California Court to Decide Legality of Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by mgmirkin

 

The thing is, though, churches are already protected against that. They are private institutions....religious institutions. They don't HAVE to marry anyone. They can refuse (like a Catholic church refusing to marry a couple when one is not a practicing Catholic).

So, in reality, that argument holds little to no water.

That may be so. There just seems to be some fear that if gay marriages are legally permissible there will be a push to enforce or mandate their allowance at any/all institutions that perform marriages (IE, "you can't exclude me because I'm gay anymore"). I don't know that the fear is justified. But that seemed to be the impression I got anyway.

Regards,
~Michael

Originally posted by mgmirkin

That may be so. There just seems to be some fear that if gay marriages are legally permissible there will be a push to enforce or mandate their allowance at any/all institutions that perform marriages (IE, "you can't exclude me because I'm gay anymore"). I don't know that the fear is justified. But that seemed to be the impression I got anyway.

Regards,
~Michael

No surprise - since religion is based in fear.

Churches are private - they know that.

Are Catholic churches forced to marry the divorced?

Do you know what you have to go through to get married in the Mormon church?

There is no way any church is ever forced to marry anyone - ever.

reply to post by Annee

Actually, there is the civil rights issue when considering whether or not churches can be forced to marry someone. As it stands now, churches cannot be forced to perform a gay marriage. There is no language in the works to force them to do so. However, from a civil standpoint, yes they could be forced to do so.

If a black man and a black woman were to go to a racist church and asked to get married, and if that church, as expected, were to refuse to do so on the grounds they were black and the church did not believe blacks should marry, that couple would have a civil rights lawsuit that could be easily won by any chimpanzee in a suit with the words "Attorney at Law" in front of his name. The civil rights of the couple would have been violated, since the church is acting de-facto as a purveyor of the marriage ceremony and had discriminated against the couple in such activities. This is especially true if the minister charges even a nominal fee for his time (as many ministers do).

Now, in the present environment, there is no legal precedent to apply that same standard to gay couples attempting to marry. But should gay marriage become accepted by the state openly, and be considered a civil right which cannot be denied for any reason, then that would place gay couples in the same legal role as the black couple in the previous example. There would be legal grounds to sue at law over a denial of civil rights.

Someone will ask why anyone would go to a church that was obviously so hate-filled and ask to be married there. Three reasons immediately spring to mind: one, to rub their noses in the fact they 'lost' the fight, and to simply be antagonistic; two, for the money that can be gleaned from a successful civil rights lawsuit; and three, to gain notoriety in the public eye.

I have one simple question: Since so many here have advocated their lack of support for this (and I believe this advocacy), why can it not be passed into law itself that churches cannot be forced to marry or perform any religious ceremonies, whether or not acting as a de-facto business in such capacity, regardless of civil rights issues and are immune from civil action arising from their practices? That would resolve everything.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


How?

If the Catholic Church can decide not to marry divorced people and Orthodox churches decide not to marry outside of their denomination, then how can the state force a church to do anything?

I would think freedom of religion would apply in that case, or else I would have expected to see lawsuits pop up left and right over the years about situations like the above.

Or, it is just with refusing to marry someone due to the color of their skin or who they sleep with?? Either way, the Church is refusing to do the same thing.

reply to post by skeptic1

It is refusing to marry someone based on the color of their skin or on their sexual orientation. You are correct. But the root cause of that is not so much in the church itself, but in the laws which it is forced to abide by.

The present legal climate is that it is extremely easy to win a civil rights case based on color of skin. The same climate is moving toward a similar situation with sexual orientation. Should California (or any state) grant civil rights status to same-sex marriage (as opposed to simply allowing such), they would be able to prosecute and win a civil rights discrimination case.

The state does not recognize being a Catholic as a civil rights protected class, nor does it do so with divorcees or anyone who makes a voluntary choice of affiliation or personal activity. Therefore, to state in court that one's freedom of religion is violated by not being able to have a ceremony performed by a specific church is deemed irrelevant, since the person themselves made a voluntary choice to engage in specific actions that prevented them from being eligible to have the ceremony performed.

Someone's race is not a voluntary action. We are born the way we are born (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson - sorry, bad joke). So to discriminate on the basis of something that one has no control over is seen much differently from a legal standpoint than engaging in actions and making decisions that disqualify one from a future activity.

