Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NYT.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

[CountryClassSF]

There is no strategy - once SCOTUS imposes  it on our country, that will be it. The next step for conservatives is preventing oppression of the church & free exercise rights

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I disagree with CCSF's tone, he is correct this time.

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

Only if we strip all clergy of the ability to perform a civil marriage would that be even remotely Constitutional.  I also fail to see the need.  What BLGT couple would want an anti-SSM pastor to solemnize their ceremony? Unlike florists, pastors perform an unambiguously religious role in a marriage for which ey are the celebrant.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

While I disagree with CCSF's tone, he is correct this time.

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

Only if we strip all clergy of the ability to perform a civil marriage would that be even remotely Constitutional.  I also fail to see the need.  What BLGT couple would want an anti-SSM pastor to solemnize their ceremony? Unlike florists, pastors perform an unambiguously religious role in a marriage for which ey are the celebrant.

They will claim harm from discrimination. Someone will be a church member and want their pastor to officiate their marriage, the pastor will refuse, causing hurt feelings. The couple will bring a lawsuit, which will win under an anti-discrimination/"Human Rights Act," with the finding that religious institutions are not exempt from generally applicable laws, and that allowing state recognition of marriages that are performed by clergy that do not respect marriage equality is a state endorsement of marriage.

[Mr. Reactionary]

MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 v. IRVIS

... Irvis challenged the club's refusal to serve him, arguing that the action of the Pennsylvania liquor board issuing the Lodge a license made the club's discrimination "state action."

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Moose Lodge's refusal to serve food and beverages to Irvis because he was black did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court noted that the state action doctrine did not necessarily apply to all private entities that received benefits or services from the government; otherwise, the Court reasoned, all private associations that received electricity, water, and fire protection would be subject to state regulation. The Court found that the Moose Lodge "a private social club in a private building," and thus not subject to the Equal Protection Clause."


http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_75

[pbrower2a]

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

Yes. If it is perfectly legal for clergy to refuse to participate in marriages that offend their values (one preacher that I know does not perform weddings in which the couple has cohabitated before the marriage within the previous year), it would be legal for clergy to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding. Many are known to refuse to perform an interfaith wedding. Between a 90-year-old man and an 18-year woman? I'd have bigger problems with that than same sex.   

The policy is set in part by a denomination, so one might have to ask of a denomination.  I would guess that most Christian denominations would terminate the ordination of any preacher who refused to participate in a wedding solely because the participants are of different race.

There are civil weddings. Such is an alternative if local preachers object. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

A religious official has the right to deny marrying anyone they want. But gay couples have the right to be married...so in that case the state must accommodate that.

Shelly Bachmann was just spouting out her latest spiel...as a self professed fool for Christ you wonder if she speaks the truth...but foolishly.

"The end is coming because of gay marriage!"

True.  The end is coming because gays can finally legally couple.  They must have their chance before the end to do the right thing.

You could argue from God's perspective that as gays got over their promiscuity, he cleared the path for marriage.  And gay marriage was a harbinger for the end.  "Get married now before it's too late, my fabulous rainbow army that spans the globe!"

Whether true are not...Michelle is either full of it...or she speaks the truth.  But definitely not the way you interpret it.

She also said "Obama wants to ensure that Iran has a bomb"...what if Obama is very suspicious that they already have one?  Then he is going to ensure that they have one before he acts further.

Again...she said it...she's a fool for Christ.  Christ gives her the truth and she speaks it backwards and upside down to fool the fools for not Christ.  But the truth it still is!

Remember when pressed on gay marriage she said "what about it?"  She is either a bad cop or she plays bad cop in the form of a fool for Christ.

If you believe any of that, of course.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Should be interesting.  How are you going to gets the crazies to push your button in the primaries without alienating the swingy crowd in the general that doesn't give a crap about this "issue" anymore. 

If I were the strategist for my Republican candidate, I would just give the standard "Believe marriage is a blah blah... state's rights" answer in a low key manner and then demand we focus on the more important issues and all that.  Gotta find that happy medium between satisfying Jim-Bob and scaring Joe. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

I don't see the issue. Clergy are not employees of the state, and churches/places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  I don't think anyone's seriously saying that  pastors who are against gay marriage should be required to perform them  anyway. What supporters of gay marriage are asking is that the state recognizes same-sex marriages and affords them equal rights and protections under the law.

