Why Isn't Gay Marriage A Separation Of Church And State Issue ???

[WillyT]

Or is it being pursued as such?

:shrug:

What I'm getting at, is that the church can't marry anyone. They can perform all the ceremonies they like, but without that marriage license (issued by the state), those ceremonies don't mean squat.

And how do religious concerns about homosexuality have any say in what the state can or cannot do? How is religion allowed to dictate a person's civil rights to the state? How is religion allowed to enforce bigotry within the state?

What am I missing here?

Anybody???

:shrug:

[xchrom]

1. because many 'christians' have found all meaning in their faith

can only be found in feeling like they personally are being persecuted.

jesus has been forgotten.

[Recursion]

2. Polygamy, maybe?

Once it becomes explicitly religious how do you limit marriage to two people?

[fascisthunter]

3. Thank You

This is what I have been saying since I read about the results of Prop 8. Obviously this initiative is based on religious doctrine and religious folks are funding it from out of state. Why isn't this being stated more? It's obviously a Seaparation of Church and State Issue.

Prop 8 is Unconstitutional and should be thrown out the window.

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. You've got it backwards

marriage is a religious institution that has crossed over into being recognized as a legal institution

Most of the opposition to 'gay marriage' is based in people's feelings about religious marriage - which has been conflated with civil marriage.

Simplest solution is just get the govt out of the marriage business.
Grant licenses for civil unions and let the churches marry whoever they want.

At that point opposition to a church performing same sex marriages becomes an issue of religious freedom... and arguing against religious freedom is a losing issue.


Otherwise it's going to be a fight against people's religious beliefs (even though the issue is civil marriage)

[Bubbha Jo]

7. Marriage is a societal institution, not just a religious one. nt

[Clovis Sangrail]

12. yes... but obviously most people don't get that

they see it as a religious institution that is so important that govt recognizes it.
Any attempt to make civl marriage into something their religion is opposed to is seen as an attack on religion.

[WillyT]

13. Historically Maybe...

But then monarchies were justified by religious institutions, as were slavery, sexism, and other forms of bigotry and oppression.

Then we had this little war, kicked out the king, and wrote a constitution.

That constitution not only calls for freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion.

And the GLBT community is STILL being oppressed by RELIGION in striving for their full CIVIL rights.

The Union will not be more perfect as long as that stands.

:shrug:

[Clovis Sangrail]

19. EXACTLY

'freedom OF religion'
Everybody, right and left, gets that one.

'freedom FROM religion'
that,however, seems contradictory while demanding access to a religious term

The blurring of the lines between civil and religious marriage allows the other side to motivate opinion to their advantage.
Is this fair or honest? Of course not, but most people associate marriage with religion.
That being the case, the govt saying gay marriage must have the same legal weight as any other marriage is seen as a constraint on freedom of religion.

So take the only weapon they have - the word 'marriage' - out of their hands.
Once the govt gets out of the 'marriage' business it becomes a freedom of religion issue.

In any case, it's the right course of action - the Govt has no business 'marrying' anyone.
The govt should only do civil unions.
Leave 'marriage' for churches and their followers.

[No Elephants]

5. Whoever said it isn't a separation of church and state issue?

[WillyT]

10. I Guess I Just Haven't Heard That Emphasis Before...

or at least not to the degree I think is warranted.

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

6. It is a return to separate but equal that kept Blacks subjugated for so long

Ironic that it has been Black churches that have joined racist Mormon Church in keeping LGBTs as a version of 21st century Negroes.

Marriage license, like a teaching license, is a civil document. Sexual orientation, or gender identity, should not be used as a barrier to getting a license.

My rabbi will marry same sex couples if the state were to issue marriage license to them.

[verges]

16. It's not seperate but equal if ALL unions,

straight or gay, become Civil Unions. Then there would be no differentiation between a straight of gay couple.

[IndianaGreen]

18. In some Latin American countries there is a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony

A religious marriage is not considered legal until the parties and their witnesses sign a document. Usually the signing of the marriage certificate is made part of the religious ceremony, usually at the end. Of course, I come from a tradition where the woman keeps her family name and the children take the last name of both parents.

The Anglo custom of having women take their husband's name is a throwback to the days women were chattel. Marriage was a transfer of property from the bride's father to the groom.

