Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

focusedfire wrote:Also your way opens people to litigation for merely having a religious beleif.ie... A church refuses to marry a Gay couple and is in violation of the law.

That’s complete and utter nonsense. There is at present no legal requirement for a church to marry anyone it doesn’t want to marry. It is legal for a church to decline to marry people who aren’t of their faith. Declining to marry someone because they’re gay is no different.

1. No. As far as I know, a church does not have to marry anyone. Mormons don't marry
non-Mormons in their temples (or non Latter Day Saints people)

2. n/a

3. n/a

4. n/a

5. This I don't know.

Anyway, this is from my limited understanding of religion. If there's more
to it than that, then I'd like to be informed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
1. Would the Mormon / Catholic Church, as an agent of the State authorized to perform Marriages / Civil Unions, be required to perform gay marraiges?

They aren't agents of the state. This doesn't make any sense. Though it is possible that I missed something in an earlier post, being seven or eight pages at this point. If it has to do with getting married by a minister, that actually is a choice, a justice of the peace or other functionaries can do it, such as ships Captains.

JohnHwangDD wrote:5. At what point does First Amendment right to free practice of relgion, no matter how heinous or offensive, have to cede to Anti-Discrimination law?

This is a very complicated legal matter, one I'm not sure we have the bandwidth to go into true detail of. Very briefly, it would be as long as the religion complies to law. There are many heinous religious sects/cults that exist in the US and are protected. The Church of Satan, White Power church's, Westboro Baptist Church, militant Islamic and Catholic groups are just examples. As to anti-discrimination as long as it is a private entity they are are allowed to. You can choose who comes onto your property or join private organizations.

JohnHwangDD wrote:That's what people say, but then nobody has really advanced the argument properly.

For example:

1. Would the Mormon / Catholic Church, as an agent of the State authorized to perform Marriages / Civil Unions, be required to perform gay marraiges?

What happens, right now, if Russian Orthodox church says it won’t marry someone because they’re protestant/Buddhist/atheist?

What happens, right now, if a church refuses to marry someone because they’d been divorced previously?

What happens, right now, if a church refuses to marry someone based on their skin colour?

In all cases the applicant doesn’t have a leg to stand on. This is well established in legal precedent, and the exact same would apply to gay marriage.

2. If the Mormon / Catholic Church chooses not to do so, would Anti-Discrimination laws apply?

They would not apply. The courts give churches almost absolute freedom to accept or reject just about any marriage they want to. They’re still given massive leeway in their hiring practices – look into the legal records of Mormon churches and black employment.

3. If Anti-Discrimination law applies, would the Mormon / Catholic Church be enjoined from performing Marriages / Civil Unions at all?

They don’t apply, so who cares?

4. Do these Churches need recognize Marriages / Civil Unions that they don't agree with?

Nope.

5. At what point does First Amendment right to free practice of relgion, no matter how heinous or offensive, have to cede to Anti-Discrimination law?

Freedom of religion is given almost absolute leeway when it comes to churches deciding who they will offer their services too. The only time the state has stepped in to limit the actions of a church is when active and obvious harm is being done to its members, and even then it does so with tremendous care. It has never, ever stepped in to force a church to marry someone it didn't want to.

As none of the above are well-understood, yet have tremendous societal impact tied to the First Amendment rights that this country was explicitly founded upon (Puritans, Quakers), it is presumptuous in the extreme to expect that Gay Rights automatically have priority in all cases.

They might not be very well understood by you, but there is a mountain of precedent on the matter. It is perfectly well grounded that a church can refuse to marry people for reasons of its own faith.

And that is why California was correct to pass Prop 8 from a societal POV.

Because of a shameful campaign of misinformation that led people to believe that their church would be legally forced to marry gay people? That might have had something to do with it.

But then, given that the Gays are the ones advocating violence, California was also correct to pass Prop. 8 from a moral POV as well.

The Black Panthers advocated violence, therefore the civil rights movement was morally wrong. Don’t be silly.

sebster wrote:
Because of a shameful campaign of misinformation that led people to believe that their church would be legally forced to marry gay people? That might have had something to do with it.

You know, I didn't even think that people even believed that.

This is my woah moment.

And who was in control of mideaval Europe at that point. Who sanctioned every union? Who dominated every part of european mideaval culture.

