Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[Torie]

Their strategy should be like Hillary's: clean their computer disks of anything they ever wrote on SSM, and claim it was all just personal chit chat that was cleansed.

[pbrower2a]

A record-high 6 in 10 Americans support same-sex marriage and a similar share say individual states should not be allowed to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.


Q: Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?


Support 61%

Oppose 35%

Q: Overall, do you support or oppose allowing individual states to prohibit same-sex marriages?


Support 36%

Oppose 61%



Q: Overall, do you support or oppose requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states?


Support 62%

Oppose 35%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/04/23/National-Politics/Polling/release_395.xml

(The political capital for opposing SSM is gone. There's nothing to exploit).

 

[TJ in Oregon]

Country Class,

Don't get your hopes up that the poll is an outlier. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, whether this poll shows it or not, and whether the Supreme Court says so in June or not. While the details of some minor side-issues haven't quite been decided yet, this one's over; it's a 20 point basketball game with a minute left.

So the question becomes, what now? Where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. I’m not saying don’t vote, but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box. As far as I can tell, no country was ever converted by voting for the right candidate.

To do any of this requires us not to collapse into bitterness and despair but to engage the world and to do it with love. No one has ever been convinced by a despairing rant.  The gulag may indeed be coming, but nothing makes the gulag as horrifying as the fear of the gulag. Your cross may be heavier than most, but it is still yours to carry through the pain. As Christians, we look to imitate Christ, who carried his cross, painful as it was, without a grudge. Carrying a grudge, bitterness, and anger, can only make your cross heavier, not lighter. As painful as it might be, you still have something to offer this world, a purpose in this life. No matter what the law says, no one can take that away.

[CountryClassSF]

Country Class,

Don't get your hopes up that the poll is an outlier. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, whether this poll shows it or not, and whether the Supreme Court says so in June or not. While the details of some minor side-issues haven't quite been decided yet, this one's over; it's a 20 point basketball game with a minute left.

So the question becomes, what now? Where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. I’m not saying don’t vote, but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box. As far as I can tell, no country was ever converted by voting for the right candidate.

To do any of this requires us not to collapse into bitterness and despair but to engage the world and to do it with love. No one has ever been convinced by a despairing rant.  The gulag may indeed be coming, but nothing makes the gulag as horrifying as the fear of the gulag. Your cross may be heavier than most, but it is still yours to carry through the pain. As Christians, we look to imitate Christ, who carried his cross, painful as it was, without a grudge. Carrying a grudge, bitterness, and anger, can only make your cross heavier, not lighter. As painful as it might be, you still have something to offer this world, a purpose in this life. No matter what the law says, no one can take that away.

Your post truly touched me. Thank you.

[afleitch]

Country Class,

Don't get your hopes up that the poll is an outlier. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, whether this poll shows it or not, and whether the Supreme Court says so in June or not. While the details of some minor side-issues haven't quite been decided yet, this one's over; it's a 20 point basketball game with a minute left.

So the question becomes, what now? Where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. I’m not saying don’t vote, but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box. As far as I can tell, no country was ever converted by voting for the right candidate.

To do any of this requires us not to collapse into bitterness and despair but to engage the world and to do it with love. No one has ever been convinced by a despairing rant.  The gulag may indeed be coming, but nothing makes the gulag as horrifying as the fear of the gulag. Your cross may be heavier than most, but it is still yours to carry through the pain. As Christians, we look to imitate Christ, who carried his cross, painful as it was, without a grudge. Carrying a grudge, bitterness, and anger, can only make your cross heavier, not lighter. As painful as it might be, you still have something to offer this world, a purpose in this life. No matter what the law says, no one can take that away.

Did you just out yourself?

[TJ in Oregon]

Country Class,

Don't get your hopes up that the poll is an outlier. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, whether this poll shows it or not, and whether the Supreme Court says so in June or not. While the details of some minor side-issues haven't quite been decided yet, this one's over; it's a 20 point basketball game with a minute left.

So the question becomes, what now? Where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. I’m not saying don’t vote, but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box. As far as I can tell, no country was ever converted by voting for the right candidate.

