State house approval came last week. Today, the state senate voted in favor, 13-11. It's unknown whether the governor will sign or veto the bill, but he has previously said he thinks the state's civil-unions law is good enough and that further progress will require federal recognition.
Protecting religious liberty as a "compromise" position on SSM is gaining traction. The swing vote in the state senate came from a Democrat who just last week voted against the bill in committee, but switched after more protection for religious liberty was added. The amendment, she said, is “respectful to both sides of the debate and meets our shared goals of equality under the state laws for all of the people of New Hampshire.” The religious-protection amendment says:
457:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Clergy persons as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to officiate at a civil marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article V of the New Hampshire constitution.
(HT: Robin Wilson)
Forcing clergy to officiate at gay weddings is not an issue, as informed advocates on both sides know. Certainly forcing them to do so "in violation of their [constitutional] right to free exercise of religion" has never been on the table. This provision, on its face, restates protection already guaranteed in the state and federal constitutions. It might, I suppose, be interpreted to exempt religious objectors from the otherwise neutral requirement to officiate at any weddings recognized under state law, which might not be an unconstitutional imposition under Employment Div. v. Smith.
But even if it accomplishes that, the provision is narrower than the religious-liberty protection included in Connecticut's SSM bill last week and much narrower than that proposed last week by five prominent religious-liberty advocates. Whether any additional protection is really needed in an SSM bill, as opposed to state and federal antidiscrimination laws, is a separate question.
At any rate, congratulations to gay families in New Hampshire and to those who have been working hard in the state legislature on their behalf.
You mean their supreme judicially created right, not their constitutional right.
I agree. The amendment is really without effect. It is unlikely that any clergy would have been forced to "marry" someone. (if that day ever comes, then the words in the Constitution are unlikely to have any value in protecting their religious freedoms anyway).
The issue is not with clergy, it's with everything else.
Clergy aren't the only ones in America who have religious rights. Organizations and non-clergy do as well.
The best thing about this is, at least the Judges aren't doing it. Without imperial judicial interference, at least the law can be repealed in the future, or at a minimum better religious protections can be enacted.
Of course, if history is any guide, tolerance of the homosexual agenda won't be enough for them. They will force their opponents to bow before them.
so we can force "this" down your throat.
so we can force "this" down your throat.
I thought this was a post about SSM, not about the tea bagger parties.
Oh wait... I thought this was Craigslist...
I'm looking for 2M4M to bow before me for teabagging.
You game, DangerMouse?
Send me your stats and pics.
On the other hand I'd like to congratulate NH's legislature for choosing to implement SSM constitutionally rather than extra constitutionally as in California, Iowa and Massachusetts.
As you say (It's clear that your genious has figured this out)... mere toleration is never enough. I mean, you know us and our homosexual agenda... once the state gives us the option of getting married, we will move onto PHASE II: FORCING the divorce of heterosexual marriages and matching them with homosexual partners... It's all part of the new millenium strategy for the downfall of human civilization, doncha know.
We also will force the abortion of all naturally conceived children... only artificial insemination approved by our black-robed masters is allowed.
As for caterers etc, are they allowed to not serve the weddings of people who had a divorce? That is the closest parallel I could think of.
The bill allows 13 year old girls to marry 14 year old boys, but in same sex unions, both parties must be 18 or older.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/hb0436.html
But that was exactly the argument that opponents of SSM made in California. Plenty of literature and advertisements told voters that if gay marriage were legal, churches would be forced to perform gay marriages.
It is painfully obvious that "tolerance" is definitely NOT what homosexual activists want. They want acceptence, upon penalty of jail time. Their own words betray them:
The closest analogy to me is interracial marriage (yes, I'm aware that some refuse to see these situations as analogous). Should a business be allowed to not render services to an interracial couple?
The libertarian responses that I've usually seen are:
(1) Of course a business should be able to deny services, so even though the law currently forbids discrimination on race, we will not give in and allow further restrictions on freedom of association...
(2) Of course a business should be able to deny services, but IF the government is going to enforce certain restrictions, then we should be fair to apply equally to all groups.
That's probably because at the time, Canada's human rights agency was investigating a preacher who defended traditional marriage. It was evidence of overstep that could easily happen in America.
This is the biggest load of horseshit. I suppose there's a more polite way to disagree but frankly it's not even worth the effort.
It could??? On what basis do you make that claim? Canadian human rights law is vastly different than American law. Canada is not America. Especially in the civil rights area, the law is vastly different.
I might as well complain that abortion is under attack in America because it's illegal in the vast majority of Mexico.
No, I support the Civil Rights Act as it is written (although not always as how it's interpreted by the Courts). There's a need for protection against religious discrimination. I see no need for such protection for sexual behavior, however.
So if a newspaper printed that you were living in sin with you someone who was legally your wife, that you weren't really married, wouldn't you think you were entitled to sue for libel?
Opinion is not a basis for libel.
Whether or not you are legally married is not an opinion. It is a legal fact.
I take it you're in favor of suing anyone for libel if they have the temerity to claim that so-called "homosexual" marriages aren't real marriages?
Are you trying to prove my point?
If a paper wants to print that, in their opinion, SSMs should not be permitted, and that, as a matter of law, SSMs should not be considered marriages, that's fine.
But if I am legally married to someone, and a paper prints that I am, in fact, not legally married to that person but that we are living together as a married couple, then yes, that should be actionable. In fact that's exactly what defamation per se is in several states.
But once you actually start saying "person X and Y are not actually married" when in fact, persons X and Y are legally married, then you're in trouble.
You are being obtuse. No one gives a d*mn what YOU personally think... you can have ANY opinion you want.
No one is forcing you to change your views at all.
