|
I have two quick questions as I have heard many different views/opinions on the question:
1) Why is it okay for one group of people to boycott/tarnish a business because they are pro-heterosexual marriage but it's not okay to boycott/tarnish a business if they are pro-homosexual marriage?
2) If the term "marriage" was a religious term from thousands of years ago and only adopted by the U.S. government for legal and contractual means (an all encompassing group), can any religion refuse to marry on their religious beliefs as protected in the 1st Amendment?
Thanks for your answers everyone! Have a good day!
|
People can spend their money how they want. But really it just isn't in any business' interest to be very public about being against SSM at this point. It is both bad for their employees and bad because a large portion of people will cease doing business with them in most cases.
The church being able to refuse to marry people is an iffier issue and I am not sure but there is a lot of talk about it atm. Specifically about what happens to churches that refuse. From what I understand one has to have a marriage license in order to 'perform' marriages and there is concern that if a pastor or whoever refuses to perform a SSM that their license would be revoked. I guess it makes sense as a concern since if it is now illegal to deny SSM for the states and one has to have a license issued from the govt to perform marriages, only makes sense that people with the licenses aren't really at liberty to decide who can and can not marry.
|
On June 27 2015 20:38 catabowl wrote:
I have two quick questions as I have heard many different views/opinions on the question:
1) Why is it okay for one group of people to boycott/tarnish a business because they are pro-heterosexual marriage but it's not okay to boycott/tarnish a business if they are pro-homosexual marriage?
2) If the term "marriage" was a religious term from thousands of years ago and only adopted by the U.S. government for legal and contractual means (an all encompassing group), can any religion refuse to marry on their religious beliefs as protected in the 1st Amendment?
Thanks for your answers everyone! Have a good day!
1) It's "ok" to boycott anything you please. I don't really understand this question, someone may disagree with you but you're free to do as you please.
2a) Marriage predates modern religion by a enormous timeframe.
2b). No one can force a church to perform a ceremony.
|
All this hubbub on what will happen to churches who do not perform gay marriages is premised on a false start; the Supreme Court's ruling deals with how the state recognizes marriage licenses obtained by couples, not the manner in which the state recognizes an a religious official's right to marry others. Now, yes, there is a question insofar as religious universities and other organizations who receive government tax benefits are concerned, but in terms of religions still being able to conduct their own marriage ceremonies as they see fit, nothing will change.
|
On June 27 2015 21:57 farvacola wrote:
All this hubbub on what will happen to churches who do not perform gay marriages is premised on a false start; the Supreme Court's ruling deals with how the state recognizes marriage licenses obtained by couples, not the manner in which the state recognizes an a religious official's right to marry others. Now, yes, there is a question insofar as religious universities and other organizations who receive government tax benefits are concerned, but in terms of religions still being able to conduct their own marriage ceremonies as they see fit, nothing will change.
There are churches that are able to hand out marriage licenses. Those institutions are the ones in question I would think. At the moment it is a relationship of convenience between the states and the churches, but if the state allows a church, or any institution, to hand out marriage licenses as a matter of convenience (which tbh they shouldn't be doing anyways if you want to get technical), then one would think that that institution has to abide by whatever the laws are (which now is they would have to marry SS couples as well as heterosexual couples. If a church doesn't want to marry same-sex couples that is fine, but then they should not have the ability to hand out a marriage license
EDIT: Basically no one cares about what a church does within their own traditions or whatever, but if a church is able to give out marriage licenses (like many are able to do), then they have to follow the laws and give them to all people that are eligible imo, they aren't at liberty to choose who they would give a marriage license too and who they wouldn't. Like I said they shouldn't even be able to give marriage licenses to begin with but it is basically convenient for both parties..
|
On June 27 2015 22:14 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 21:57 farvacola wrote:
All this hubbub on what will happen to churches who do not perform gay marriages is premised on a false start; the Supreme Court's ruling deals with how the state recognizes marriage licenses obtained by couples, not the manner in which the state recognizes an a religious official's right to marry others. Now, yes, there is a question insofar as religious universities and other organizations who receive government tax benefits are concerned, but in terms of religions still being able to conduct their own marriage ceremonies as they see fit, nothing will change. There are churches that are able to hand out marriage licenses. Those institutions are the ones in question I would think. At the moment it is a relationship of convenience between the states and the churches, but if the state allows a church, or any institution, to hand out marriage licenses as a matter of convenience (which tbh they shouldn't be doing anyways if you want to get technical), then one would think that that institution has to abide by whatever the laws are (which now is they would have to marry SS couples as well as heterosexual couples. If a church doesn't want to marry same-sex couples that is fine, but then they should not have the ability to hand out a marriage license.
A church cannot issue a legally binding marriage license without the involvement of a local judge, clerk, or county/local administrator. Any sort of deviation from that scheme in the interests of convenience will not prove a ground for a constitutional question because the issue still revolves around state recognized licensure as opposed to church involvement in the process.
|
On June 27 2015 20:38 catabowl wrote:
1) Why is it okay for one group of people to boycott/tarnish a business because they are pro-heterosexual marriage but it's not okay to boycott/tarnish a business if they are pro-homosexual marriage?
Like the previous guy said, you're free to boycott whoever you want, but either way it will spur debates and since there are more people who are in favor of homosexual marriages (and those who are against tend to be quiet since they know their position is archaic), it leads to boycotts against "pro" businesses being more convincing, and by extension, the backlash against boycotts of pro-homosexual marriage is louder.