To do any of this requires us not to collapse into bitterness and despair but to engage the world and to do it with love. No one has ever been convinced by a despairing rant.  The gulag may indeed be coming, but nothing makes the gulag as horrifying as the fear of the gulag. Your cross may be heavier than most, but it is still yours to carry through the pain. As Christians, we look to imitate Christ, who carried his cross, painful as it was, without a grudge. Carrying a grudge, bitterness, and anger, can only make your cross heavier, not lighter. As painful as it might be, you still have something to offer this world, a purpose in this life. No matter what the law says, no one can take that away.

Did you just out yourself?

No..? Did you just learn to read?

[bedstuy]

Country Class,

Don't get your hopes up that the poll is an outlier. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, whether this poll shows it or not, and whether the Supreme Court says so in June or not. While the details of some minor side-issues haven't quite been decided yet, this one's over; it's a 20 point basketball game with a minute left.

So the question becomes, what now? Where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. I’m not saying don’t vote, but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box. As far as I can tell, no country was ever converted by voting for the right candidate.

To do any of this requires us not to collapse into bitterness and despair but to engage the world and to do it with love. No one has ever been convinced by a despairing rant.  The gulag may indeed be coming, but nothing makes the gulag as horrifying as the fear of the gulag. Your cross may be heavier than most, but it is still yours to carry through the pain. As Christians, we look to imitate Christ, who carried his cross, painful as it was, without a grudge. Carrying a grudge, bitterness, and anger, can only make your cross heavier, not lighter. As painful as it might be, you still have something to offer this world, a purpose in this life. No matter what the law says, no one can take that away.

Ugh, gross.  The entitlement, self-pity and sanctimony of Christians in this country is so disgusting.  The hypocrisy just makes me want to puke.

It's a cliche at this point but, "If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one dumb dumb!"

And, oh no!  Other people are taking your right to use the government to dictate how other people live their lives.  Other people.  Their lives.  Get it?  You can disagree about this as a policy matter.  But, don't make it about yourself for God's sake.  It's not about the rights of Christians whatsoever.  It's about the rights of gay people.  Nobody wants to put you in a gulag because you don't like gay people. 

How is this painful for you?  What about all the gay people who suffered?  What about the gay person who couldn't visit their partner in the hospital, even though their homophobic family could?

Spare me this put-upon, sanctimonious, "we're just like Jesus on the cross" act.  You're not like Jesus, you're a bully.  Your religion bullied gay people and ruined their lives, and now people realize it's wrong.  That's the fight we're having. 

[afleitch]

Country Class,

Don't get your hopes up that the poll is an outlier. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, whether this poll shows it or not, and whether the Supreme Court says so in June or not. While the details of some minor side-issues haven't quite been decided yet, this one's over; it's a 20 point basketball game with a minute left.

So the question becomes, what now? Where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. I’m not saying don’t vote, but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box. As far as I can tell, no country was ever converted by voting for the right candidate.

To do any of this requires us not to collapse into bitterness and despair but to engage the world and to do it with love. No one has ever been convinced by a despairing rant.  The gulag may indeed be coming, but nothing makes the gulag as horrifying as the fear of the gulag. Your cross may be heavier than most, but it is still yours to carry through the pain. As Christians, we look to imitate Christ, who carried his cross, painful as it was, without a grudge. Carrying a grudge, bitterness, and anger, can only make your cross heavier, not lighter. As painful as it might be, you still have something to offer this world, a purpose in this life. No matter what the law says, no one can take that away.

Did you just out yourself?

No..? Did you just learn to read?

You used ‘we’ quite a lot and advised a (if we take him at his word) a self-loathing gay not to give into concupiscence. Then you said ‘to do this requires us..’ etc etc. The whole thing is peppered with ‘kinship’ and it came across you empathised with him on matters of sexual restraint. Given that your response to me wasn’t actually a response at all, but a dig at me apparently not being able to read doesn’t exactly allay matters.

[King]

Sorry TJ and CCSF, but you two are actually more like the Pharisees, who felt their religious law was being threatened and used Roman Law to persecute the reformers--Jesus and his disciples.

[TJ in Oregon]

Country Class,

Don't get your hopes up that the poll is an outlier. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, whether this poll shows it or not, and whether the Supreme Court says so in June or not. While the details of some minor side-issues haven't quite been decided yet, this one's over; it's a 20 point basketball game with a minute left.

So the question becomes, what now? Where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. I’m not saying don’t vote, but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box. As far as I can tell, no country was ever converted by voting for the right candidate.