However, in Iowa, Mass, Connecticut, and Vermont... there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage"... there is just marriage... feel free to scream it from the mountaintops that you don't think its a valid marriage... The Catholic church doesn't have to recognize any non-Catholic marriage, and no one is forcing them to accept Protestant marriages. If you are Catholic, you are quite free to believe that your Protestant friends are not really married.
You seem to have great difficulty separating civil marriage from everything else. People are free to have any opinion they want... the crux of the matter is in government rights/responsibilities and public accommodations. Here, I acknowledge some tricky issues... in my personal opinion, treat them the exact same way as interracial marriage...
Sigh. Another huge pile of horseshit. Maybe you should stop giving out legal opinions over the internet, because you suck at it.
Nothing to do with SSM, but this tends to explain why New Hampshire is relatively well governed. Few things are more disruptive to the good government of a state than a legislature with time on its hands.
DangerMouse:
Why do you support the inclusion of religion? If a person is being discriminated against because of their religion, they can just keep quiet about it and not flaunt their religion in everyones face.
What about the rights of people who believe that Jews are agents of the devil? Why should they be forced to rent property to Jews, hire Jews, etc?
Am I correct?
"Getting back to the thoughts in the original post from Dale, the NH legislature is, literally, an amateur affair. The legislators make $100/year. They have one, part-time legal counsel on staff to advise them."
Oh, well, then, if NH votes to allow SSM, it doesn't really 'count.' Got it.
You're incorrect. I don't want to make it illegal to have homosexual sex (ala Lawrence). However, I am against homosexual marriage and so-called "civil unions." I don't care what you do otherwise.
Someone asked me if I think business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. I think that question should be directed at homosexual activists, who seem to demonstrate their hostility to religion all the time, as the Mormons can tell you.
I think it's great that the last people opposing SSM are people like Dangermouse. At this point, the only ones who remain opposed to SSM are the people who are afraid that gays will no longer be hated like they have been in the past, and they will be left in the dust. Afterall, you can't keep preaching how evil gays are if the gov't allows us to get married, and society celebrates it.
Bwahahaha... You sound like Pauline Kael. NOBODY I know opposes gay marriage!!! Heh.
I clicked the link, and it is clear that they are making fun of Frank because he is gay, and the commentators are picking up on it. It's highly offensive. Would the VC put up a similar ad making fun of the fact that Obama is black? Perhaps through in somejokes about the negros, and eating watermelon?
I think not. I think the VC should review this policy of having them advertise on this site.
The numbers are shrinking every month. A majority of New Yorkers now support it. A clear majority of people under 40 support it. Support across the board has never been as high as it is today, and it rises still.
You mean people like President Obama?
So what? Fashions rise and fall. Today, it's gay marriage, tomorrow, it's sharia in Europe. I don't derive my happiness from polls. It'd be great if America didn't adopt homosexual marriage, but I'm prepared for the persecutions if it does.
Since I was asked the question, I'll ask it back again: do the pro-gay marriage people here think businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on religion?
While Prof Carpenter is right that forcing clergy to officiate at gay weddings is not an issue, it is far from clear that clergy who refuse to sign marriage licenses for gay couples will be allowed to sign any marriage license at all. The precedent would be Catholic Charities and adoption in MA.
@Randy: While I didn't load the same ads on the right hand side of the blog that you did (maybe it's my hosts file), a reference to "Barney Fwank" is inappropriate. It certainly doesn't help my argument.
Why do you feel the need to accuse anyone that disagrees with you of bigotry? It's very infantile.
When you can show something besides rampant paranoia, please feel free to post it. Among other things, adoption is not a religious rite. That involved a religious group performing a secular service.
Wrong. It is an issue because opponents of SSM made it an issue. In 2008 they told millions of voters that SSM means churches and clergy will be forced to perform gay marriages. It's anybody's guess how many people were stupid enough to believe that particular piece of propaganda, but it's impossible to say that it wasn't an argument made in any number of commercials, leaflets, mailings, etc.
Do you feel that everyone who supported Jim Crow laws was bigoted? Or do you think most of them were "reasonable" people who just didn't want to be "persecuted" by the negro agenda of attending the same schools as whites?
I never paid attention to that paid advertising before. I mean, I realize that this a largely libertarian/conservative blog but aren't those headlines a bit embarrassing to the ostensibly serious-minded, non-partisan standards of the authors?
Perhaps you can't be legally prosecuted, but you most certainly can be legally persecuted and heavily fined by the American equivalent of the Canadian kangaroo commissions, as noted in a series of posts on this very blog by Prof Volokh himself:
VC
About a third of states now have these extra-judicial so-called "human rights commissions" with as little regard for due process, and staffed by the same grade of left wing political hacks, as their Canadian counterparts. But not to worry, it'll never happen here.
So in one thread already we've had two disgusting sexual ad hom attacks concerning "tea bagging" directed at an opponent and now one "huge pile of horseshit".
Sigh. (see I can make believe I'm saddened, disappointed and exasperated too.)
I really don't wish this upon anybody, but sooner rather than later, gay activists are going to run head on into a religion that's gaining power worldwide very quickly, and they won't take very kindly to being told to go "tea bag" themselves. Good luck getting the same kind of mild reaction from them that you get from the evil Xtianists.
First of all, it was a bit more broad and general than that. They warned voters that allowing gay marriage might lead to religious freedoms being curbed. It wasn't just specifically that churches would be forced to perform gay weddings.
Of course, like I've said time and again, you can't just idealize the best case scenario for getting your way. Because a lot of voters I think are skeptical of that claim...because they figure a court that will invent the constitutional right to SSM whole cloth probably wont be that keen on protecting their religious freedoms should a challenge arise from the gay community.
