Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Know what else is a choice? Not being tolerant of the long-held traditional religious beliefs of others. Or is tolerance a one-way street?
Know what else is a choice? Taking a small business to court when multiple alternate venues are willing to provide the same service.

I am very tolerant of the religious beliefs of others. I'll never force a Jew or a Muslim to eat pork or a Christian to do something their religion forbids. I am completely fine with religious person doing whatever their religion dictates, AS LONG as they a. do not force it onto me, and b. don't harm others in the process.


But tolerance, as you say, isn't supposed to be a one-way street. When are you going to start seeing that I'm not the intolerant one, but that you are forcing your beliefs onto me when I do not share them? I am not asking you to share my beliefs, I just want some civil rights. That is all. You don't have to agree with them you know. Nobody is forcing you to accept that people are gay. Belief is in my opinion something personal. Something YOU believe, not something YOu feel forced to force onto others. There is a reason why there is a separation between church and state.

[Diemen]

[global message]Let's back off the personal jabs, please.[/global message]

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

All that said, I'd go to another baker.

But this baker is legally wrong.

And any same-sex marriage in Colorado is "legally wrong" as well but my guess is your call for strict adherence to Colorado jurisprudence is not uniform.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

And any same-sex marriage in Colorado is "legally wrong" as well but my guess is your call for strict adherence to Colorado jurisprudence is not uniform.

this is a great point.

that actually makes the baker's actions worse and weakens his case -- he really was just refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because they were gay. they weren't even getting really married. he wouldn't have been forced to "violate" anything.

also, a "wedding cake" doesn't have a legal status. it's not a marriage certificate. we could have stayed in Virginia, thrown a "wedding" there and ordered a real wedding cake from a real wedding cake bakery, and the wedding would have no actual legal consequence. legally, it would have been a wedding cake served at some party.

[Irvine511]

and please feel free to address the example of refusing to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple.

remember:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

[LJT]

Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Your religious convictions do not trump my civil rights.

I don't believe there is a civil right that recognizes "equality" between any and all arrangements wishing to be defined as a marriage. I can find the Free Exercise of Religion clause in the U.S. Constitution however.

Your religious convictions might tell you that you should murder your daughter if she has sex before marriage. But you're not allowed to murder your daughter.

You're right. It's not like "religious conscience" is a last-ditch effort for homophobic bigots to discriminate against homosexuals. It has conflicted with laws before (peyote, the military draft, and the current HHS rules mandating contraceptive coverage coming to mind) and no less than the evil Antonin Scalia has ruled there is no constitutional entitlement to exemption from applicable laws with a clear and compelling government interest.

So worry not, murder or human sacrifice cannot be plea bargained down with religious conviction. No one is lobbying for the anarchy of blanket religious immunity. But neither should the government nor courts impose activities against the religious beliefs of individuals when not necessary. Need every thought or deed found offensive be criminalized?

Are you aware the federal government exempted the religious use of alcohol during Prohibition? Are you familiar with the long held use of "conduct exemptions" in legislation or with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton?

Is this actually hard to grasp? You're ever vigilant about encroaching Sharia Law. Isn't that a two-way street?

I'm vigilant against Sharia Law because it cannot exist within a democracy or constitutional republic. Islamists that seek to impose Sharia Law say as much because they recognize no law but sharia (God-given) Law. Ideology prevents a two-way street from existing.

Or do only Christians get to play American Taliban?

The relativism that goes into a statement like that is fathomless. Choosing not to participate in a same-sex marriage = stoning homosexuals to death. Wow.

[Galeongirl]

Nobody is telling you to participate in a same sex marriage. Leave that to the gay people. All you have to do is accept they are human and stop denying them basic human rights.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and please feel free to address the example of refusing to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple.

remember:

I find nothing in the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws. And, as I've said before, I don't think discrimination based on skin color in marriage is in any way analogous to discrimination based on sex. Skin color has nothing to do with marriage; gender does. Bride-groom, wife-husband, mother-father.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Nobody is telling you to participate in a same sex marriage.

They were asking the baker weren't they?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by LJT

Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"

I don't think we have any libertarians to defend themselves.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I find nothing in the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws. And, as I've said before, I don't think discrimination based on skin color in marriage is in any way analogous to discrimination based on sex. Skin color has nothing to do with marriage; gender does. Bride-groom, wife-husband, mother-father.

well, sure, you don't find anything in the Bible (now), but what i just quoted came from a judge, linked to in the previous post:

At the age of 18, Mildred became pregnant, and in June 1958 the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, thereby evading Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made interracial marriage a crime. They returned to the small town of Central Point, Virginia. Based on an anonymous tip local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. That certificate became the evidence for the criminal charge of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" that was brought against them.

The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race:

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They did so, moving to the District of Columbia.

... someone else i know fled the Commonwealth for the District, not least because of marriage laws (better property values, nightlife, friends, and gorgeous architecture aside).

this just underscores the fact that the "definition" of marriage has always, and will always, shift and change with time. we've all pointed out that it used to be possible for men to marry very young teenagers, and in some of our lifetimes (certainly our parent's lifetimes).