To do any of this requires us not to collapse into bitterness and despair but to engage the world and to do it with love. No one has ever been convinced by a despairing rant.  The gulag may indeed be coming, but nothing makes the gulag as horrifying as the fear of the gulag. Your cross may be heavier than most, but it is still yours to carry through the pain. As Christians, we look to imitate Christ, who carried his cross, painful as it was, without a grudge. Carrying a grudge, bitterness, and anger, can only make your cross heavier, not lighter. As painful as it might be, you still have something to offer this world, a purpose in this life. No matter what the law says, no one can take that away.

Did you just out yourself?

No..? Did you just learn to read?

You used ‘we’ quite a lot and advised a (if we take him at his word) a self-loathing gay not to give into concupiscence. Then you said ‘to do this requires us..’ etc etc. The whole thing is peppered with ‘kinship’ and it came across you empathised with him on matters of sexual restraint. Given that your response to me wasn’t actually a response at all, but a dig at me apparently not being able to read doesn’t exactly allay matters.

The "we" is used in this context to designate a common belief system, which if we take CCSF at his word, is something that is to some extent shared. I don't think it's much of a dispute that CCSF's posts aren't exactly helping the cause (which in this case isn't so much gay marriage but rather Christianity in general). The poor guys is going on about gulags for heaven's sake; he clearly needs to be reminded not to worry so much about the law. We (Christians) aren't likely to be put in gulags any time soon. Sexual concupiscence isn't the only thing one can do badly with. I wasn't really thinking about that when I wrote this.

[TJ in Oregon]

Sorry TJ and CCSF, but you two are actually more like the Pharisees, who felt their religious law was being threatened and used Roman Law to persecute the reformers--Jesus and his disciples.

That problem with that interpretation is that Jesus is merely a reformer and that the Pharisees were merely trying follow the law. Neither is the case. The Pharisees were abusing law in a number of ways and Jesus was the completion of the Jewish law. He was not merely a political activist trying to change laws and his main reference to the government was to tell people to render unto Cesar what is Cesar's. The idea of Christians as political force wasn't really a thing in those days. Also the main point of my original post in this thread was that we should stop worrying about the laws.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Did you just out yourself?

No..? Did you just learn to read?

You used ‘we’ quite a lot and advised a (if we take him at his word) a self-loathing gay not to give into concupiscence. Then you said ‘to do this requires us..’ etc etc. The whole thing is peppered with ‘kinship’ and it came across you empathised with him on matters of sexual restraint. Given that your response to me wasn’t actually a response at all, but a dig at me apparently not being able to read doesn’t exactly allay matters.

Andrew, it probably appeared the way it did to you because your focus on this topic is primarily your sexuality.  To me, as TJ made clear by his post while I was writing this, it appeared as TJ was empathizing with CCSF on his religion and politics.  And where did you get that he was advising him to not give in to his "concupiscence"?  It doesn't read that way at all to me.  Even if it did, there are plenty of Christians who advise us straights to not do that either.  Our whole modern culture could use a massive dose of concupiscence, tho not to the extremes some advocate.

When I was cleaning up this thread last night before heading to bed from the string of posts CCSF made and the replies thereto, TJ's long thoughtful post was the only thing I deemed salvageable precisely because it was focused on politics in my opinion.

[King]

Sorry TJ and CCSF, but you two are actually more like the Pharisees, who felt their religious law was being threatened and used Roman Law to persecute the reformers--Jesus and his disciples.

That problem with that interpretation is that Jesus is merely a reformer and that the Pharisees were merely trying follow the law. Neither is the case. The Pharisees were abusing law in a number of ways and Jesus was the completion of the Jewish law. He was not merely a political activist trying to change laws and his main reference to the government was to tell people to render unto Cesar what is Cesar's. The idea of Christians as political force wasn't really a thing in those days. Also the main point of my original post in this thread was that we should stop worrying about the laws.

But that's not what the Pharisees thought. They themselves thought their way of life was being persecuted by radicals attempting to corrupt the word of God. To them, Jesus was a political activist trying to change the laws of Jerusalem.

Calling the Pharisees an abuser of laws and yourself not one is pure arrogance. There is a laundry list of biblical law both Old and New Testament that most American Protestants and Catholics do not follow, including yourself.  If a biblical scholar did an audit of your life/your church as the historians have done of the Pharisees, they would find you equally guilty of corruption.