You can call that horseshit or dumb or a lie or whatever, but that's what SSM supporters have to face. You can't get your way all the time.
Like I said, gay marriage today, sharia tomorrow.
Silly you. He gets a pass because everyone knows he was lying just to get the votes of the 7 people left who oppose SSM.
He's talking about signing a marriage license. Needless to say, that's also a secular service.
Its actually crystal clear. Clergy have complete discretion over who they marry as always. A Catholic priest can refuse to marry a gay couple the same way he can refuse to marry a Jewish couple.
We get it religious people: You have a long list of superstitious nonsense according to which you must live your life. This is because there is an invisible man who has given you instructions in a magical book and he will get mad at you if you don't obey him (although you actually ignore 99% of what is this book because most of it is absolutely bat shit crazy). We have no interest in forcing you to change your beliefs, not least of all because your beliefs are a source of great humor to the non-insane.
But *we*, the thinking people of the world, are not going to be abide by *your* superstitions any longer. Those days are drawing to a close.
fixt,
it's a tired old meme, but it's true in this case.
It's a curious definition of "tolerance" that still allows the right to affirmatively discriminate against the thing claimed to be "tolerant" of.
- allowing a male prostitution ring to be run out his house by his partner
- living with an executive of Fannie Mae for ten years while he was serving on the House Banking Committee without ever recusing himself
- actively trying to prevent regulation of Fannie/Freddie for years prior to their meltdown
he should rightly have been censured by his peers and bounced out of office by the voters, but hey this is MA we're talking about.
Oh and those who believe that his love life should be private, he had no problem whatsoever with saying:
Barney Frank: Sarah Palin’s family life is fair game
Why are religious clergy signing civil marriage licenses not an example of a religious group performing a secular service?
And, "rampant paranoia?"
So basically all you're saying is you want to throw religious groups into the same closet gays are coming out of? Yeah, that sounds real tolerant and progressive.
Gosh, and here I was all worried about the potential for religious persecution. How silly of me...
Because everyone on this post who opposes SSM claims that they reason they oppose it is because gays are so evil that we will of course force every religion to abandon their basic precepts. We will force all priests and ministers to give up al their rights to religion freedom, and that the only reason we are pressing for SSM is for general acceptance of our lifestyle. Our lifestyle that of course is horrible and cannot be condoned.
That's not bigotry? When you apply negative stereotypes to an entire group of people, that's sorta the defination of bigotry.
Well, not only is this a boldface lie, Randy, but you can't complain about that sentiment when you have people putting down religious belief all while saying it's ridiculous to think gay marriage may have a negative effect on religious freedom.
Do apply equal scrutiny to the people you agree with as with those whom you don't.
Negative stereotypes of forcing people to give up rights to religious freedom? Perhaps you want to explain some of those quotes I posted earlier from pro-gay politicians in Seattle?
Negative stereotypes of forcing people to give up rights to religious freedom? Perhaps you want to explain some of those quotes I posted earlier from pro-gay politicians in Seattle?
Before you put forward the quotes of a couple of people as being typical of the attitude of an entire category of people you might want to check the definition of "stereotype."
cmr: "Randy, but you can't complain about that sentiment when you have people putting down religious belief "
And what supporter of gay people has put down religious beliefs? And if those people had, isnt' that their right to do so? And in any case, putting down a person's religious beliefs is a far cry from saying that they must made criminal, as Dangermouse has alleged.
So, CMR, is my claim a 'bold faced lie,' as you say, or it is a 'sentiment I can't complain about" Can't be both, now can it?
That's sorta what you just did.
Do you think people mocking your religious beliefs infringes on your religious freedom?
Is this not true? I thought this was widely accepted.
I'm just curious: are you asking which supporters of gay marriage in general, or just in this thread? Because I can give you examples on both accounts.
Ignoring your attempt to change the subject, don't be a hypocrite is the point.
Not directly. But I think disrespecting people's religious beliefs can lead to infringement on them. The same with SSM supporters who think people "mocking" homosexuals can lead to physical manifestations of it.
The facts bear this out. In Canada and Britain, religious rights are increasingly under attack. There are numerous examples, from the Canadian human rights inquisition against Christian Pastors, to the British denial of foster care to people who teach traditional values, to making it Thoughcrime to say homosexuality is sinful, to forcing the Catholic Church to ordain transsexuals, to making it illegal for Catholic schools to teach Catholic values, and to prevent Christian officials from abstaining from acts which violate their religious beliefs.
In America, government workers are forced to celebrate homosexuality.
These issues aren't some fantasy. This goes way beyond mere "tolerance," into forced acceptance of what many believe is sinful. This is a violation of religious freedom.
Not only is that not basically what I am saying that is not what I am saying at all.
I don't want to "throw" religious groups anywhere. I don't want to do anything to religious groups. But I do not want the laws under which I live to be based on other people's superstitions.
Tolerance means that I get to live my life how I want, and you get to live yours as you want. You can call me "sinful" in your church and I can believe that your religion is patently, comically crazy. If, eventually, your beliefs become so unpopular that you cant air them publicly (just like racists can't air theres), that is not my intention, but it is also not my problem.
You have every right to go into your churches and believe in complete irrational nonsense. I couldn't care less. But if me and my partner want to go to city hall and get married, I should not be stopped because of YOUR religious beliefs anymore than I should be forced to stop eating bacon because it offends Jews.
So if I don't live according to your religion, that constitutes "persecution"? So every time someone remarries after a divorce than Catholics are being persecuted? Everytime a person eats shrimp they are "persecuting" Jews?
The idea that the tiny minority of the population that is gay is going to somehow "persecute" Christians is absurd.