You claim vague dates, I supply you with hard dates, I bring up historical evidence, am able to quote my sources, give to you what is accepted in historical circles and according to the writtings of the architects of the law. You dismiss fact without supplying anything to back up your side.

As far as Mideaval, I make my living off of Mideaval and Renaissance time periods. Tell me Within a minute Who Fiore D' Libre was, or Which French King Supposedly made Friday 13 unlucky.

I still stand by my statement about gen lee and your snarky line where you imply subtley that hes a bigot without apology. I would reply in kind but then I would be you telling somehow they should feel. I'd respect you a little more if you'd just come out and said it.

I IMHO think thou doth protest to much on having a problem with terminology. Reason, in a game if all you had to do to assure victory was sit back on your objectives and the other army was conceding the things that gave you the win. As a general do you jeopardize the win to continue in a battle that is a waste of resources or do you accept the win.

As far as silly artifice, read the last lines of my last post. laws and litigation are a little different over here. Your way would create more of a mess than it cleaned up.

As far as there is no precedent, not long ago there was no precedent to override when the catholic churches offered sanctuary. its now pretty much non existant.

You say much about look it up without providing any info yourself. One of the earlier informed arguments talks about churches lossing their tax exempt status if their actions are percieved as political. Thus depriving the church of many of its legal protections. To the point it could be no longer viewed as a church. So yes the churches could be open to litigation. Instead of just saying so please inform me of your source material.

Well, Ive read all the posts. Some interesting food for thought out there but, there is obviously nothing more to be learned ATT. Have a goodnight/day all.

over an dout

over and out

over and out

Couldn't they just go with:

1. Religion only marries people of certain faiths (or members).

2. Religion doesn't believe in homosexuality, and thus bars gays from joining those faiths.

3. Religion doesn't have to marry gays.

over and out

I always thought that's how it worked anyway.

focusedfire wrote:And who was in control of mideaval Europe at that point. Who sanctioned every union? Who dominated every part of european mideaval culture.

Really? So everything that happened during the period is religious? That’s not quite as silly as believing churches will be made to marry gays, but it isn’t far off.

You claim vague dates, I supply you with hard dates, I bring up historical evidence, am able to quote my sources, give to you what is accepted in historical circles and according to the writtings of the architects of the law. You dismiss fact without supplying anything to back up your side.

You gave statement and listed dates. If you intend on making your living in history you ought to know how utterly inadequate that is as an argument.

As far as Mideaval, I make my living off of Mideaval and Renaissance time periods. Tell me Within a minute Who Fiore D' Libre was, or Which French King Supposedly made Friday 13 unlucky.

False claim to authority. Something else you should know is inadequate if you intend on making your living in history.

I still stand by my statement about gen lee and your snarky line where you imply subtley that hes a bigot without apology. I would reply in kind but then I would be you telling somehow they should feel. I'd respect you a little more if you'd just come out and said it.

Dude, I may be many things but I am not subtle. I said he might be a bigot. I meant exactly that.

I IMHO think thou doth protest to much on having a problem with terminology. Reason, in a game if all you had to do to assure victory was sit back on your objectives and the other army was conceding the things that gave you the win. As a general do you jeopardize the win to continue in a battle that is a waste of resources or do you accept the win.

There is no win being jeopardized, gay marriage was overturned in California. When defeated you look at your enemy and the cause of his win. And when your defeat came because he offered a false flag, you learn not to trust that enemy.

As far as silly artifice, read the last lines of my last post. laws and litigation are a little different over here. Your way would create more of a mess than it cleaned up.

No, it wouldn’t, that’s an obvious bluff to get yourself out of the obvious conclusion, that the effect on the sacred tradition of the word marriage would be the same under your proposal.

As far as there is no precedent, not long ago there was no precedent to override when the catholic churches offered sanctuary. its now pretty much non existant.

So you’ll vote against a law because somewhere down the line some other law might change that might do something that you might not like. That’ll require voting against just about every possible change ever. Including any possible ‘civil union’ legislation.

Note that no such thing has ever happened to force a church to marry a divorced person, an inter-racial couple or someone from a different religion.