It's easy to say you are like Jesus, a martyr. From the first person perspective of our own lives, I would say all of us feel like we are the martyr in our daily lives.  It's rarely true.

Whether or not one is truly a martyr is for the outside observer to decide.  Saints do not anoint themselves saints. I will say you are not a martyr. You are a Pharisee.

[afleitch]

Did you just out yourself?

No..? Did you just learn to read?

You used ‘we’ quite a lot and advised a (if we take him at his word) a self-loathing gay not to give into concupiscence. Then you said ‘to do this requires us..’ etc etc. The whole thing is peppered with ‘kinship’ and it came across you empathised with him on matters of sexual restraint. Given that your response to me wasn’t actually a response at all, but a dig at me apparently not being able to read doesn’t exactly allay matters.

Andrew, it probably appeared the way it did to you because your focus on this topic is primarily your sexuality.  To me, as TJ made clear by his post while I was writing this, it appeared as TJ was empathizing with CCSF on his religion and politics.  And where did you get that he was advising him to not give in to his "concupiscence"?  It doesn't read that way at all to me.  Even if it did, there are plenty of Christians who advise us straights to not do that either.  Our whole modern culture could use a massive dose of concupiscence, tho not to the extremes some advocate.

When I was cleaning up this thread last night before heading to bed from the string of posts CCSF made and the replies thereto, TJ's long thoughtful post was the only thing I deemed salvageable precisely because it was focused on politics in my opinion.

What has warnings/encouragement from one poster to another not to give into concupiscence, the 'selfish' desire for sensuality and longing in the context of gay marriage (of which TJ, respectfully, is one of the least qualified posters on which to comment) have to do with wider politics at first glance?

It's distinctly personal, stuck out like a sort thumb and is why I raised it.

[Bojack Horseman]

Country Class,

Don't get your hopes up that the poll is an outlier. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, whether this poll shows it or not, and whether the Supreme Court says so in June or not. While the details of some minor side-issues haven't quite been decided yet, this one's over; it's a 20 point basketball game with a minute left.

So the question becomes, what now? Where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. I’m not saying don’t vote, but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box. As far as I can tell, no country was ever converted by voting for the right candidate.

To do any of this requires us not to collapse into bitterness and despair but to engage the world and to do it with love. No one has ever been convinced by a despairing rant.  The gulag may indeed be coming, but nothing makes the gulag as horrifying as the fear of the gulag. Your cross may be heavier than most, but it is still yours to carry through the pain. As Christians, we look to imitate Christ, who carried his cross, painful as it was, without a grudge. Carrying a grudge, bitterness, and anger, can only make your cross heavier, not lighter. As painful as it might be, you still have something to offer this world, a purpose in this life. No matter what the law says, no one can take that away.

Ugh, gross.  The entitlement, self-pity and sanctimony of Christians in this country is so disgusting.  The hypocrisy just makes me want to puke.

It's a cliche at this point but, "If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one dumb dumb!"

And, oh no!  Other people are taking your right to use the government to dictate how other people live their lives.  Other people.  Their lives.  Get it?  You can disagree about this as a policy matter.  But, don't make it about yourself for God's sake.  It's not about the rights of Christians whatsoever.  It's about the rights of gay people.  Nobody wants to put you in a gulag because you don't like gay people. 

How is this painful for you?  What about all the gay people who suffered?  What about the gay person who couldn't visit their partner in the hospital, even though their homophobic family could?

Spare me this put-upon, sanctimonious, "we're just like Jesus on the cross" act.  You're not like Jesus, you're a bully.  Your religion bullied gay people and ruined their lives, and now people realize it's wrong.  That's the fight we're having. 

Arguing with a religious extremist is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. It knocks down all the pieces, sh**ts on the board, and still thinks it's outsmarted you.

[🐒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.

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".

At some point I get tired of the raw hostility surrounding my beliefs on this on this site and have other things to do so I'm sorry I haven't adequately addressed all your points before. I recognize you think I am some sort of a bigot because I've been a consistent defender of freedom of conscience and religion on myriad issues as they relate to a wide variety of spiritual and humanistic traditions. That's fine if it makes you feel important or whatever.  So, can we dispense with the argumenta ad hominem?