If I said that Jews had a secret agenda to seize control of society and persecute Christians, would you hesitate to accuse me of anti-semitism?
You must not realize that calling religious belief "superstition" is kind of like when people refer to gays' sexual orientation as being a "sexual preference". It's subtly damning.
The only thing irrational here is your belief that that's actually how the world ever has, or ever will work. People can vote and lobby against whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. And considering most of the arguments against gay marriage don't involve directly carping religious ideology, and that's just the smoke screen you pay attention to since it situates your own bias exactly the way you want it to, I'd say you're just alluding to this idea of religion running your life because it gives you an opportunity to cut it down.
Moreover, religion might not mean anything to you, but...obviously that's not the case for everyone. And people wanting to protect their religious freedoms isn't just a roundabout way to deny you your rights. You might not have realized it, but the argument for gay marriage isn't over.
Oh really? The links I posted are real-world examples of such persecution in effect, today, right now. Got an answer for any of those?
So is there any general principle you are trying to advance on when it is socially unacceptable to mock or put down another group? Or is this just another example of point-scoring and gotcha games?
Or is the general principle "political correctness for me but not for thee"?
It's the principle that you shouldn't fulfill the criticisms you have for others. Every since the Pop 8 nonsense, and even before then, all I've heard are people complaining about lack of support from blacks and the church and people accusing them both of being bigoted and hateful for the most basest of reasons.
But when you look at the arguments and the way people discuss this issue, almost without exception, you're going to find people blithely comparing black civil rights issues to gay rights issues, and there's next to nothing similar about them, and they defend this misguided tactic and act upset when they realize straight black people don't support gay rights issues.
And when religious people stick to their guns and claim that allowing gay marriage, or the expansion of protections for gays and lesbians will curb some of their freedoms, people attack them and their faith and yet complain about hate speech and the necessity of legislation making it illegal to speak ill against them. Yet they gleefully do the same thing they fear from the rest of society.
You can call your irrational beliefs whatever you wish.
We have a first amendment that clearly establishes the freedom to practice religion. So unless the bill of rights is repealed, they idea that there is any threat to your freedom to believe as you wish is pure alarmism.
There are indeed secular arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. They are all, ultimately, insufficient, and have been eloquently demolished by the Iowa Supreme Court. In any event I was under the impression that the subject of this post was the alleged conflict between SSM and religious liberty.
No I agree there is a lot of mopping up to do. There are many laws enshrining heterosexual supremacy to be dismantled, and many George Wallaces will stand in doorways. But in the minds of the young this issue is settled (it is, inf act, not an "issue" at all)
The world only spins forward.
Agreed, so where is the criticism of those who demand they be protected from discrimination based on religion while heaping scorn on the "gay mafia" and the "homosexual agenda" while making no attempt to distinguish the most outspoken and radical activists from everyone else.
Of course, perhaps you will argue that sexual orientation is nothing like religion and that you can't compare the two. If that's the case, I would expect you to retract what you wrote earlier.
Tom G (and Randy R and others), I am genuinely curious...do you consider Obama to be one of those "George Wallaces"? If not, why not? and why so much more anger and resentment towards those whose position on SSM is basically the same as Obama's, yet whose opinions are so much less important?
As to the firefighters' saga, it appears to be an isolated case of an over-active fire captain (who is a lesbian) ordering her crew to attend the parade at the last minute for some reason or another. Probably a stupid choice, but it is by no means illustrative of whatever kind of persecution you're trying to show.
See here for the news on the mistrial:
Congratulations NH!
Tatil:
Priests may not be "forced" to perform marriage ceremonies, but they may still lose their tax exempt status. Maybe not at first, but eventually...
I was not aware that priests had a tax exemption.
Assuming you meant that religious groups might lose a tax exemption for refusing to perform civil marriages:
1) presumably, this would require some reasoning to the effect that all activities of the tax exempt group are tainted by this failure to comply with policies of general application and that requirement of such compliance meets the standards of the RFRA; 2) so what? why should religious groups, de facto, be entitled to any tax exemption? Tax free status is not a natural right. It is a status conferred by our government on the presumed bases that (a) taxing 'churches' might infringe on religious freedom and (b)religious groups contribute in some special way to the collective good.
geokstr
I really don't wish this upon anybody, but sooner rather than later, gay activists are going to run head on into a religion that's gaining power worldwide very quickly, and they won't take very kindly to being told to go "tea bag" themselves. Good luck getting the same kind of mild reaction from them that you get from the evil Xtianists.
No, of course you would not wish that upon gays. And, by the way, congratulations on getting some negative reference [however oblique] to Islam into this thread.
According to the BBC:
I don't think asking foster parents to teach children they adopt about sexual orientation is so crazy. What if the child happened to be gay, and wound up being placed with fanatical christians who subjected the child to severe emotional abuse (teaching the child that his sexual orientation is evil and that he should become straight, is in my book, emotional abuse).
What if the story read "White Supremacists lose custody of Foster Child because they want to teach him to that he does not need to respect the rights of non-whites"
I followed your link..the story simply said that the Church thinks that the law will lead to this. There is no instance of it happening. Laws against discrimination have not forced the catholic church to ordain women or non-catholics.
Link leads to some wingnut newspaper that requires registration which I don't feel like doing. If Britain has indeed forbidden the teaching of Catholicism in Catholic schools I assume it would be widely reported in the press so you can provide another link (hint: no such thing happened).
A christian magistrate refused to preside over cases involving same-sex partnerships. Ugh I don't know where to begin.
1) If "Christians" can't be involved in cases which involve same-sex couples, then they also shouldn't preside over divorce cases or cases involving couples who have been in previous marriages since the bible prohibits divorce.