Religious beliefs are a private matter (not "private' in the colloquial sense, but in the legal/constitutional sense) , and a particular religious belief (e. g. opposing homosexuality) should never be a basis for legally codified discrimination.   Same-sex marriage is a public issue, since it concerns  state discrimination that has been legally codified. That is what I wish more opponents of gay marriage would understand.

[CountryClassSF]

While I disagree with CCSF's tone, he is correct this time.

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

Only if we strip all clergy of the ability to perform a civil marriage would that be even remotely Constitutional.  I also fail to see the need.  What BLGT couple would want an anti-SSM pastor to solemnize their ceremony?

Well, a lot target the pro-trad'l marriage businesses (and I imagine churches in the future too) for the sole purpose of filing a lawsuit.  Or because they want to make a point.
This is probably just a handful of people doing this, but I cannot help but think of Baronelle Stutzman in Washington State - many gay people purposefully requested she service their weddings after learning she was against SSM.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

I don't see the issue. Clergy are not employees of the state, and churches/places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  I don't think anyone's seriously saying that  pastors who are against gay marriage should be required to perform them  anyway. What supporters of gay marriage are asking is that the state recognizes same-sex marriages and affords them equal rights and protections under the law.

Religious beliefs are a private matter (not "private' in the colloquial sense, but in the legal/constitutional sense) , and a particular religious belief (e. g. opposing homosexuality) should never be a basis for legally codified discrimination.   Same-sex marriage is a public issue, since it concerns  state discrimination that has been legally codified. That is what I wish more opponents of gay marriage would understand.

Catholic Charities could be barred from being involved with adoptions in Massachusetts because they did not want to facilitate adoptions to gay couples.  That it was a church-based organization did not matter because adoptions were overseen by the state. Wouldn't marriages be similar in this regard?  We've seen the definition of what counts as private shrink dramatically.   "Public accommodation" originally had to do with accommodations in the basic sense of one's needs to food and shelter. It has come to mean all manner of optional services and clubs.  Gay marriage is not only being insisted upon with regard to the state. If there is an exception with regard to clergy, it is a notable exception that would buck the trend.

[CountryClassSF]

It is deeply upsetting, but soon the choice for conservatives will be who least demonizes people with traditional values.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i thought their strategy was pretty obvious: they've just moved on to pushing ~~religious freedom~~ laws and banning trans people from using the correct public bathroom.

[CountryClassSF]

i thought their strategy was pretty obvious: they've just moved on to pushing ~~religious freedom~~ laws and banning trans people from using the correct public bathroom.

I have no problem with transsexuals using the bathroom of their newly assigned gender. Truly don't.  The problem is in California at least, the law allows anyone who "identifies" as the opposite gender to simply waltz into a bathroom of their choice.

We tried in 2014 to repeal via ballot but needed too many signatures in California. We fell just short. We'll try again this year for 2016-- where significantly less signatures will be required

Pacific Justice Institute is still litigating the case I believe.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

I don't see the issue. Clergy are not employees of the state, and churches/places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  I don't think anyone's seriously saying that  pastors who are against gay marriage should be required to perform them  anyway. What supporters of gay marriage are asking is that the state recognizes same-sex marriages and affords them equal rights and protections under the law.

Religious beliefs are a private matter (not "private' in the colloquial sense, but in the legal/constitutional sense) , and a particular religious belief (e. g. opposing homosexuality) should never be a basis for legally codified discrimination.   Same-sex marriage is a public issue, since it concerns  state discrimination that has been legally codified. That is what I wish more opponents of gay marriage would understand.

Catholic Charities could be barred from being involved with adoptions in Massachusetts because they did not want to facilitate adoptions to gay couples.  That it was a church-based organization did not matter because adoptions were overseen by the state. Wouldn't marriages be similar in this regard? 

No.

The civil ceremony of marriage, where you get a marriage license, is issued by the state, and is therefore not a private matter. The private ceremony, in the church, which is not a public accomodation, is. Adoptions are an entirely pubic matter with the state regulating it, with religious orphanages only facilitating the states' job. You can go in front of a public official and be legally married without the church ceremony; conversely you can have the church ceremony and be married in the eyes of the church, but not the state. They are two separate things.