By generic RFRA law I meant a RFRA law that does not go outside the framework of the Federal law to specify that it covers cases of discrimination.  The Federal RFRA law was written in response to Employment Division v Smith's removal of the substantial burden test in favor of letting laws stand if they were of general applicability regardless of burden.  The features of Indiana's RFRA laws were clarifications to make it function as a pre-Smith version of the First Amendment.  A constitutional right cannot be violated by the government, nor can it be violated by any person or nongovernmental org suing to enforce a law.  The fact that Hustler Magazine was a for-profit enterprise sued by a private individual Jerry Falwell did not mean that they were prevented from raising the First Amendment as a defense. 

As Prof. Douglas Laycock, influential in the drafting of the Federal RFRA,  explains:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Indiana's RFRA was not something different than what had been a respected interpretation of the Federal RFRA law, or expected under pre-Smith 1st Amendment law.  If religious freedom were to allow a Jim Crow against gays, they would be some evidence - such as  allowing the actual Jim Crow to continue back when the 1st Amendment was interpreted as having a stronger protection for religious freedom. But there is no precedent here to speak of. 

In the post you responded to here, I was explaining why we could expect that we haven't seen yet the full extent of erosion of religious liberty. I surmised a possible extension of this, which you assured us would never happened, even as you took a look at the reasons why I thought it might and declared them all positive developments you hoped would have no limit. Afleitch has posted in this thread a detailed explanation of why he believes discrimination against same-sex relationships by churches are unlike those against other religions, so it's not strange for me to think that someone would at least try to change the law in this area. If I can take you at your word that you believe anti-discrimination should always trump religious freedom, then there's no reason why you too wouldn't want to force clergy to marry a same-sex couple against their wishes.

What we have been seeing is an attempt by reproductive and gay rights groups to fundamentally alter the relation of religion to public life. There's no reason to think the effects will be limited to discrimination even broadly defined. The move is from the pluralism and freedom of conscience tradition that has its roots in this country in Roger Williams and William Penn, to a secular laicite coming out of the French Revolution.  The idea that religion needs to hurry back inside the walls of the church/synagogue/mosque/temple etc as soon as it offends certain sensibilities strikes against what so many religious groups have found valuable about America in the past.  The idea that as soon as you enter the marketplace you have a fundamental legal duty to please your customer regardless of your own values is a novel one - at least in a non-monopoly setting. The EEOC is currently representing a complaint brought by Muslim truck drivers fired for not wanting to deliver beer. Pretty soon it may be the Muslim truck drivers being fined by the government for harming the nation's beer drinkers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's distinctly personal, stuck out like a sort thumb and is why I raised it.

Politics should never be personal?

[Torie]

I don't mind your posts TJ, at all, on SSM, and appreciate them. But I am curious whether at this juncture, you have a secular, data based argument against SSM to which you honestly subscribe. Arguing theology qua theology when it comes to public policy is a dead end. It will persuade nobody but believers. But then you already knew that.

I do have some sympathy with allowing legal separation based on religious conscience of enmeshment with gay wedding ceremonies of those who are so inclined. They will be missing  a great party however.

[Brittain33]

Why are people discussing CCSF as if he were a real person?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

At some point I get tired of the raw hostility surrounding my beliefs on this on this site and have other things to do so I'm sorry I haven't adequately addressed all your points before. I recognize you think I am some sort of a bigot because I've been a consistent defender of freedom of conscience and religion on myriad issues as they relate to a wide variety of spiritual and humanistic traditions. That's fine if it makes you feel important or whatever.  So, can we dispense with the argumenta ad hominem?

It is rather important to me, because your "opinion" and defense of the provisions of and motive behind laws like Indiana's RFRA kinda, y'know, disrespects my existence? As well as the existence and rights of millions of people?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that was actually what the Indiana RFRA law was, no one would have a problem with it. But the Indiana RFRA law contained two passages that specifically went beyond what the federal law and 19 other state laws contained, by extending corporate personhood to pretty much all business entities and extending the "religious freedom" defense to civil suits, in addition to three of the backers present at the signing ceremony openly bragging that it will allow discrimination against LGBT people. If Pence signed a regular RFRA law, literally no one would care, and this whole debate would not have happened.