To put it simply, the balance of power, as well as the organisational capacity is in the favor of those who are pro-homosexual marriage.
And from a moral standpoint, it's "not okay" (unreasonable) to boycott or tarnish the reputation of pro-homosexual marriage businesses because that makes you a dumb cunt, but you're still allowed to do it. The downside is that if you believe your country to be founded on freedom and you actively prevent people from doing what they want even though it realistically poses no threat to your life or your quality of life, you're being a bit tyrannical. Why fight for these things?
|
It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be.
For example I am in Kentucky and afaik, state law allows ANY minister or priest to perform marriage ceremonies and they just have to turn in the paperwork to the county office within a month. And while most states require these individuals to meet licensing requirements, my state for example has no such requirements.
|
This only took forever to happen.
|
On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote:
It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be.
I was under the impression that all marriages were done by clergy and that judges and county clerks could only perform civil unions.
|
On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote:
It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be.
In the states where clergy are authorized to issue marriage licenses, said licenses do not become legally tender until a certified filing with the local government, so again, the church isn't actually in the practice of issuing marriage licenses because when state law grants them the ability, said "licenses" aren't actually legally valid until they are properly filed with a government authority.
|
IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
|
On June 27 2015 22:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote:
It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be. In the states where clergy are authorized to issue marriage licenses, said licenses do not become legally tender until a certified filing with the local government, so again, the church isn't actually in the practice of issuing marriage licenses because when state law grants them the ability, said "licenses" aren't actually legally valid until they are properly filed with a government authority.
Is there no legal issue then if a church does this service for certain couples but not others? Like I said I don't know but I assume there will be  . But iirc you are a Cali attorney?
Like if a church did discriminate on whatever basis would the local government still let a representative from that church submit whatever unofficial paperwork and sign off on it or however its done. I guess technically there is nothing wrong going on but I'm sure someone will be able to argue some sort of discrimination issue over it.
|
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote:
IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
And 5 don't????
Lol @ that argument of 'hey minority of the justices agree with me' when the majority doesn't.
EDIT: and really you can argue it whichever way you want depending on which side of the issue you are on. I would just argue that they just ruled that no state can ban SSM, thereby making it legal everywhere. And they do have the authority to rule on whether SSM bans are constitutional or not.
|
On June 27 2015 22:41 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 22:34 farvacola wrote:On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote:
It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be. In the states where clergy are authorized to issue marriage licenses, said licenses do not become legally tender until a certified filing with the local government, so again, the church isn't actually in the practice of issuing marriage licenses because when state law grants them the ability, said "licenses" aren't actually legally valid until they are properly filed with a government authority. Is there no legal issue then if a church does this service for certain couples but not others? Like I said I don't know but I assume there will be . But iirc you are a Cali attorney? Like if a church did discriminate on whatever basis would the local government still let a representative from that church submit whatever unofficial paperwork and sign off on it or however its done. I guess technically there is nothing wrong going on but I'm sure someone will be able to argue some sort of discrimination issue over it.
Haha, nope, dAPHREAk is the Cali attorney; I'm only a law student/intern with a strong interest in this area of the law. (I'll be a lawyer in 2 years though!)
My guess is that both pro and anti gay marriage groups will attempt to instigate test cases using the formula you've described above. They'll attempt to solicit marriage licenses for gay couples from churches who refuse, and then they'll see if anything floats in federal district court. I'm almost 100% certain that district courts will either refrain from hearing the issue or simply make it clear that the holding of Obergefell deals in government recognition of marriage rather than the church's role in the process. The legality of some state laws might come into question but these conflicts won't be all that dramatic. In the end, churches do not have a legal obligation to perform marriages for anyone and everyone that asks for them, and the same will ring true moving forward. Naturally, the same can no longer be said for the government 
|
The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved.
|
On June 27 2015 23:05 Thax wrote:
The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved.
This is how it works/will work.
|
On June 27 2015 22:42 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote:
IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do. And 5 don't???? Lol @ that argument of 'hey minority of the justices agree with me' when the majority doesn't. EDIT: and really you can argue it whichever way you want depending on which side of the issue you are on. I would just argue that they just ruled that no state can ban SSM, thereby making it legal everywhere. And they do have the authority to rule on whether SSM bans are constitutional or not.
That argument was just to say that even the 9 most brilliant legal minds in the nation don't agree on this issue, so why should we?
|
On June 27 2015 23:11 Garuga wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 22:42 Kickstart wrote:On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote:
IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do. And 5 don't???? Lol @ that argument of 'hey minority of the justices agree with me' when the majority doesn't. EDIT: and really you can argue it whichever way you want depending on which side of the issue you are on. I would just argue that they just ruled that no state can ban SSM, thereby making it legal everywhere. And they do have the authority to rule on whether SSM bans are constitutional or not. That argument was just to say that even the 9 most brilliant legal minds in the nation don't agree on this issue, so why should we?
Woa, the idea that justices are actually selected on merit is ridiculous. Thomas was essentially slapped into a small court during the Bush era and went up from being a BS judge to the supreme court essentially for political reasons
|
On June 27 2015 23:05 Thax wrote:
The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved.
I wish all people could think like this, but alas, it is an instinct to stuff religious restrictions on people for some reason
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