You say much about look it up without providing any info yourself. One of the earlier informed arguments talks about churches lossing their tax exempt status if their actions are percieved as political. Thus depriving the church of many of its legal protections. To the point it could be no longer viewed as a church. So yes the churches could be open to litigation. Instead of just saying so please inform me of your source material.

How exactly am I supposed to show you an example of something that has never happened?

And church involvement in politics is a wholly different matter. A church losing benefits because it stops being primarily a church is massively different to a church losing tax exempt status for being a church. And the former hasn't even happened (it's attempted after each election and shot down in flames every time - the courts give a hell of a lot of leeway to the churches). So I'll ask you to provide a single example of a church being forced to marry a couple. Just one example. Otherwise drop this silly line of argument.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Is it?

What is the precedent in Federal / California case law addressing this specific issue?

Courts have consistantly ruled the first amendment prevents them from considering discriminatory employment.

The former case is an easy exclusion due to religious freedom (or lack thereof), because the religions in question differ.

The latter case is most likely branded as a "hate crime", and likely to be mandated by the Liberal judiciary in California.

According to Wikipedia (which I grant is not the most accurate source) marriage in Europe was a private and civil matter without formal religious recognition until the Council of Trent in 1545.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#European_marriages

However, since this was a Roman Catholic resolution it did not affect the UK which by that time had become protestant.

UK marriages therefore remained non-religious until the Marriage Act of 1753. This required marriage to take place in an Anglican church, except for Quakers and Jews. (Anglicanism being the official state religion of the UK, it can be argued that this Act was as much a legal form as religious.)

The Marriage Act 1836 introduced the civil marriage.

It can be seen that the concept of marriage as a primarily religious institution has no deep roots in Anglo-Saxon tradition.

Obviously law in the USA started to diverge from the UK after 1776 and would take primacy over the Californian situation.

Good link, Killkrazy, Finally something tangible to talk, think over and to work off of. Even if the nuetrality of the article is currently under debate, it does provide tangible material to work from.

Where the article states it was a primarily business does not preclude religious. Roman Christian emperors declared gay marriage illegal circa 342 ad. Rome the fundemental force witch helped shape europe.

I think its tough for many in this relatively enlightened age to understand the pervasiveness of the church through the medeaval period. The wood cut in the link depicting a medeaval ceremony in germany shows a priest leading the way.

You say no deep roots in anglo-saxon tradition. Church involvement in marraige and day to day life predate the legal systems in questions. It could even be argued that todays systems were born out of the ecclesiastical courts. This is a quote from the wikipedia link"There was no state invovlement in marraige and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts." While it wasn't manditory one of the functions of the church was to register these medeaval marriages.

Yes, marriages were different then being primarily for securing property and money to help build or secure the family status. The dowry system IMHO quite probably came out of the roman system where women were chattle.

Great link, huzzahs to Killkrazy


Oh yeah, to Sebster......you say it will come full circle and my argument is for naught......PROVE IT. Whats the harm doing it the way I suggest if your going to win.

You suggest this argument is over protecting the meaning of a word and therfor has no merit. It's a word with a meaning and a belief behind it. Such words like freedom, the name of your country, God. History shows that people are willing to fight, even to the death, over words with a belief behind them. I meerly tried to offer up a solution that circumvents the likelyhood of the fight.

And as to your challenge AFTER I'd Signed off........how very Chivalrous. And the answer to your challenge, JohnHwang pretty much summed it up. You bore me and my HOT GAY lover wants cuddle time.

over and out

over and out

JohnHwangDD wrote:

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@malfred, that would be a reasonable conmpromise, but once the courts get involved, all bets are off.

Read up on the principle of precedent some time.

Yeah, because precedent can never be overturned

I do believe John is an attorney, and is thus fully versed in the concept of stare decisis. Thank you for provided your wise insight though Sebster

Frazzled wrote:Thank you for provided your wise insight though Sebster

You make fun of Sebster's spelling in the other thread and then give us this gem?


Now that John's joined the discussion this already useless thread just went waaaaay beyond worthless. No one is going to change their mind, especially not me, you, and John.

Fortunately, anti-gay rights supporters are growing older and dying while pro-gay rights supporters are becoming of legal voting age. Give it 4 or 8 more years and this will be overturned and gay marriage will be as legal as inter-racial marriage.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Maybe it will maybe it won't. Anti gay rights supporters tend to breed more

over and out

Fortunately, anti-gay rights supporters are growing older and dying while pro-gay rights supporters are becoming of legal voting age. Give it 4 or 8 more years and this will be overturned and gay marriage will be as legal as inter-racial marriage.