2) None of this magistrates "rights" have been violated. There is no such thing as a "right" to be a magistrate. If you are so devout that you must decide all cases according to your religious beliefs, then you obviously cannot be a secular judge.
This is what Rachel Maddow calls the "Amish Bus Driver" If your religion proscribes driving a bus, fine. But do not try to get a job as a busdriver and then refuse to drive the bus because its against your religion.
...and best wishes to their children as well.
Obama supports SSM but is apparently under the impression either that he could not win the election openly supporting it (I strongly disagree) or that he does not want the issue distracting from the immense problems facing the country.
There is a difference between someone like Obama, an imperfect ally, and someone who actively campaigns against the rights of gay people.
Woodrow Wilson was generally supportive of women's suffrage but did not want it to get in the way of the "important" agenda of the time (WW1). This doesn't mean that he's in the same category as people who thought women were chattel.
During the civil rights movement, there were many whites who supported the civil rights movement but were afraid to speak out. Many people gave money to NAACP only on condition of anonymity. You could argue that they should have been more vocal but they are not the same as people who were in the klan, terrorizing civil rights activists.
I didn't sign up either. I'm guessing that the issue relates to regulations seeking to protect gay students from discrimination in school. Some people tend to forget that kids/teens can be gay, too, and therefore in need of protection. Or they refuse to accept that homosexuality natural to some kids and negative reinforcement is thus damaging. Fortunately, this issue is getting some attention.
This is one terrain where the normalization of homosexuality is genuinely at odds with some anti-gay attitudes, religiously held or not. If we have a pluralistic society, we need to have objective standards. Objective medical standards are in accord that homosexuality is intrinsic (though root causes have not been determined) and that anti-gay discrimination (particularly by parents) is harmful to gay kids/adolescents. So laws governing the treatment of kids in public care, in school or in foster homes, should acknowledge this.
What else would be reasonable? Having a religiously mandated standard would not be fitting of a secular state. Deferring the objective well-being of the child in favor of the religious 'rights' of foster parents or teachers/schools is contrary to our public commitment to child welfare.
(This comment is opening a can of worms, I know. What the heck. It upsets me that people are crying 'victim' because they're not being allowed to victimize children.)
Sorry, was trying to preempt your point. But maybe it's not what I thought. What did you have in mind?
This is just factually wrong. Is it any wonder why people think you are a bit hyperbolic?
Again, of course not. So being Catholic and being gay are just two viewpoints, and the law should not prefer one over the other? This seems to be at odds with many underlying assumptions, for example just in these last few posts Tom G and hazemyth have made arguments based on "but what if the child is gay?"
Can you provide any kind of supporting evidence for that? Or are you just like the homely teenage girl who has deluded herself into sitting by the phone on prom night waiting for the quarterback to call and ask her to the dance? "I know he's going to call. Prom doesn't start for ten more minutes. There's plenty of time. He loves me. He's going to call."
To my knowledge the only time he's spoken on this question was to say that he believed marriage is between a man and a woman. So by whatever logic you are using to draw your conclusion we could make a list of things Obama supports:
1. Harsh interrogation
2. The war in Iraq
3. Dependence on foreign oil
4. Less regulation of the financial industry
5. Pro-Life
But really, this is all what it is about, right? Fearing degradation of their current interpretations of their religions, right?
After all, go back a few hundred years and Christianity wasn't so all-loving, so things change. Religions will adapt.
Whoa that was...weird.
One can be reasonably certain that Obama personally supports SSM for the following reason:
1. Obama gave an interview to the Windy City Times in 1996 when he was running for State Senate in which he said:
""I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
In 1996 this was a pretty radical position to take (no state had even legalized civil unions). Its possible that he changed his mind about the issue and became more conservative, even as the country became more liberal, but isn't more logical to assume that he walked back his position when he developed national aspirations?
2. Right before the election he gave an interview in the advocate in which he admitted that bans on same-sex marriage are no different than bans on interracial marriage (this is coming from the child of such a union). He said that civil rights activists had to wait until the time was right to repeal miscegenation laws. Its pretty clear to me what he was telegraphing, am I mistaken?
3. He said he opposed gay marriage but he also opposed prop 8 and urged people to vote against it. This doesn't make any sense, philosophically. You don't want gay marriage to be allowed but you do not want it to be disallowed either? Its an either/or question.
As for me "waiting by the phone", I never said I expected him to come out in favor of marriage rights unless it becomes politically possible.
Suffice it to say, my arguments do not apply to any of the issues above. ArgumentFAIL
Bwecause they only sign them for weddings they perform.
And yes, paranoia, and yes, rampant, if you seriously think, with no evidence whatsoever, that clergy will be forced to perform ceremonies, or be prevented from doing so. Your comparison falls flat.
As a matter of fact, einhverfr, I use the term "Xtians" not to degrade or out of fear, but to be inclusive of all the many and various forms of Christianinity. After all, Episcopalians, Methodists, Greek Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, etc, etc, etc, are all Christian religions. It takes less keystrokes and I thought it would be obvious what I'm referring to. The "X" has nothing to do with Xmas for me either.
Even as an atheist, I've always been respectful to all religions, except one.
In many cases, hospitals refused to treat CUs as equivalent to marriages, so the name carries with it significant weight.
Right, because hospitals have a guest list, red carpet, and a maitre'd?
You know, this would be another reason why I'm hesitant to really feel anything about the claims that those who oppose SSM aren't being completely above-board and let the public think things that may not be true. Because those who support it do the exact same thing -- probably more so -- and no one calls them on it. This hospital visitation BS has been refuted time and time and time again.
And you can call your hypocrisy and intolerance whatever you wish. Just don't beat people over the head with it.