My personal belief is that there should be no involvement whatsoever of the state in church affairs, and the church should have no involvement in state affairs (outside of sermons, which are free speech). Unfortunately, we do not have that Utopia. Churches are closely monitored already for any hint of political reference in sermons so their tax-exempt status may be removed. Churches are subject to the same civil rights laws that affect everyone else. They are legal entities, just like any person or business in the secular world, with a few special exceptions based on freedom of religious practice and their tax-exempt status (presumably, and in some cases I personally know of definitely, due to their charitable and non-profit nature). These few exceptions do not include protection against civil rights discrimination lawsuits. And yes, conversely, there are churches who I feel are much too politically active.

Hope that clears the mud a little.

TheRedneck

A church can not be forced to marry gays from a civil standpoint. Not if it's against their religion.

Churches CAN and do refuse to marry anyone they want, on the basis of their religion. The government can't force a church to be non-discriminatory (except in their employees) All the church has to say is, "It's against our religion".

If the Afrikaner Prostetantse Kerk wants to believe that it is sinful for white and black people to sit in the same church, they have a right to believe that and to practice that belief.

Constitutionally Speaking

We cannot force the Catholic church to allow women priests. That's freedom of religion.

If a church discriminates NOT based on their religion they can get into trouble, but gay marriage is clearly against many church's beliefs and they are protected.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Your reference is from an article written by Pierre de Vos. I did a few quick searches on him. He seems to be a very intelligent man. Unfortunately, he is also out of touch with the reality of legalities today.

In other words, it is an op-ed.

We cannot force the Catholic church to allow women priests. That's freedom of religion.

Meanwhile, back in Boston (a very Catholic town), Carl and Katie are representing a woman who wants The Catholic Church to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to ordain women as priest.

Source: www.boston-legal.org...

You were saying?

TheRedneck

I find it absolutely ridiculous to even consider any church be forced to marry gays.

That is purely 100% a nonsensical and fear based.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

We cannot force the Catholic church to allow women priests. That's freedom of religion.

Meanwhile, back in Boston (a very Catholic town), Carl and Katie are representing a woman who wants The Catholic Church to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to ordain women as priest.

Source: www.boston-legal.org...

You were saying?

TheRedneck

What does that have to do with gays getting married?

Marriage is not about religion.

reply to post by Annee

That post was in direct responce to BenevolentHeretic's claim that churches were exempt from civil rights actions because they would not ordain women as priests. Obviously, if there is a pending lawsuit against a church for not allowing women priests, that church is not exempt from civil rights actions concerning discrimination against women.

And I find the concept of requiring churches to marry those who do not qualify under the religion as absurd also. I am not debating the morality of this; rather, I am explaining the legalities involved. I also find the idea that one accused of a crime can have property confiscated and sold off at auction before conviction to be completely un-Constitutional; but it happens every day with drug raids.

Reality is not always what we think it is.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

That post was in direct responce to BenevolentHeretic's claim that churches were exempt from civil rights actions because they would not ordain women as priests. Obviously, if there is a pending lawsuit against a church for not allowing women priests, that church is not exempt from civil rights actions concerning discrimination against women.

And I find the concept of requiring churches to marry those who do not qualify under the religion as absurd also. I am not debating the morality of this; rather, I am explaining the legalities involved. I also find the idea that one accused of a crime can have property confiscated and sold off at auction before conviction to be completely un-Constitutional; but it happens every day with drug raids.

Reality is not always what we think it is.

TheRedneck

So do I. There is no way I would stand for churches being forced to marry against their belief. I don't know anyone who supports that. Not any of my gay friends - for sure.

However - - anyone within their own religion can protest and fight for rights within their religion.

Its two different things.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by Annee]

reply to post by Annee

There is no way I would stand for churches being forced to marry against their belief.

I believe you, and I thank you. We are in total agreement on this.

The only reason I am in this debate is to point out the unintentional consequences this action may well have. It could easily spill over into a US Constitutional challenge, which would place the entire nation in the debate. Considering that California is one of the most liberal states in the Union, and quite probably has the highest gay population in the country, and given that it is an intense fight over the issue there, how do you expect a gay marriage ban on a national vote would fare?

I'm not saying it will happen, but it is a possibility, and one that I believe people should take very seriously before they jump into this fray. The emotions are too high; the rhetoric is too broad. In my humble opinion, the best thing gay marriage supporters could do at this point would be to run their own public education campaign, concede to restrictions that would assay the fears of the churches, and repeal Prop 8 by popular vote next cycle. That would prevent any further hatred by those who feel disenfranchised by the legal challenges, it would remove any problems that could come from an over-reaction by a out-of-control judicial system, and it would completely stop any concern about this going to the national level so the debate could stay in the state where it has a chance of success at this time.

Unfortunately, that will not happen. But when all is said and done, I can say I tried.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Annee


I said in my opening post in this thread that forcing churches to perform ceremonies is too much (by forcing, I mean legislating).