Here, here. To each his own. You get all kinds of slogans, arguments, and mantras but when you dig really deep it still boils down to homophopia. The generation before ours was race and this is just a new segment in our society to single out as being not"like us".

You mischaracterize the issue at your peril. The people I know who are against this are not "homophobes." They firmly believe in the existing definition of marriage. Period. End of Story.

If you brand antagonists as bigots, and homophobes, as has been done on this thread, then all you do is harden them against the issue, and others who were sitting on the fence. JohnHH has a point, immigrants are not nearly as tolerant on this issue. As California's immigrant population is skyrocketing, this could be the last window of opportunity unless you address all the arguments against it. Casting the entire Catholic Church as bigots and homophobes is not going to help that cause.

over and out

Interestingly, Radio 4 had a programme on tonight looking at citizenship education in Spain.

The same kind of arguments are going on there as in California and other places about homophobia, sex education, the public role of religion, and other issues.

Rightwing elements of the Catholic church strongly oppose citizenship education, to the extent of in some provinces getting it compulsory to be taught in English.

However, when the reporter hit the streets, he found that the younger generation saw the Church as largely irrelevant to their lives, a tiny straw poll which is born out by extensive public polling and election behaviour.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

If you look at the Prop 8 breakdown, nearly all of the recently-immigrant (i.e. non-white) groups voted for traditional family values. In particular, the blacks can be commended for really stepping up to the plate in a big way, with 70% voting in favor of Prop 8. Asian-Americans and Hispanics weren't quite as monolithic, but they still came out for Prop 8.

So when you look at the demographic shift towards non-white immigration, coupled with the likely amnesty of 20+ *MILLION* additional (non-white) illegal immigrants, and then consider that Cali is among the most one Liberal states, one concludes that gay marriage has a ways to go before it's the law of the land.

It's going to be a long, bumpy ride, methinks.

Over 60% of old people voted for Prop 8 and over 60% of young people voted against it. Yes its going to be bumpy, progress is always bumpy.

Frazzled wrote:You mischaracterize the issue at your peril. The people I know who are against this are not "homophobes." They firmly believe in the existing definition of marriage. Period. End of Story.

If you brand antagonists as bigots, and homophobes, as has been done on this thread, then all you do is harden them against the issue, and others who were sitting on the fence. JohnHH has a point, immigrants are not nearly as tolerant on this issue. As California's immigrant population is skyrocketing, this could be the last window of opportunity unless you address all the arguments against it. Casting the entire Catholic Church as bigots and homophobes is not going to help that cause.

Except that basically what you are saying is that heterosexual love, and by extension heterosexual marriage, is superior to homosexual love. There's a short jump from that position to homophobia and bigotry.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Bah! Their 'Prophet" is in jail.

focusedfire wrote:Still dont get it. Once the term is changed Civil union is the only one that matters. The other term becomes nothing more than what it should be considered currently. A religious or occult ritual that has no bearing on your rights freedoms.

Let me simplify. Man unites with man, it's a civil union. Woman unites with woman, it is a civil union. Man unites with woman, ITS A CIVIL UNION!

And yes it involves the constitution, "The govt shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."- THE FIRST AMMENDMENT

I am aware. Indeed, what you're talking about is exactly the position which I support. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with Proposition 8.

focusedfire wrote:
If asking why mince words? This way everyone gets most of what they want. and if individual churches want to include gays in their occult ritiual its up to that individual church. Your way FORCES people to adopt and accept your way of thinking....There's a word for that........

No it doesn't, as 'my way' would be to simply remove the term of 'marriage' from the legal books.

focusedfire wrote:
Also your way opens people to litigation for merely having a religious beleif.ie... A church refuses to marry a Gay couple and is in violation of the law. Thus open to court mandated sanctions. Which then are appealed under religious freedom and the whole thing starts again. What I propose ends the problem, which is the either acctual or percieved state use and sanctioning of a religious term.

How so? I think you've misunderstood my position.

warpcrafter wrote:Bah! Their 'Prophet" is in jail.

That's a different church entirely.