Churches don't have to marry anyone they don't want. There still are pastors who refuse to do inter-faith marriages, marriages between people of the same religion but different denominations, hell, even interracial marriages. Pastors can refuse to marry gay people if they want; no one is coming after them for that, and even if they try, they'll lose like the other cases mentioned above. It doesn't even have to be discrimination: all the pastors who've led churches I've been too make people undergo marriage counseling, and if they fail they refuse to marry them.

But keep trying to twist everything into your paranoid crying about how "people of faith" are "under attack". For someone so concerned about the effects of public policy on religious practice you don't seem to know all that much about the subject.

[7,052,770]

The fearmongering from the Right on this issue is out of hand.

OF COURSE anti-gay pastors will never be forced to officiate gay weddings or locked out of performing straight ones. Pastors all over America routinely refuse to perform weddings based on people's religious beliefs, whether or not they've previously been married, or, unfortunately, for their skin color.

You may remember a case from Mississippi a few years ago where a Southern Baptist church refused to perform a wedding between 2 black people who were members of the church (I can't imagine why they were members, but they were). The government didn't step in and make the bigoted church have the wedding, nor did it revoke that church's right to marry white couples.

I got married in a restaurant. I asked a Catholic priest to officiate the ceremony, but he (politely) declined, because Catholic rules only allow weddings to be done in the church building. Even if I had sued him, no Court would have ever forced him to perform the ceremony anyway, nor prevented him from marrying future couples in a church.

If the government has never and will never force churches to perform weddings in a race-blind or religion-bland manner, nor revoked their rights to perform them for those who meet their criteria, it's not going randomly start doing it now for gays. Case closed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Normally if you have a ceremony officiated by a clergy a civil ceremony is not required.  What I am saying is that the state could make it so that clergy who oppose same sex marriage might have their civil authority removed by the state.  Under this they might still have the marriage ceremony, but they'd have to go to a judge and have it performed there as well.   Wouldn't be the end of the world from my perspective considering what we've seen already, but that's where I see this headed.

The interpretation of the law seems to be changing to place less weight on freedoms such as religion and speech compared to nondiscrimination.  I would have never thought, for example, that a person could be sued for not engaging in photography. That I would think would be a clear first amendment case, but the U.S. Supreme Court never even took it up when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled the way it did. 

People have been so up in arms about generic RFRA laws because they think they might, counter to all precedent, allow for discrimination against gays.  But I can't be concerned about the much more substantial momentum in the direction of absolutizing anti-discrimination claims above all other concerns?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Ok, it's a 12-way tie for 39th member.

[afleitch]

The state has an interest in marriage. A marriage means nothing and has no validity unless the state recognises it. That’s sort of the reason why this is an issue; same sex marriages have taken place, performed by religious celebrants for decades but have not been recognised (something ‘religious freedom’ advocates haven’t missed any sleep over).  Who are the two parties to a marriage, in the original sense? A man and a woman defined in law as an adult. That pre-requisite trumps every other definition, including any religious condition. In the Catholic Church for example, this is considered a ‘canonical impediment’. For example the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have never enacted an ecclesiastical prohibitive minimum age for marriage that varies from the Church standard of 16 years for males and 14 for females (not so in other nations) There is no ‘religious freedom’ to be entertained in allowing a 14 year old girl to marry because it violates the states definition of marriage in the fact she is not the age of majority.

The key point it this; when a man and a woman wish to marry and are denied by a celebrant for ‘religious reasons’ they are not denied because they are a man and a woman. They are denied for other reasons. If the state determines that it is in its interest that the all else being unchanged, the definition of marriage will include a man and a man and a woman and a woman, then religion faces another test. If a member of the clergy says ‘I won’t marry you because you don’t demonstrate enough faith’ or ‘one is of my faith and the other is not’ and essentially extends to the same sex couple the same objections as he would an opposite sex couple, then there is no issue. The problem is when a celebrant refuses to marry someone because they are a ‘man and a man’ (or even, in these new circumstances a man and a woman because they are not a man and a man or a woman and a woman) because that is a violation of the state interest in allowing same sex couples to marry.

