's a religious ceremony of any kind tied to governmental benefits this can't end well for one side or the other. What's the problem with separating them completely? Let the churches marry who they want how they want but don't give that union any kind of governmental recognition. Make all unions receiving tax breaks, survivor-ship etc. strictly a civil contract.

I'm totally open to better ideas, but I've looked at this way too hard and long to believe that it's as simple as many of you are making it out to be.
 
2014-01-06 04:06:10 PM

push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.


If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?
 
2014-01-06 04:09:33 PM

push3r: There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press.


Then how do you know about them? I'm calling shenanigans until you actually show us a case in the U.S. that, according to you, is already happening.
 
2014-01-06 04:10:18 PM

qorkfiend: push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?


More accurately, by opening them up to the public, the church has relinquished the right to claim religious preference.  If you aren't objecting to the divorcees getting married or the Buddhists using your church, you abrogate your rights to object to a same-sex marriage.
 
2014-01-06 04:11:12 PM

push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.


Let me know when someone wins a case in the US. The UK does not have a 1st amendment and they have a church that is controlled by the state, big difference. As far as religion goes the get to be discriminatory business no they don't get to where sexual orientation is a protected class.
 
2014-01-06 04:16:15 PM

push3r: There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.


Well I was gonna ask for a citation but the bolded part explains.
 
2014-01-06 04:18:03 PM

Churchill2004: Beerguy: We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon)

Huh, I didn't know they did that in LDS churches. I'm not aware of any other church that provides a different sort of ceremony, in its building and officiated by its clergy, for interfaith weddings.


Catholics do the same thing.  There might be a little more paperwork up front, but that's about it.  Even if both people are Catholic, you still get to choose between two ceremony types, (i.e. full on Mass with the Eucharist or a simple ceremony).
 
2014-01-06 04:21:22 PM

push3r: As long as there's a religious ceremony of any kind tied to governmental benefits


Oh and see know where you went with this. Having a wedding in a church does not make you married go to a justice of the peace and getting a marrige licence does. Otherwise several same sex couples that I've been friends with would be married since they had a wedding in a church here in Alabama.
 
2014-01-06 04:21:52 PM

push3r: There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.


And that's the issue right there. "Open to the public" means ALL the public. That also means that if you are in the wedding industry, you cannot discriminate against gay couples just as you can't discriminate against inter-racial couples. Your religious beliefs aren't a defense for refusing to serve black people when you operate your business in the public square, neither should they be a defense for refusing to serve gay people.

Besides, given the amount of crap that gay people have had to deal with, crap done to them by religious people, I'm having a hard time sympathizing now that the tables are turning. And I say this as a Christian myself. (who supports gay marriage)
 
2014-01-06 04:23:44 PM
push3r:If only it were that easy, but it's not.

It is, actually. The Supreme Court ruled, as I mentioned in my last post, about private institutions being able to exclude a person from joining.

There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.

Different story, they're not private institutions excluding members, they're private businesses turning away customers which gets into the commerce clause issue.

Unless you're some kind of super constitutional lawyer from the future there's no way to predict exactly how the rulings will break down once same sex unions of some sort are inevitably (and correctly, I might add) legalized at the Federal level. Using the Mormons again as an example. There's a dude in this very thread that was married in one of their chapels while not himself a member of their religion. Not a temple, I understand, but given the New Jersey ruling can you really see the Mormons successfully making the case that even though they allowed this dude to get married there that they should be able to refuse the same to a same sex couple? Even if they could, would it be right?
 
You're right, we're not going to be able to predict exactly how rulings will break down in the future. And it's possible that a miscarriage of justice could occur. But that potential miscarriage of justice isn't as important as the CURRENT AND ACTUAL miscarriage of justice that is CURRENTLY IN PLACE ACROSS THE MAJORITY OF THIS NATION.

And no I cannot see how you can see a case being made out of the Mormon example, because it appears to have been two separate ceremonies.

The majority of people on both sides of this issue seem to be level headed, if maybe misguided.

Possibly, but I only one side dealing with hypotheticals, and one dealing with reality at this moment.

 But there are definitely extremists on both sides that won't be happy until they either force all religious institutions to recognize their homosexual awesomeness or on the other hand make all the Godless sinners admit they're heathens that don't deserve the same tax breaks as their upstanding Republican neighbors.

Tangential at best.

As long as there's a religious ceremony of any kind tied to governmental benefits this can't end well for one side or the other.

That's just it. It doesn't HAVE to be religious. You can get married outside of a church. A pure church marriage wouldn't even do anything in the eyes of the state until you fill out the state forms.