SSM is, yes, an evolution of our understanding of human sexuality, and it only asks for legal equality. religions are free, and continue to be free, to discriminate at their will. but businesses, in an increasing number of states, like Colorado, may no longer exclude people from capitalism on the basis of an immutable trait, like race or gender or sexual orientation or one's chosen religion.

i'd like to know, what is it that a gay couple can't do that all straight couples can that are essential to perform what is understood as a marriage?

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by INDY500

They were asking the baker weren't they?

Nope, all they asked the baker was to bake a cake. Nobody asked him to marry someone of his own sex.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I don't believe there is a civil right that recognizes "equality" between any and all arrangements wishing to be defined as a marriage. I can find the Free Exercise of Religion clause in the U.S. Constitution however.

any and all? nice.

there is the 14th amendment, of course.

You're right. It's not like "religious conscience" is a last-ditch effort for homophobic bigots to discriminate against homosexuals. It has conflicted with laws before (peyote, the military draft, and the current HHS rules mandating contraceptive coverage coming to mind) and no less than the evil Antonin Scalia has ruled there is no constitutional entitlement to exemption from applicable laws with a clear and compelling government interest.

actually, it's both. it has been used, but it is the last ditch effort wielded by the bigots. 20 years ago, they could rely on more widespread bigotry and hatred of gay people, but times have changed, just as times changed for blacks in the 1960s and women in the 1970s.

one difference between the exceptions you noted is that these religious exemptions did not infringe upon the rights of others. avoiding the draft, taking peyote -- these are actions taken by the individual that does not affect anyone else.

So worry not, murder or human sacrifice cannot be plea bargained down with religious conviction. No one is lobbying for the anarchy of blanket religious immunity. But neither should the government nor courts impose activities against the religious beliefs of individuals when not necessary. Need every thought or deed found offensive be criminalized?

thank goodness.

it's not that the baker's deeds are so offensive, it's that he's in violation of Colorado's clearly stated civil rights laws. you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. it's extremely simple.

Are you aware the federal government exempted the religious use of alcohol during Prohibition? Are you familiar with the long held use of "conduct exemptions" in legislation or with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton?

i answered this above -- the difference between, say, fasting for 60 days vs. beating your wife senseless for cheating. one you do to you, the other violates the rights of another.

I'm vigilant against Sharia Law because it cannot exist within a democracy or constitutional republic. Islamists that seek to impose Sharia Law say as much because they recognize no law but sharia (God-given) Law. Ideology prevents a two-way street from existing.

while i think your "vigilance" is unwarranted precisely because we have things like Colorado's anti-discrimination laws in place that protect you as much as they protect me -- remember, discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal, but we could argue that religion, as opposed to orientation or race, is freely chosen -- i do agree that Sharia Law is incompatible with secularism, for secularism is what allows you to be you.

you have, however, heard of Christian Identity?

The relativism that goes into a statement like that is fathomless. Choosing not to participate in a same-sex marriage = stoning homosexuals to death. Wow.

and determining that one group is worthy of discrimination and exclusion from capitalism because of religious convictions is the first step towards murdering homosexuals. you seem to think that gay people aren't bashed all the time, or get murdered with alarming frequency (though not as much as the transgendered).

again, look at where Christian Identity takes us:

Identity Christianity asserts that disease, addiction, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases (herpes and AIDS) are spread by human "rodents" via contact with "unclean" persons, such as through "race-mixing".[35]:85 The first book of Enoch is used to justify these social theories; the fallen angels of Heaven sexually desired Earth maidens and took them as wives, resulting in the birth of abominations, which God ordered Michael the Archangel to destroy, thus beginning a cosmic war between Light and Darkness.[35]:85 The mixing of separate things (e.g. people of different races) is seen as defiling both, and is against God's will.[35]:86

Identity preachers proclaim that, according to the King James Bible, "the penaltys for race-mixing, homo-sexuality, and usury are death."[35]:86 The justification for killing homosexuals is provided by Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Exodus 22:21-22, Leviticus 25:35-37 and Deuteronomy explicitly condemn usury.[35]:92 Ezekiel 18-13 states "He who hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him" and is quoted as justification for killing Jews, since Jews have traditionally had a large presence in the usury business.

Identity followers reject the label of "anti-Semitic", stating that they can't be anti-Semitic, since in fact the true Semites "today are the great White Christian nations of the western world", with modern Jews in fact being descendants of the Canaanites.

you linked TG children with SSM, that seems like much more of a stretch than pointing out the slippery slope when we allow religious "expression" (really: discrimination) to trump protected civil rights.

[Irvine511]

Hope, and Change.

Obama Administration To Recognize Utah Same-Sex Couples' Marriages

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Hope, and Change.

Obama Administration To Recognize Utah Same-Sex Couples' Marriages

I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.

So now Eric Holder has "decided" that the marriages will be recognized.

Hope and Change?

I thinks it's a scary slope to tyranny.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.

Interesting that you didn't think that this was judicial activism.

Though not surprising.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.



So now Eric Holder has "decided" that the marriages will be recognized.



Hope and Change?



I thinks it's a scary slope to tyranny.

That's very George Wallace of you.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by LJT

Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"

I think you can apply this to capitalists of most stripes to be honest (excluding your every day typical liberal).

[martha]

Did anybody answer the question about how horrible it is in Massachussets (how the fuck do you spell that when you're tired, anyway?) since the gays can get married just like reg'lar folks?

Indy's got me on ignore, so could someone ask him again? Or was it Iron Horse that was asked?