Given Loving v Virginia, Employment Division v Smith etc, religious advocates have to prove to any court that exemptions against gays and gay married couples are so unique as to be afforded protection. The ‘reasonable objections’ towards refusing to facilitate the extension of LGBT rights or which marriage is one cannot be marshalled to justify slavery, racial discrimination, segregation or diminishing the legal status of women. They would fail. They have failed. Yet in every single instance an appeal to religious belief, text, practice, faith and ‘conscientious’ burden has been made before the courts. Intimating that religious opposition to these rights wasn’t ‘really religious’, in part because they moved on, when appeals to the divine pepper the briefs of state and federal court cases as late as the 1960’s does not hold up. People genuinely held these beliefs and wanted these exemptions. The state, eventually, reasoned that they were not justifiable. The fact that their pet peeve in this generation is LGBT rights and indeed one that even their children are beginning to move on from does not merit a unique appraisal.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

I don't see the issue. Clergy are not employees of the state, and churches/places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  I don't think anyone's seriously saying that  pastors who are against gay marriage should be required to perform them  anyway. What supporters of gay marriage are asking is that the state recognizes same-sex marriages and affords them equal rights and protections under the law.

Religious beliefs are a private matter (not "private' in the colloquial sense, but in the legal/constitutional sense) , and a particular religious belief (e. g. opposing homosexuality) should never be a basis for legally codified discrimination.   Same-sex marriage is a public issue, since it concerns  state discrimination that has been legally codified. That is what I wish more opponents of gay marriage would understand.

Catholic Charities could be barred from being involved with adoptions in Massachusetts because they did not want to facilitate adoptions to gay couples.  That it was a church-based organization did not matter because adoptions were overseen by the state. Wouldn't marriages be similar in this regard?  We've seen the definition of what counts as private shrink dramatically.   "Public accommodation" originally had to do with accommodations in the basic sense of one's needs to food and shelter. It has come to mean all manner of optional services and clubs.  Gay marriage is not only being insisted upon with regard to the state. If there is an exception with regard to clergy, it is a notable exception that would buck the trend.

At issue was the fact that Catholic Charities was receiving public funding and basically acting as an agent of the state in that particular regard.

[7,052,770]

Normally if you have a ceremony officiated by a clergy a civil ceremony is not required.  What I am saying is that the state could make it so that clergy who oppose same sex marriage might have their civil authority removed by the state.  Under this they might still have the marriage ceremony, but they'd have to go to a judge and have it performed there as well.   Wouldn't be the end of the world from my perspective considering what we've seen already, but that's where I see this headed.

And again, I'm saying, no they obviously won't. If they won't strip that authority for pastors who refuse to marry certain races or religions, they're not going to do it over gays.

[memphis]

I'm sure the Republicans will find a new bugaboo with which they can rile up their base of useful idiots. It isn't like the people that run the party ever gave a proverbial Inks about this issue outside of its potential to swing elections their way. There is no strategy for continued opposition because opposing gay marriage, by definition, is an obsolete strategy.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Normally if you have a ceremony officiated by a clergy a civil ceremony is not required.  What I am saying is that the state could make it so that clergy who oppose same sex marriage might have their civil authority removed by the state.  Under this they might still have the marriage ceremony, but they'd have to go to a judge and have it performed there as well.   Wouldn't be the end of the world from my perspective considering what we've seen already, but that's where I see this headed.

Except no one is going to do that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I don't see the problem here. You can't abuse religious freedom as a trump card so you can violate others' secular rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really pathetic that you have to outright lie about this now.

I and many others on this forum have explained to you several times that 1.) the Indiana law was not a "generic" RFRA, otherwise this would've been an issue in the late-1990s/early-2000s. The Indiana law specifically granted corporate personhood and extended the "religious freedom" defense to civil suits, in addition to the people who helped write the bill openly bragging that it will allow discrimination, and 2.) the reason it has no precedent is because this is the first time an RFRA law was passed with such provisions.

Why do you keep ignoring these arguments? This is the third time I've had to explain this to you. Do you not want to acknowledge them? Are you unable to mentally comprehend what I am saying?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because discrimination is a pretty serious issue, and supporting it is not a legitimate "concern".

[Bojack Horseman]

I think you'll see some red states do What Kansas and Alabama are doing in just ignoring the court and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages, or they could do stupid things like raising the minimum age to get married to something unattainable, like 150 years old, but only for gay couples.