What's the problem with separating them completely? Let the churches marry who they want how they want but don't give that union any kind of governmental recognition. Make all unions receiving tax breaks, survivor-ship etc. strictly a civil contract.

That's already the case. That's why all state recognized marriages are civil unions. And why Atheists can get married, and people from two different churches can get married even if neither church accepts it.

I'm totally open to better ideas, but I've looked at this way too hard and long to believe that it's as simple as many of you are making it out to be.

Because you're not looking at the law.

/If this post were on paper I would hope the sheet to catch fire with righteous indignation...
 
2014-01-06 04:24:39 PM

Stile4aly: Smoking GNU: So, how many couples DID get married during this time?

From what I've read, 930 couples, or all the gay people in Utah.


lol

Well played.
 
2014-01-06 04:26:45 PM

qorkfiend: push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?


Jurodan: push3r: tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: Since this article is about Utah, look at the Mormons. Marriage in their temples is the single most holy part of their religion. While it's asinine to think that two people should be denied their rights just because of their sexual orientation, it seems equally wrong to force a religion to perform a ritual that inherently violates their most sacred beliefs. So let's say you exempt them from having to perform the ceremony, what about the use of their facilities? There are layers and layers, it's an enormous can of worms.

And before you say those fears are unjustified, there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. This isn't some hypothetical.

Citation please?

The easiest to cite isn't in this country, but has had a lot of coverage because the people involved are very high profile, something we won't see in this country soon unless Ellen or NPH decide they want a traditional Catholic wedding:

Story Here

There are similar lawsuits in various stages of progression here but they're not currently getting press. This doesn't even get into the issues with the wedding photographer or cake maker that were forced by the courts to perform services for same sex couples against their religious freedoms or the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

Please note that these issues aren't necessarily directly related, just intended to illustrate the clusterfark that exists when we try to balance differing constitutional rights. The whole thing just needs to be taken apart at the ground level. The rights of citizenship need to be separate from any religious groups' proprietary rituals or we're just inviting the extremists on both sides of the issue to waste our tax dollars in some giant pissing match.

Ah, commerce clause. Well, lets again, go back to what you were saying religion would originally b ...


You're both on the edge of this, but not quite there.

In the existing New Jersey ruling the judge didn't even get into free exercise. Part of the ruling cited: "a much lower standard that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals."

This isn't a hypothetical, and in the case of the Mormon church the commerce clause wouldn't be a factor as the Mormons don't charge for the use of their facilities for marriage ceremonies, and they allow marriages of non-members within those facilities.

There's a good reason that ALL of the existing laws in this country SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE churches from being forced to perform same sex marriages. That protection is not seen as inherently granted by the constitution. That's all well and good until someone with a significant bankroll challenges those provisions. The bottom line is that it's all speculation until it gets to the supreme court, and no one can predict which way they'll rule.

None of this even takes into consideration the fact that any such lawsuit by someone with deep pockets could bankrupt a smaller congregation without a ruling ever resulting.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying it goes one way or the other. I think it's stupid to even have this conversation. The fact that our rights as citizens are in any way shape or form tied to something as antiquated as religion is asinine and the only logical way to ensure equal treatment is to end that relationship permanently.

We talk about separation of church and state, in the end that's all I'm proposing.
 
2014-01-06 04:28:05 PM

qorkfiend: push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?


No, "open to the public" does not mean the church doesn't own them.

I can have a bar and if I open the doors to the public I can't say Irish people can not come in and buy a beer.

If I have a private social club on the other hand I can exclude women, gay people or the Irish.

They rented out their reception hall to anyone who would pay, I am guessing Jersey is among the states that have some law preventing discrimination based on sexual preference therefore they can't say "Anyone who wants to can rent our reception hall, but not the gays."
 
2014-01-06 04:31:19 PM
push3r:

There have already been SUCCESSFUL lawsuits in this country against practitioners of "traditional" religion who didn't want to provide marriage-related services to same sex couples, including a Methodist church in New Jersey that was forced to allow the use of their facilities that were open to the public.

How the fark is the facility a practitioner? It's not even an animate object. The court ruling said that if they were going to rent the wedding space to the public (they rented it to plenty of non-methodist weddings), then they couldn't discriminate, Nobody forced a practitioner of any religion to do anything. You want a religion, fine... but if you want to have a separate side business of renting out dining halls, wedding halls, or whatever, then you have to abide by the rules that apply to businesses. If you don't like the mucking of the waters between a church and a business, stop trying to run businesses from your church.
 