Why do you consistently refuse to address this point I and many others have made repeatedly? You're not "too busy", you just don't want to address it. You have all this time to write walls of text of flowerly language and endless truisms, surely you can reply to the questions I have asked you repeatedly about your positions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except it was different for the reasons I explained above. Do you think everyone just decided to get mad about nothing? Do you really think there were no ulterior motives behind the passage of this bill, especially considering Pence's political background and his failed attempt to constitutionally ban gay marriage in January 2014, and considering who helped him craft this legislation, them being present at the signing, and their openness about what they hoped to accomplish with this legislation?

The reason there is no precedent is because this situation has never happened before. It is "unprecedented" that gay marriage is legal in modern, Western country like it is becoming in the United States, and so there has been no precedent in bigots trying to hide behind their religion and appropriate otherwise uncontroversial laws for exploitation.

Again: you have not adequately responded to this point in past threads.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There will always be some restrictions on religious liberty. It's a balancing act. I am fine with the original federal RFRA and state laws passed in the late-90s/early-2000s, because those were pased in response to a legitimate example of government entities unnecessarily restricting religious practices.

But religious liberty is not something that can be used to walk all over secular rights, and vice-versa, as it has been and is understood by our legal system. From your constant talking of being concerned about religious liberty, I'm getting the impression that you think that religious liberty is absolute and superior to all other liberties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care if a church doesn't want to marry a same-sex couple; a church is a private institution. I don't care if a private membership club wants to deny membership to gays, people of other races, or people of different faiths, or if a local women's group refuses to admit men to their meetings. I don't care if someone decides to stop talking to me because i"m gay, or that my beliefs don't totally line up with theirs, or because I'm male, or whatever other arbitrary trait causes the issue. I'll avoid them, and they can avoid me, which is mine and their right to association and non-association.

What I do care about, is when a business that claims to be open to the general public decides to discriminate against people and can defend themselves in court because the state decided to stick it to a group of people they have been taught to hate by some passage in a text. The people who vocally oppose SSM and anti-discrimination laws are seeking to create an anti-gay Jim Crow environment, as they have openly stated repeatedly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. There will always be vigorous debate and back-and-forth between competing groups.
 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see it that way. For the gay rights movement and feminists, it's simply asserting their rights to marriage and the freedom to live their lives without fear of discrimination, and the correction of wide range of wrongs perpetrated based on gender, respectively. No one is proposing the wholesale removal of religion from public life. This isn't a black-and-white, yes-or-no, this-or-that debate.

I oppose the two sections in the Indiana RFRA law, support the federal and 19 other states' RFRA laws, and wear religious symbols around my neck and as tattoos, and am totally fine with Presidents declaring religious observances (I would do that myself if I was POTUS). Do you think I am without religion or religious beliefs?

These are not mutually exclusive or conflicting beliefs. If someone tried to pass an equivalent of a French secularity law (aka "the burqa ban"), you and I would find ourselves cooperating in opposition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Certain sensibilites" being the drive to create a segregated society is a perfectly valid scenario where religions SHOULD hurry back into the walls of a church or private home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again: this is a balancing act. There is a difference between something legal and ethical/moral in business. If a customer enters your store and simply purchases a good or service you offer, you shouldn't be able to deny them the good/service simply because your religion told you to shun "those people". If a customer is disrespectful to me or my coworkers, steals, breaks things, bothers other customers, in other words disrupt business, I can ask them to leave and ask them not to come back. But I cannot see someone walk in the door and refuse to ring them up simply because of some arbitrary trait they possess. That of course is subject to certain exceptions, but gay people eating wedding cake is not one of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From a quick read of news articles, the company simply reassigned him to a different load without issue, and since alcohol delieveries are only 5% of that company's revenues, they can't claim it was a burdensome accomodation.

It is clear that the company forced the man out unreasonably. The government is not going to fine Muslims for things like this. That is a slippery-slope fallacy.

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't mind your posts TJ, at all, on SSM, and appreciate them. But I am curious whether at this juncture, you have a secular, data based argument against SSM to which you honestly subscribe. Arguing theology qua theology when it comes to public policy is a dead end. It will persuade nobody but believers. But then you already knew that.