Just like we have an Establishment Clause that precludes legislators from passing laws purely on religious belief. So the idea that gay marriage isn't allowed just because Christians don't like you is pure alarmism. Also, you obviously have no idea how the law works. You're on a legal blog. Try actually reading it sometime.
LOL, that's funny. The Iowa Supreme Court demolish a thing; they shoehorned their political ideas into law through judicial review. Sort of like how every court that's said gay marriage is somehow a constitutional issue has. But, I'm sure I can take your word for it that these secular arguments are insufficient, considering how non-biased you are.
God, I sound like Randy R.
Heterosexual supremacy? WTF are you even talking about? Do you know? You wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for "heterosexuality". Because you lead a lifestyle that deviates from the norm doesn't mean the norm is oppressive because you're abnormal.
I know those were mostly U.K. reports. That's why I said as much. Somehow, I'm not comforted, however, by the transnationalist left's claim that the first amendment will protect me from their transnationalism.
Tom G,
You want more reports? Google is your friend. I found plenty of mainstream reports. Here's another:
And for the record, National Catholic Register is a well known Catholic publication, and is hardly "wingnut." The only nut is a person who doesn't know what he's talking about and that appears to be you.
You're resorting to scare tactics. Shame on you.
And as to the National Catholic Register piece you just posted, shame on you twice. Young boys who are bullied because other children think they're gay or effeminate is a serious problem in this country (see the two recent suicides). If you can't tell the difference between a generally applicable regulation forcing schools to create programs to counter bullying based on race, sexual orientation or what-have-you, and forcing schools to teach that homosexuality is A-OK, you shouldn't be posting on a legal blog.
I have no idea what you're referring to with the "transnationalist left" and I doubt you do either, aside from vague references to Harold Koh implementing sharia law in the U.S. You also don't seem to grasp the strength of protections for free speech and religious liberty here in the U.S.
Are you familiar with the phrase, "Seperate but equal is inherently unequal"?
I love the way commies these days use "science" to inform policy.
Science may or may not say that queerness, polyamory, murder, or climate change are intrinsic, natural, or caused by human CO2 release.
What science cannot do is determine what social policy is appropriate in response to same. Social policy is determined by a complex interplay of forces human and natural.
It is not obvious, for example, that if men prefer to copulate with and impregnate as many women as humanly possible, the "best" social policy is to encourage them tom do so. Likewise homosexuality, murder, and climate change.
We'll see what social mores and what affinity groups perform better on the world stage as your dreams of hegemony break down under assault by individual empowering technology.
So you agree with me. Good to know.
Is a sexual orientation the same as a decision to commit murder? Is your heterosexuality just a choice you make every day, Losantville?
Honestly, I am sick and tired of the ignorant, bigoted, repulsive slime who continue to perpetuate the myth that sexual orientation is some choice and it is society's role to discourage such choices. YOU ARE WRONG, Losantville. You should be ashamed of yourself. I am ashamed of you and the parents who raised you to become the intolerant bigot that you are today.
This is a legal blog. Strive for accuracy. Discrimination is not a crime, it's not illegal, or against the law. It also can't be prosecuted.
It may be subject to civil litigation, damages, and fines. It may even be subject to injunction. But these are not punishments and there is no crime.
This is a legal blog. Perhaps you should learn to keep your mouth shut before you embarrass yourself further.
Yes. Are you saying strict scrutiny applies to criteria regarding sexual orientation?
Are separate restrooms for men and women inherently unequal enough to be problematic?
Sorry for the confusion. Didn't mean to imply that you did.
I was more responding to the fear expressed in your post of persecutions of "Xtianists" (Does it follow that Xtianist is to Xtian like Islamist is to Muslim)?)
Every factor but (2) is beyond dispute as leading to a conclusion that homosexuals deserve heightened scrutiny.
And einhverfr, separate restrooms are not a classifications based on gender. Neither gender is receiving disproportionate benefits or burdens when there are separate restrooms. I have seen that example used many times, and I have no clue why it persists when it has absolutely no relevance to equal protection issues.
If the women's rooms had one toilet and no sink and the men's room had three toilets and three sinks, that would implicate equal protection concerns because both groups are similarly situated with respect a fair distribution of benefits when it comes to restrooms and the government is not distributing benefits evenly.
It's funny how little I care about the term bigot these days. Forty years after the civil rights movement, and I never thought blacks in any significant way bastardized their struggles by adopting this victimized affect all to trump up their claims. And yet, gays have managed to do it in five minutes (relatively speaking).
First of all, it's an infinite strawman to say that a lot people think people literally choose to be gay. That never was the entirety of the claim. The claim is, people choose what they do with their bodies, and they choose to keep certain company in a particular way. I don't care how gay or straight you are, nobody and nothing actually forces you to date, marry, or have sex, or go to gay pride parades, or what have you. That IS your choice. It's only bigoted if you're a brainwashed, naive ideologue.
The more substantial argument, however, is why some people are gay. I think there are a lot of people who can and will submit that people who are gay...are, in fact, gay. But I think there's a prevailing idea, one that hasn't been disproven, that often times the environment one grows up in can play a part in their sexuality. Gays try to downplay the role of the environment, because they think that leads to the idea that being gay is somehow defective. I don't know that everyone would conclude that, but the whole idea that you're biologically gay, which is supposed to situate this issue above the idea of constructed sexuality, hasn't been proven.
If you can't tell the difference between a generally applicable regulation forcing schools to create programs to counter bullying based on race, sexual orientation or what-have-you, and forcing schools to teach that homosexuality is A-OK, you shouldn't be posting on a legal blog.
I can tell the difference. The question is whether YOU can. If you've read any of the press accounts, you'll hear that all the activism is coming from homosexual radicals who want to shut down the Church's teachings. It's not me who's clamouring for the Church to be suppressed.
