Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

If the UU's (as an example) have decreed that they recognize and celebrate same-sex marriage, how is it not violating religious freedom for a state to force them to NOT perform said marriages? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yeah, that's a point that doesn't exactly get represented in the larger dialogue, and a pretty good one. Kinda' cuts to the point that the advocates against same sex marriage aren't doing it for religious freedom, they're (at best) doing it for their religion's "freedom." It's nice to see some folks getting some attention fighting for religious freedom writ large.

Well, and let's make clear that what they (the anti-SSM advocates) are fighting for is their religion's freedom to discriminate. Which has typically not been recognized as a valid right by most courts (although Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission certainly could be interpreted as allowing exemptions for religious institutions from things like equal opportunity labor laws).

It's a thorny issue: One the one hand, religions shouldn't be able to exempt themselves from civil protections and be legally able to create second-class citizenry. On the other hand, government should not be able to dictate to religions what parts of their doctrine they are allowed to practice.

In a perfect world, it would be left up to the market of ideas, and people would vote with their feet -- if the majority of individuals favored gay marriage, in theory they'd leave close-minded denominations and choose SSM-friendly ones. But it's nowhere near that simple. Most people can't "shop around" for a new church the way you can for a new car.

Most cases of national importance are complicated and have two sides. The "Vote with your feet" principle is nuts, honestly. I have to freaking uproot and move to another area just for something to make sense? Assuming I can even get a JOB in that new area, which is what really determines a lot of where people live, not choice, would it be at comparable pay/expense ratio of what I currently have? Better? Worse? Moreover, what if I like one aspect of the place I'd be moving to (new state) but there are other areas that I just don't/can't live with? Finally, I know we like to think everyone is fungible (replaceable) because we write people off for no good reason, but what about area friends and family? Institutions I've used for years, etc.

The idea that everyone and everything is perfectly replaceable, mobile, and interchangeable ignores the entire human experience. Rights, certain universal ones, are things a person should be able to invoke, and no one else should be able to violate, no matter where they are or why.

One of the main reasons kindness and basic consideration die in the modern day is that they're free; you can't charge for them. They also cost relatively nothing to give, and people still won't. 

[GlyphGryph]

So you're arguing all churches should be forced to marry/not marry any two people, or what?

You don't exactly have to uproot to vote with your feet by getting married at the town clerks office.

[Truean]

So you're arguing all churches should be forced to marry/not marry any two people, or what?

You don't exactly have to uproot to vote with your feet by getting married at the town clerks office.

You do if every town clerk's office in the state won't marry you but other states will....

Speaking of town clerks that's exactly who that argument was aimed at procedurally and precisely.

There's actually no contradiction in what I said about rights set down.

The church would have a property right. They can, but don't have to marry me. One of the key rights of property is to exclude others from it.

I have a civil right whereby the government can't discriminate and that only applies to government action...

Or so I'd argue, it SHOULD be but unfortunately isn't currently....

[Moghjubar]

[snip]the complaint specifies that while he won't perform a same-sex marriage (because the denomination, which is the archconservative wing of the Lutherans, forbids it), he feels that it's STILL a violation of religious freedom and that other denominations should have the right to solemnize same-sex marriages if they so choose.[snip]

IF it was truly non-interventionist and left solely to religions, then I would gladly Atheist-Minister-up and marry whoever.  I am sure many would. 

However,  I am fairly certain it still would not be equal rights in many states' laws that way, due to, basically, bullshit or new-law runaround.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-british-police-join-anti-austerity-protest-141105856.html

Nobody cares about anything until it effects them....

Austerity, is apparently necessary, but certainly not for rich and/or powerful people. Nope. Not them. Always us.... "Everybody" is just whining, until you're part of everybody.

It's really kinda like the air force's unofficial motto, "Flying along dumb and happy until we hit the side of the mountain."

[GlyphGryph]

Truean, I think the marriage posts you made may have gotten a good deal off topic, since you started off by criticizing someone was trying to advocate making gay marriage legal (despite being unwilling to perform it themselves). Your more recent examples are very nearly completely irrelevant to the conversation. :/

[kaijyuu]

Since when have we really cared about going off the rails in this thread, provided we're talking about relevant stuff?


Anywho I'm on Redking's side for a "vote with your feet" thing being the "ideal" solution, except that it's plain not practical. If the people around you bug you, you should be able to move to others who are more like minded rather than force everyone else to conform to your own personal standards. The practical concerns come into play with the stuff Truean mentioned (jobs, families, etc), along with having to force at least free immigration/emmigration.