None that I imagine will convince you But to answer your question, there is data out there showing a variety of worse outcomes for children (getting arrested, drug use, etc.). Do I honestly subscribe to it? I think it's probably true but to be honest, I never really have much faith in the statistics of social science research. I know far too many grad students in those fields

Like I said before though, gay marriage is coming regardless at this point. There is little to be gained by using political capital to try and stop it. For example, I don't blame Governors Christie and Walker in the slightest for waving the white flag when their states' gay marriage bans were overturned (what more could they have done?). I still do oppose it on a personal level and will never politically endorse it (as though anyone cares about my political issue endorsements)(I am not a consequentialist), but that ship has sailed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bigger issue now, both nationally and for me, is what we should do about all those florists and cake bakers. I would gladly sign off on some sort of compromise that enshrines government recognition of gay marriages and prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and the usual service realms with religious exemptions for workers from partaking in events that go against their beliefs. I do not believe there is support on the other side of the aisle for such a compromise. Rather I get the impression, at least from the banter I've seen on the topic, that any religious exemption at all is a redline that cannot be permitted. Thus we get back to the gulag

I would point to Indiana as an example of what happens when you add religious exemptions. True, Indiana did not ban discrimination against gays in their original bill, but it was already legal in Indiana to discriminate against gays before the RFRA was passed and no one seemed to care then. It was only when religious freedom was involved did everyone blow a collective gasket. I would also like to add, since I'm not sure I've ever actually posted it on here, that I do not think it ought to be legal to discriminate against gays in employment, service, housing, etc. That is not a matter of political capital; I simply do not think it should be legal regardless of the popularity of the idea. Then what defines discrimination vs. religious freedom exemptions in my opinion? Discrimination is denying service based on who someone is rather than the content of the service they ask you to provide. It should be illegal for, say, to give a totally random example, a pizza parlor in South Bend, Indiana to refuse to let customers into the store because they're gay. It should be legal for said pizza parlor to refuse to cater a gay wedding reception. It should also be legal for them to refuse to cater a pot convention, or a political convention, or a Bar Mitzvah, or a First Communion party, or whatever they don't believe in catering.

[bedstuy]

I don't mind your posts TJ, at all, on SSM, and appreciate them. But I am curious whether at this juncture, you have a secular, data based argument against SSM to which you honestly subscribe. Arguing theology qua theology when it comes to public policy is a dead end. It will persuade nobody but believers. But then you already knew that.

None that I imagine will convince you But to answer your question, there is data out there showing a variety of worse outcomes for children (getting arrested, drug use, etc.). Do I honestly subscribe to it? I think it's probably true but to be honest, I never really have much faith in the statistics of social science research. I know far too many grad students in those fields

Like I said before though, gay marriage is coming regardless at this point. There is little to be gained by using political capital to try and stop it. For example, I don't blame Governors Christie and Walker in the slightest for waving the white flag when their states' gay marriage bans were overturned (what more could they have done?). I still do oppose it on a personal level and will never politically endorse it (as though anyone cares about my political issue endorsements)(I am not a consequentialist), but that ship has sailed.

On the well-being of children point, that's a super weak argument.  First off, there is no good data on the subject because you can't do an experiment.  And, you don't know how much homophobia and barriers to gay adoption/marriage influence the outcomes for children of gay parents.  And, what data we have is totally inconclusive.    

But, just from the well-being of children angle, gay marriage is only a plus.  As a conservative, you think kids do better when their parents are married, right?  Well, there are currently many children of gay unmarried parents.  So, gay marriage only benefits those kids, right?

Then, there are the children of closeted gay people who grow up miserable or in broken homes because their parents got married due to religious guilt, fear or internalized homophobia.  Demonizing homosexuality only hurts those people, their straight partners and their children.

So, that well-being of children argument is completely not in your favor.

The bigger issue now, both nationally and for me, is what we should do about all those florists and cake bakers. I would gladly sign off on some sort of compromise that enshrines government recognition of gay marriages and prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and the usual service realms with religious exemptions for workers from partaking in events that go against their beliefs. I do not believe there is support on the other side of the aisle for such a compromise. Rather I get the impression, at least from the banter I've seen on the topic, that any religious exemption at all is a redline that cannot be permitted. Thus we get back to the gulag

