Supreme Court

[GregorMendel]

What about the parents who are being arrested and thrown into jail for attempting to pull their children out of classes who do not want them indoctrinated with homosexual propoganda (Massachusetts)? Or businesses that are sued for opting not to serve homosexual clients (such as the bed and breakfast or wedding photographer businesses)? Or priests and others who are brought up on hate crime charges for speaking against homosexuality in places like Canada? I see wide reaching implications of legislating liberal/libertine morality.

Would you please give us an example of each case?

[Nihil Obstat]

Would you please give us an example of each case?

I can go ahead and provide one of those examples, since it happened quite close to home.

 

Bishop Henry, of Calgary Alberta, called before the Alberta Human Rights Commission

[4588686]

I can go ahead and provide one of those examples, since it happened quite close to home.

 

Bishop Henry, of Calgary Alberta, called before the Alberta Human Rights Commission

 

 

Canada has a different legal system than the US.  

[Kevin]

Would you please give us an example of each case?

 

The first and third examples of these are absurd and would obviously be protected speech - unless the priest in question was urging people to lynch homosexuals. The example given simply states that the priest was called to a committee, not that he was charged with anything. Also, it has no bearing on the U.S. Supreme Court case.

 

The second isn't so cut and dry, since the Civil Rights Act ensures "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." This doesn't cover sexual orientation, though some states have included such language. But the state courts have already prohibited such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation even without specific language in the law in the case of a restraunt having a policy of only seating opposite-sex couples in a semi-private booth, holding there was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

 

You might be able to argue, in the Bed and Breakfast case, that there would be a legitimate business concern - that fellow guests would be made uncomfortable, which would might lose the bed and breakfast business. But the issue is complicated - you can read more here. But even then, I think the decision in the Supreme Court on marriage will probably not effect the general Civl Rights laws of the states.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Kevin

[Nihil Obstat]

Canada has a different legal system than the US.  

It does. But that was one of the examples Brother Adam mentioned specifically, and one which I am fairly familiar with.

[Kevin]

It does. But that was one of the examples Brother Adam mentioned specifically, and one which I am fairly familiar with.

 

I think he was saying, that example doesn't have any bearing on the topic, since the concern was about a U.S. Supreme Court case.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think he was saying, that example doesn't have any bearing on the topic, since the concern was about a U.S. Supreme Court case.

And that point is certainly up for discussion, but by providing that example I was not claiming that it was (or was not) relevant to this case.

It is very simple; Brother Adam referenced a particular event. GregorMendel asked for follow-up information. I provided it because I am somewhat familiar with that case.

[Winchester]

They actually might. That's what people who support marriage rights hope they will do with DOMA

 

Every argument I've seen against DOMA is based not in the concept of strictly enumerated powers, but in the concept of equal rights and equal representation under the law. Which is nice, but incorrect.

 

Every argument I've seen from mainstream sources, that is.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Winchester

[penguin31]

The end result of the current cases will likely be the legal equivocation of marriages (sacramental or otherwise) and same-sex partnerships on a federal level, while leaving it to states to choose which types of partnerships they consider valid on a state level. States will probably have to recognize as valid marriages performed in other states when federal law comes into play, but not state law. You'll then likely see a second push to legalize same-sex partnerships as valid on the state level.  

I'm sorry, and I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular thing for me to say here, but I really don't understand the vehemence of the opposition to this. If someone would like to make a case to the contrary, by all means I'm all ears, but at the moment I just don't get it.  This doesn't even affect 99% of the people who are arguing against it.  No one's going to force churches or other non-governmental bodies to perform marriage ceremonies that they are not comfortable with. Heck, there are actually still some fringe protestant churches in the rural South which won't perform interracial weddings, amazingly enough. Sacramentally speaking, obviously a same-sex partnership isn't going to be valid within the church. No governmental legislation can change what does or does not constitute a Sacrament.

If the government wants to recognize the partnership of two individuals of the same sex as valid for their purposes, then fine. I could not possibly care less. As a straight heterosexual man, it doesn't impact my ability to marry or get married one iota, nor does it force upon any religious body the obligation to redefine a marriage within that faith. If two grown adults care about each other's well-being and future enough to enter into a legally-binding joint partnership, with the rights and responsibilities that result, then more power to them. 

Edited March 27, 2013 by penguin31

[Brother Adam]

The end result of the current cases will likely be the legal equivocation of marriages (sacramental or otherwise) and same-sex partnerships on a federal level, while leaving it to states to choose which types of partnerships they consider valid on a state level. States will probably have to recognize as valid marriages performed in other states when federal law comes into play, but not state law. You'll then likely see a second push to legalize same-sex partnerships as valid on the state level.  

I'm sorry, and I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular thing for me to say here, but I really don't understand the vehemence of the opposition to this. If someone would like to make a case to the contrary, by all means I'm all ears, but at the moment I just don't get it.  This doesn't even affect 99% of the people who are arguing against it.  No one's going to force churches or other non-governmental bodies to perform marriage ceremonies that they are not comfortable with. Heck, there are actually still some fringe protestant churches in the rural South which won't perform interracial weddings, amazingly enough. Sacramentally speaking, obviously a same-sex partnership isn't going to be valid within the church. No governmental legislation can change what does or does not constitute a Sacrament.

If the government wants to recognize the partnership of two individuals of the same sex as valid for their purposes, then fine. I could not possibly care less. As a straight heterosexual man, it doesn't impact my ability to marry or get married one iota, nor does it force upon any religious body the obligation to redefine a marriage within that faith. If two grown adults care about each other's well-being and future enough to enter into a legally-binding joint partnership, with the rights and responsibilities that result, then more power to them. 

 

This would be that "case" on a scholarly level:

 

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364395187&sr=8-1&keywords=What+Is+Marriage

 

And you are incorrect, Christians (and other people who oppose the redefinition of marriage) will be sued (already cited), lose their jobs (such as government clerks who will not validate same sex marriages and public school teachers who defend true marriage), and perhaps even have their children forcibly removed from their homes because they will be deemed unfit to be parents (a natural consequence of the legislation) for refusing to accept the validity of same sex marriage. It's not really a question of if, because much of this has already happened.

 

Here is another great blog post: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2013/03/dear-dr-greg-dont-be-a-bigot-letter-from-a-child-of-a-gay-father/

 

I appreciate that he follows up with the comments on his blog too.
 

[Papist]

Canada has a different legal system than the US.  

Not for long.

[4588686]

Every argument I've seen against DOMA is based not in the concept of strictly enumerated powers, but in the concept of equal rights and equal representation under the law. Which is nice, but incorrect.

 

Every argument I've seen from mainstream sources, that is.

How is it incorrect?  Is the 14th amendment unconstitutional?

[Winchester]

How is it incorrect?  Is the 14th amendment unconstitutional?

 

 

It's incorrect because it doesn't apply. It presumes the right of the Federal government to interfere in marriage contracts.

 

And no, I don't recognize the validity of an amendment passed using violence.  "Amendments mus be ratified by the states. If they aren't ratified, then send in troops."

 

Remember, I'm with Spooner. All the abolition, none of the murder.

[Winchester]

 

 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

But the government has precedence interfering with marriage.  The Court struck down anti interracial marriage laws in the past.