My whole problem with this is that marriage is no longer a religious union; people have to apply for a license with the state (a contract) before they can legally marry. They have to do that whether they marry in a church or at the courthouse.

And, in my mind, since that marriage license is required, I see this is state-sanctioned discrimination for "religious" purposes. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Churches can discriminate; they have that express freedom. States and governments shouldn't be able to; they should treat everyone as equal under the eyes of the law.

There is a misconception that CA is a liberal state - it is not.

It has AREAS that are extremely liberal.

Most of CA is agricultural and it has a large population of Spanish descent - and is heavily Catholic.

Much of CA is very conservative.

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Annee

 

I said in my opening post in this thread that forcing churches to perform ceremonies is too much (by forcing, I mean legislating).

My whole problem with this is that marriage is no longer a religious union; people have to apply for a license with the state (a contract) before they can legally marry. They have to do that whether they marry in a church or at the courthouse.

And, in my mind, since that marriage license is required, I see this is state-sanctioned discrimination for "religious" purposes. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Churches can discriminate; they have that express freedom. States and governments shouldn't be able to; they should treat everyone as equal under the eyes of the law.

I think we are mostly in agreement.

Not 100% sure what you mean by: since that marriage license is required, I see this is state-sanctioned discrimination for "religious" purposes. It just doesn't sit well with me.

reply to post by Annee


What I mean is that in order to be legally married, you have to get a license from the state. You have to do that whether you get married in a courthouse or in a church.

It isn't like if you get married in a church, you don't have to get a license from the state.

It doesn't sit well with me due to that fact. To me, it is like the state is saying if you are going to spend your life with a person of the opposite sex, we will sign a contract with you (the license) that allows you to be married in the eyes of the law. If you are going to spend your life with someone of the same sex, well, sorry.....we don't recognize you as married and therefore are not seen as equal under the law.

That is the state discriminating against the couple.....and Prop 8 was passed on religious grounds (advertising and donations, most with a religious slant). So, in my mind, it is state-sanctioned discrimination based on religious reasons.

And, anything like that just does not sit well with me.

reply to post by skeptic1
From my initial post in this thread:

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm not going to answer any post that argues the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage. I am taking no position on that issue. I am only posting to add a little legal clarity.

In keeping with that, I will not answer most of your post, since it is moving toward the morality issue. I will, however say this:

From a purely legal and Constitutional standpoint, I believe it was a major mistake for the government to sanction a religious ceremony, especially when that sanctioning was instituted so parallel to the religion. There are plenty of reasons why the concept of marriage needs such sanctioning: to promote families, to aid with the expenses occurring within the traditional family (raising children, college, etc.), and to accept the concept of community property to name a few. But when the religious ceremony was used as the blueprint, if you will, to sanction marriage on the secular level, it brought with it a myriad of legal issues which we are just now beginning to realize.

The problem was the era. Early America was indeed overwhelmingly a Christian populated nation, and as such it was difficult for the peoples of that time to comprehend a need to redefine marriage.

Today, the Christian population has dwindled compared to the overall population, and religious freedom has allowed a wider variety of ideas to flourish. This is not a bad thing by any means, but it does bring with it problems which were overlooked in days of yore.

My only concern at this time is that we find a compromise that satisfies all concerned parties, before the division of this issue literally rips the Constitution in twain and destroys this great land once and for all.

TheRedneck

skeptic1

Agree - - Me either. Its totally wrong.

I keep stating legal marriage has nothing to do with religion.

Yet Religion is the basis of denying that right.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Annee]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
In other words, it is an op-ed.

And you link a discussion board to refute it?

All your posts are stated as if you are an authority on church and state and the California Constitution, and we're just supposed to believe you, yet you site no credible sources.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that gay marriage would lead to forcing churches to perform a ceremony that was against their religion. It's the classic example of church and state. Not to mention fear-mongering.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I linked to show only that it is possible; nothing more. I fail to see why you would resort to sarcasm in a discussion where (I believe) everyone has been very civil.

No lawyer and no professor of law makes laws. No lawyer and no professor of law can interpret laws. Anyone can blog, however, and it seems anyone does. The outcome of this case will not be determined by someone's opinion (except maybe a judge), but rather by the wording of the law and how that law is applied. No citation should be required to back up something that is (to me anyway) so self-evident.

As for me being an authority, no I am not. I am a thinker, and I do try to keep up with legal happenings. I am somewhat familiar with the challenges surrounding the various churches, since that directly affects me.

As to my previous citations in this thread, I have cited one that probably wasn't a credible source: The California Constitution. What more do you need?

TheRedneck