I would point to Indiana as an example of what happens when you add religious exemptions. True, Indiana did not ban discrimination against gays in their original bill, but it was already legal in Indiana to discriminate against gays before the RFRA was passed and no one seemed to care then. It was only when religious freedom was involved did everyone blow a collective gasket. I would also like to add, since I'm not sure I've ever actually posted it on here, that I do not think it ought to be legal to discriminate against gays in employment, service, housing, etc. That is not a matter of political capital; I simply do not think it should be legal regardless of the popularity of the idea. Then what defines discrimination vs. religious freedom exemptions in my opinion? Discrimination is denying service based on who someone is rather than the content of the service they ask you to provide. It should be illegal for, say, to give a totally random example, a pizza parlor in South Bend, Indiana to refuse to let customers into the store because they're gay. It should be legal for said pizza parlor to refuse to cater a gay wedding reception. It should also be legal for them to refuse to cater a pot convention, or a political convention, or a Bar Mitzvah, or a First Communion party, or whatever they don't believe in catering.

Your persecution complex is showing again.  

To me, this is a balancing question.  

You have the ability of gay people to have normal lives on one hand, which you respect to your credit.  That means being treated as a member of the general public, with respect to public accommodation, employment, housing, etc.  

On the other hand, you have people who find gay marriage morally wrong or icky.  If those people want to fire a gay employee or refuse to rent an apartment to a gay person, we don't care.  But, if that person's service or job requires a real expressive component, we care about their right to conscience.  If we're talking about clergy, or a musician at a wedding, there is a really strong argument for the freedom of conscience.  In between maybe we have a florist or a baker, where there is some small expressive content, but they're mostly just selling a product.  They're not selling gay flowers or gay cake, they're selling a cake that will be eaten by gay people.  

And, that's where the freedom of conscience ends for me.  You don't get to wall yourself off from elements of society purchasing your products if you sell them to the general public.   To me, it can't be a right to be refuse to be indirectly involved with gay people.  Selling a person a cake does mean you endorse their lifestyle or think they're a swell person.   It has to be a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, the right not be forced to endorse ideas you don't support.

So, the real question with these laws is how do you protect the freedom of conscience without creating an open-ended right to discriminate?  I think that law would have to focus on expression and not involvement and only apply to services that mix personal expression with business, like entertainment and religious services.

[Torie]

Are we drawing a clear distinction here between baking a custom cake to be used 1) for a gay wedding that has a gay wedding theme design, 2) a cake with a generic wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, 3) a generic cake with no wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, and 4) a cake to be used for a birthday party for a gay? To me, there clearly is an excellent case for a religious conscience exception for having to cater a gay wedding at the wedding site, and I strongly suspect SCOTUS would agree. As to numbers 1 through 4 above, I tend to favor an exemption for number 1, 2 is a very close case but I tend to lean against a religious exemption, but could be persuaded otherwise potentially, and there is no real case for an exemption for numbers 3 and 4.

That link TJ gave seemed to be about Lesbians by  the way. As noted, even assuming the data isn't GIGO, the real question to ask are the outcomes between children of unmarried gays, and married gays.

[afleitch]

That link TJ gave seemed to be about Lesbians by  the way. As noted, even assuming the data isn't GIGO, the real question to ask are the outcomes between children of unmarried gays, and married gays.

Up to 7 million children in the USA are being raised by same sex parents, many of whom have same sex partners. If children do better in married and stable homes (which I would actually dispute) then why on earth would social conservatives oppose these children's parents from being married? You have to deal with the realities of what's happening on the ground.

[7,052,770]

Are we drawing a clear distinction here between baking a custom cake to be used 1) for a gay wedding that has a gay wedding theme design, 2) a cake with a generic wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, 3) a generic cake with no wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, and 4) a cake to be used for a birthday party for a gay? To me, there clearly is an excellent case for a religious conscience exception for having to cater a gay wedding at the wedding site, and I strongly suspect SCOTUS would agree. As to numbers 1 through 4 above, I tend to favor an exemption for number 1, 2 is a very close case but I tend to lean against a religious exemption, but could be persuaded otherwise potentially, and there is no real case for an exemption for numbers 3 and 4.

That link TJ gave seemed to be about Lesbians by  the way. As noted, even assuming the data isn't GIGO, the real question to ask are the outcomes between children of unmarried gays, and married gays.

How does this compare to your opinions on scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4 if it were an interracial couple instead of a gay one? A marriage between people who had married before?  A Catholic baker and a marriage between Catholics outside the church?