I have no idea what you're referring to with the "transnationalist left" and I doubt you do either, aside from vague references to Harold Koh implementing sharia law in the U.S. You also don't seem to grasp the strength of protections for free speech and religious liberty here in the U.S.
It means that because the U.K. might make the public denunciation of homosexuality a hate crime, Ginsberg, Souter, Stephens, and other transnationalists might think there's nothing wrong with interpreting the First Amendment protections in light of those new British values that shut down free speech.
I don't place a high value on the left protecting speech they disagree with. This is the same philosophy that invented speech codes on college campuses, remember. The left has no use for freedom involving its political opponents.
I'm saying that declaring that civil union and marriage are the same is factually false.
This is what is refered to as a "Red Herring" argument. It is more subtle than the more typical incest/bigamy/bestilaity arguments often used, but no more valid. Bathrooms have nothing to do with marriage.
So your point here is that even if people are born with a profound romantic and sexual attraction to others of the same sex, that their choice to act on that by having consensual same-sex intimate relationships is something you can still oppose, to the point of denying legal equality, on principle?
It's only bigoted if you're a brainwashed, naive ideologue.
No, if I understand your point above accurately -- and please correct me if I don't -- that position is bigoted.
Don't kid yourself. Under our consitution and laws, it shouldn't happen here. That doesn't mean it can't happen here.
Cops going door to door using violence to confisicate legally owned firearms shouldn't happen under our legal system either, but it did in New Orleans after Katrina.
Wow, one (unsourced) incident that happened "the other year." Sounds like a trend. Also, was they guy charged? Tried? Convicted?
If there are legal differences between a civil union and a marriage, then they are not separate but equal. If there are not, then I don't see the problem. Otherwise it just seems like a litigative scheme to forcibly root out all condemnation of homosexuality. If only fetishists had a powerful lobby.
In California, in particular, was there a difference between the civil unions and marriages such that the word 'marriage' was necessary for any reason other than desire for that word?
If civil unions were legally the same as marriage, they would be separate but equal, and not inherently unequal.
We're all inherently unequal on account of being human.
My solution is to get government out of marriage entirely. Otherwise, make civil unions and marriages the same damn thing and let the heterosexuals who actually care maintain the exclusive privilege to use their precious word.
Are men and women similarly situated with respect to the government's purpose of ensuring privacy and safety in restrooms? No, they're not. Women don't want to use the bathroom in front of men and men probably feel similarly. Thus, with respect to the mere division of restrooms into male and female (separate, but equal), such classifications are OK. On the other hand, black and white men are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of using a safe and private restroom, so government cannot make white-only restrooms and black-only restrooms.
Why do people not understand this? Perhaps because few of the commenters here are attorneys or in law school? Methinks that makes a big difference when it comes to insightful comments on a LEGAL blog.
Glad to hear it. The purpose of marriage is to protect and promote the family and the raising of children. Homosexual couples can't have children unless through artificial means, which in any event does not promote children because it distorts the value of mothers and fathers (lacking one). Hence, homosexuals have no need for marriage.
Peacefully = pushing one's way to right in front of the podium and shouting with a bullhorn.
Your narrow and incomplete articulation of the purposes of marriage has been demolished by several courts now in regards to both the ends (the purpose of marriage is not just about encouraging procreation) and means-ends (banning same-sex couples from civil marriage is not related to government's objective in encouraging and promoting two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together from coming together in civil marriage and thus being entitled to various benefits and protections offered by the government for such a purpose). Anyway, good luck perpetuating your faux-legal nonsense; just be warned that people who understand law and policy might not take you seriously.
Yes.
Should sterile men and infertile women not be allowed to get married?
Their sterility is inconsequential, because they are references to the type of relationship that mothers and fathers should have. Hence, they assist the family and shouldn't be prevented.
Should heterosexual couples be required to declare that they will have children and raise a family before they can get a civil marriage certificate?
No, for the same reason that sterile couples shouldn't be prevented. The relationship reinforces the type of relationship mothers and fathers should have and hence indirectly assists the family.
Are gay couples not allowed not to raise children even without marriage?
I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. But if a person has custody of a child for various reasons and has a homosexual relationship, that would be damaging to the child because it would destroy a reference to either a mother or a father. Notwithstanding that damage, I don't think anything should be done to prohibit that homosexual's freedom, but certainly society should not encourage the relationship by pretending it is anything close to the trinitarian relationship between mother, father, and child. Hence, marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals alone.
On the contrary, many scientists widely acknowledge that children can grow up with pathologies if they don't have a stable relationship with both a mother and a father. This in part is a large part of the explanation for inner-city breakdowns, among other things. You might want to read up on that.
None of the studies have shown that being raised by a committed gay couple of either gender leads to pathologies. In fact, just the opposite. You conflated the two ideas and hoped no one would notice your sad attempts at legitimizing your bigotry.
In any event, the trinitarian nature of the relationship between mother, father, and child is more valuable than the statistical analyses of social scientists. Even if you COULD be perfectly healthy if raised by 2 homosexuals, posing it as equal to the legitimate ideal of mother, father, and child, would be a farce and actually undercut the value of a real family. By definition, a homosexual relationship has no comparison to the trinitarian nature of mother, father, and child.
Aside from the relatively simple fact that all children in fact do have a mother and a father, children raised by gay parents may or may not have a relationship with the other biological parent. Quite a few do. But not all do, in either same-sex or hetero families. There is not one shred of evidence to show that they are in any way harmed by that. In fact, they turn out pretty much like most kids do; perfectly normal. And having multiple parents is good either way, same-sex or hetero. Is the goal to allow only the "best" possible conditions for raising children, and not support or even allow any others? And what about straight single parents? Are they to be banned as well?