I don't believe in utopias, so I don't believe in a single set of rules that can be applied to every group of people. There are going to be people who simply do not fit in with their surroundings, so they should be able to choose their surroundings for themselves, not force their surroundings to fit them. We can talk about inalienable rights that should be applied everywhere, but it's not cut and dry what rights actually are inalienable, especially for 100% cultural constructs like marriage (nevermind the very concept of inalienable rights skirts dangerously close to objective morality).

Long story short, "voting with your feet" is a complex issue, no easy answer for what's best. It's one of those "perfect world" things.

[Truean]

Truean, I think the marriage posts you made may have gotten a good deal off topic, since you started off by criticizing someone was trying to advocate making gay marriage legal (despite being unwilling to perform it themselves). Your more recent examples are very nearly completely irrelevant to the conversation. :/

? [takes out detailed map of rails, illustrates]

My last post was on a different topic altogether.... Namely austerity, particularly in the UK.

As for criticizing the pastor Redking was talking about and the other points related to that; those were dead on point. The whole vein of the conversation was about rights as concern marriage performance (of ritual), definition, and authority over these. The pastor Redking was talking about was arguing that the State was interfering with a Church's right to determine who it married by imposing any type of marriage. Redking thought that was indirectly in favor of gay marriage because more or less it would mean those churches who do want to marry gay people would be allowed to do so. I on the other hand, see it as a pastor trying for an ill advised power grab for churches. I don't believe this pastor is advocating for any sorta of gay friendly anything, indirectly or otherwise. I think he's going for power....

Apparently there's a legal complaint being filed in Greensboro, NC by the county register of deeds and three clergy members, to the effect that the clergy view any state imposition on who they can and can't marry as a violation of religious freedom.

He's talking about a "right" of churches. As in he is saying the government has no business telling the church anything at all concerning marriage, because that would violate a church's right of "religious freedom." If he won this suit, it would give him a great deal of power concerning marriage, gay or otherwise, and take said power away from the state.

Rails:
Simply the conversation was about gay marriage: a.) an NC amendment against it, 2.) general people's reactions to it, 3.) certain specific people's reactions to it (including Obama and PoH's example of that mean girl on Facebook), 4.) one specific pastor's lawsuit concerning gay marriage, and 5.) proposed solutions including the "vote with your feet," thing Redking brought up as his ideal solution. All to do with gay marriage and the rights surrounding it: definition, administration, prohibition, and remedy in the event of prohibition. Straight rails with detailed stops and stations along the tracks?

[Bauglir]

I'm not actually sure about that. Is there any existing category of marriage which a church is legally obligated to perform? If not, the only thing being argued here is that the state cannot forbid any particular kind of marriage from being performed by a given church.

[kaijyuu]

I was under the impression that religions can perform whatever the hell ceremonies they want. The whole gay marriage deal has to do with legal contracts, nothing else.

[Sirus]

I was under the impression that religions can perform whatever the hell ceremonies they want. The whole gay marriage deal has to do with legal contracts, nothing else.

This. Seems like many Christian sects prohibit divorce, which is why divorce is a legal option for anyone who wants one (here in the States, at least). If churches don't want to hold ceremonies for gay couples, I don't see a need to force them to do so, so long as a legal option is available.

[kaijyuu]

Indeed. Which is why the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing is bullshit. Unless you think legal documents are "sacred."

Were laws being imposed to force pastors to marry people they don't want to marry, then I'd be on their side 100%. That ain't the case.

[penguinofhonor]

Because this thread only exists for me to transcribe my facebook to:

Spoiler: seemed relevant (click to show/hide)

[Sirus]

Were laws being imposed to force pastors to marry people they don't want to marry, then I'd be on their side 100%. That ain't the case.

Once again, this.

Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of churches (that Unity sect that seems to be making the rounds, or possibly the Quakers) and non-denominational houses of worship that would be glad to host gay wedding services. Money is money, after all.

[kaenneth]

Were laws being imposed to force pastors to marry people they don't want to marry, then I'd be on their side 100%. That ain't the case.

Once again, this.

Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of churches (that Unity sect that seems to be making the rounds, or possibly the Quakers) and non-denominational houses of worship that would be glad to host gay wedding services. Money is money, after all.

Reguarding marrying people...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvuXu1_iF0