2014-01-06 04:36:09 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: push3r: As long as there's a religious ceremony of any kind tied to governmental benefits

Oh and see know where you went with this. Having a wedding in a church does not make you married go to a justice of the peace and getting a marrige licence does. Otherwise several same sex couples that I've been friends with would be married since they had a wedding in a church here in Alabama.


Exactly... The wife and I are legally married even though we never stepped foot in a church to get married. Homosexuals are currently forbidden by law from doing this in many states. That's unequal treatment under the law. No religion's right to practice their religion is currently being infringed by homosexuals being allowed to obtain a marriage license.

The idea that the Government should "get out of the marriage business" is disingenuous, at best. Marriage is, and has always been a contract. Plain and simple. If someone chooses to have a wedding in a church, that's separate from the legal contract of marriage, which the government is and should be involved in.

What the government shouldn't be doing is codifying what type of consensual couples are permitted to obtain marriage licenses.
 
2014-01-06 04:45:44 PM

jst3p: qorkfiend: push3r: the New Jersey Methodist church that was forced to allow same sex couples to use it's facilities that were open to the public for their reception.

If they're public facilities, then the church doesn't own them and doesn't have any say about who can use them, yes?

No, "open to the public" does not mean the church doesn't own them.

I can have a bar and if I open the doors to the public I can't say Irish people can not come in and buy a beer.

If I have a private social club on the other hand I can exclude women, gay people or the Irish.

They rented out their reception hall to anyone who would pay, I am guessing Jersey is among the states that have some law preventing discrimination based on sexual preference therefore they can't say "Anyone who wants to can rent our reception hall, but not the gays."


This is probably the case. Which is completely different than:

"there are already people going to court to force Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. "

But he was being disingenuous in the first case anyway.
 
2014-01-06 04:50:27 PM
keylock71:
What the government shouldn't be doing is codifying what type of consensual couples are permitted to obtain marriage licenses.

Maybe this is a bad analogy, but what do you think would happen if a state passed a law that said black people were forbidden from forming limited liability corporations?  The courts wouldn't accept discrimination like that.  Similar situation here, it's discrimination in contract law.
 
2014-01-06 04:52:46 PM

Confabulat: Is that dumbass off his hunger strike now?


He'd better have a few sandwiches during this appeal. He has withered away that he appears as a bundle of sticks.
 
2014-01-06 04:56:53 PM
Well, I'm just going to admit defeat.

There's obviously no possible way that a law passed to "protect" a part of the population would ever be leveraged to oppress a different segment of the population. That has never ever happened and none of the lawsuits that have already been successfully prosecuted are in any way shape or form indicative of things to come.

Once the definition of marriage is changed at the Federal level to include anyone regardless of gender, orientation, etc. (which WILL happen, and hopefully sooner rather than later) everything will immediately be a panacea for everyone involved.

Oh, and even if some religions or members thereof have their rights infringed it's what they deserve anyway since they all "hate the gays" and have ALL been actively involved in a vast conspiracy to suppress LGBT people and their rights. Turnabout is fair play and there's obviously no hypocrisy involved.

It's clearly in no way better to quit allowing religious ceremonies to be conducted as part of a state sanctioned contractual agreement (or vice versa, depending on your perspective) and require that they be conducted separately. Eliminating "Marriage" as a legal term and instead defining all unions exclusively by a civil term couldn't possibly eliminate any issues or potential conflicts between church and state.

I'm glad this is all theoretical and there's never been a law leveraged to exert control over a segment of the population. What a stupid idea! That's almost as crazy as laws banning specific types of sexual conduct or explicitly allowing the murder of people that belong to a specific religious group. We all know that could never happen in this country, right?

Equal rights for everyone involved will just happen automatically. Thank goodness.
 
2014-01-06 04:58:08 PM

Beerguy:
My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen


CSB:
My mom told me a story about when her and my dad were in their first house together. They were living in a predominately Mormon neighborhood. My dad was out mowing the lawn on a Sunday and had a beer in hand while doing it. The neighbor across the street happened to come out of the house, looked over, and was like "You're not Mormon?!". My dad replied that he wasn't. The neighbor was subsequently excited as the neighbors were previously the only non-Mormons in the neighborhood and the were ecstatic to have some fellow non-Mormons they could hang out with.
 
2014-01-06 05:16:40 PM

push3r: Oh, and even if some religions or members thereof have their rights infringed it's what they deserve


Surprise! Not being able to infringe on others' rights is NOT an infringement on your rights. Unless, of course, you're saying that your religious rights take precedence over all other rights.
 
2014-01-06 05:21:38 PM
Damn you Poe's law sometimes I just can't tell.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report