Again, for the last time, gay couples are real, they exist, they love each other, they do raise children, they want to raise children, and the children they do raise, on average, fare better than children raised by opposite-sex couples (if only because gays are better educated and wealthier, on average, than straights). Whatever religious belief system you want to use to discredit this is fine because I guarantee that whatever church you belong to will not be forced to sanctify SSM. I'm not asking you accept gay couples, but it would be nice if you would stop with the baseless and disgusting prejudice.
I agree with 99% of what you say, but be careful with this: because gays are better educated and wealthier, on average, than straights.
That's actually not true. Gays and lesbians are distributed evenly among socio-economic classes. And gay men generally do better then gay women, economically.
Now, for the purposes of your point, the types of gays and lesbians that can afford -- in all meanings of that term -- to be "out" and consider raising kids may well, at this point, be disproportionately those gays and lesbians at the higher economic end.
What about the relationship between a child, a mother, and a step-father who is not the biological parent of the child?
What about the relationship between a child, an alcoholic mother, and a sexually abusive father?
What about the relationship between a child, an adoptive mother who loves the child, and an adoptive father who loves the child?
You create false "either-or" divisions and grossly oversimplify. You also fall into the common, but absurd, idea that a child raised by two women won't have any male role models, or a child raised by two men won't have any female role models. Children interact with all sorts of adults in all sorts of relationships - and sadly, all too often, their biological parents are utterly abysmal role models.
The quality of the relationships depend far more on the quality of the people in it than on their plumbing.
Of course, I've yet to actually see an argument that declares, as you claim, that marriage "isn't worth anything". To the contrary, SSM proponents seem to be pretty universal in saying that marriage is in fact worth something, and that's why they want it too.
And I'd say a big part of it's function is having children. That's why the state cares, for the most part. There might be some sociological stuff in there about promoting healthy heterosexual relationships instead of suggesting that it's OK to be gay (which isn't as offensive as it may sound, but if you're gay, ah well), but that's the main function.
Despite some naturally occurring over-inclusiveness, this model seems to work best. The biological fact that two men and two women don't have children, coupled with the fact that there really isn't an overabundance of same-sex couples who have children they've adopted or obtained through some other means...not to mention the fact that we're still not entirely sure gay adoption is something we should encourage or support, this doesn't really result in a compelling interest in recognizing SSM.
The overarching social trend here really just seems to be that a lot of people want it, not so much that they actually need to be legally married. That's not a compelling reason.
So while you can't fire someone for being gay, you can fire them for being transgendered.
20 states (including NH) have basic civil rights protections regarding employment, accommodation, credit availability for gays, but only 12 (NOT including NH) extend that to trans people.
...which is what they have always had -- the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
State's interest in important when you insist you're entitled to a benefits package for daring to be romantically involved with someone. It's not that simple. All of our benefits and social programs work this way: the government grants them to us, and they make up a whole lot of policy to make sure people don't abuse the system, and they regulate these policies to ensure they are available for people who need them.
What's "creepy" are the liberals who think the government owes them something just because of their love and commitment to someone.
I would much rather not be allowed to vote than not be allowed to marry. Not having gay marriage affects me every day.
The government "gives" men and women the right to marry. Not straights and gays. A gay and straight men are equally permitted to do the same thing. They may not want to, but under the law, they're not being disallowed unevenly.
Attempting to ratchet up your claims with claiming non-legal gay marriage is the same as apartheid and women not being able to vote is very transparent. The idea that marriage is a class or social status is...unsettling. I wouldn't call it that. And I'd say you're placing too much emphasis on marriage if you say you'd rather not be able to vote than to not be able to marry. The right to vote is much more fundamental to a democracy than the right to marry whomever you want.
Plus your claim that marriage laws do not discriminate between heterosexual and gay men is legally ridiculous. It assumes that the desire to discriminate is what motivates the discrimination. An example would be the syllogism (1) "blacks cannot serve on juries" (2) "John Smith is black" therefore (3) "John Smith cannot serve on a jury"
The reasoning behind, say, the denial of my right to sponsor my partner for immigration is not like this. There is no law saying "homosexuals cannot sponsor their partners for immigration". Rather the government's reasoning is like this:
(1) every US citizen gets to sponsor a partner of the opposite sex for residence and citizenship in the USA
Therefore:
(2a) Those US citizens that are male may use this benefit to sponsor one female
(2b) Those US citizens that are female may use this benefit to sponsor one male
(3) Roberto has a male partner
(4) Roberto is male
Therefore
(5) Roberto doesn't get the immigration benefit for his partner.
The starting premise (1) and the resulting premises (2a) and (2b) don't ostensibly discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, so you say there is no illegal discrimination. And yet in (5) the result is that Roberto cannot do something because of his gender. The information in (3) and (4) establishes the same gender of the partners resulting in (5). So it is impossible to say that Roberto's gender and his partner's gender do not figure into the discriminator's reasoning. Because a male + male partner combination concerns gay men but not heterosexual men, then sexual orientation discrimination is part of the reasoning in the discriminator's starting premise, without which the discrimination would not have occurred.
Something is deeply wrong with your logic. If we accept as discrimination only laws that directly burden one group based on a syllogism like the John Smith case above, then you invalidate most of US anti-discrimination law. Miscegenation laws and Jim Crow laws would be OK for you because they apply equally to all races.
A law saying "no one may serve on a jury who belongs to a race that did not serve on juries in 1850" would not be discrimination in your book, because it applies equally to all races.
You are missing the point of the laws, and are allowing safe harbor for most kinds of discrimination.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.