[Kajsa]

8. It is a separation of church and state issue.

Most of the 'Yes on 8' funding came from the LDS leadership in Utah,
hence the out of state influence and money.
The second largest contributor were The Knights of Columbus.

Another main point lost on the 'Yes on 8' people is that Prop. 8 violates
our State Constitution.

It's a civil rights issue, which is something the proponents of H8 don't see.

[Bubbha Jo]

9. It needs to be attacked from the angle that it is legalization of religious homophobia....

This is a horrid loss but I'm thinkin' eventually nationwide rights will come faster after this. The silver linings are bright.

[BOSSHOG]

11. Thanks Willy T

I'm often slow to grasp stuff but that's a great explanation and right on the money. I've gnashed my teeth over this issue and I appreciate your added perspective. It pisses me the fuck off how religious zealots can force their beliefs on others via codification in a democratic republic.

[WillyT]

14. Your Welcome BOSS !!!

I'm pissed about it too.

:mad:

:hi:

[arKansasJHawk]

15. I've been hammering this point ...

Since the recriminations against African-Americans started on Wednesday morning. Of course, there've been so many threads about Prop. 8 that it's more than easy to get lost in the crowd. Thanks for posting about it again. This is vitally important.

[EleanorR]

17. Legal arguments are quite different from political arguments

We need to distinguish between political versus legal arguments. Political argument can be based on anything--political speech gets the very highest constitutional protection under the first amendment, and deservedly so. We do not ever want the government in the role of deciding what sorts of speech or reasoning ought to be allowed. So, though we may not like it, there is nothing inappropriate from a political standpoint of saying "we ought to do X because God says so." It is up to us whether to buy into such arguments, or to offer better counter-arguments.

I think such arguments need to be answered two ways: First, "maybe you think that is God's will, but other deeply religious folks disagree." Call this working WITHIN someone's value system. You don't try to persuade them that they cannot let their religious values be part of who they are, because that is too threatening to those who see their religion as part of their core identity. Instead, make the arguments about alternative interpretations of the bible, point to religious leaders who opposed prop 8, etc. The point is not to reject their faith but to persuade them to channel their faith in a more tolerant direction.

A second argument would be that IF an advocate of prop 8 ONLY cites religious reasons, and if that advocate is reasonably educated, then it might be possible to point out that laws should serve a secular purpose and not solely a religious one. That is what the Supreme Court ruled in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): Laws can ALSO advance religious values/interests, but not SOLELY. There are lots of websites that discuss this case if you are interested. It ought to be taught in every high school civics class.

Politics aside, from a constitutional standpoint, this whole thing is a no-brainer. That is why I think gay marriage is inevitable, the only question is whether it will be decided by the Supreme Court in 2009 or 10 years later. Three state Supreme Courts have already ruled that there is no legitimate reason to deny gay people the right to marry; the majorities fully recognize the inappropriateness of a strictly religious rationale for banning gay marriage. If you read those majority opinions, you will see how clearcut this issue is. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) reversed the loathsome 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision and ruled that the government CAN NOT criminalize homosexual conduct. The key in that case is that they decided intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Boom! If that is the case, then it is a very small step toward recognizing that marriage is equally central. Sandra D. O'Conner actually wrote a concurring opinion to try to distance herself from that conclusion, but it is pretty flimsy reasoning.

The other key case is Romer v. Evans (1996) which struck down Colorado's amendment 2 that tried to prevent "gay rights" ordinances. The court ruled there that you cannot single out a group to deprive of equal protection of the law.

Put these two cases together and a constitutional right to gay marriage is an obvious legal entailment of the logic. That does not mean necessarily that the current court would agree, so we might have to go through another cycle of a Bowers-like embarrassment followed by a reversal a few years down t he road, after Obama can tilt the court the other way during his second term.

However, in the meantime, I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will strike down proposition 8. It is clearly similar to the Colorado amendment since it was AIMED at taking away a right that the California Supreme Court had established a few months earlier. I could foresee SCOTUS striking down proposition 8 while refusing to provide its Final Answer to the gay marriage issue nationally.

[Jawja]

20. The best counter argument is

"I don't care what you think your God's will is. You don't have the moral or legal right to legislate it on me."

[ourbluenation]

21. Damn Willy - You ARE good! Kickety kick

too late to rec though.

:(