EricBess said:
Read
this
We've discussed this topic before, but the general consensus seemed to be that it didn't affect anyone else. Think again.
Wait, what? This affected them because they wanted their marriage to be legally recognized under terms have now been changed and because they couldn't get their way, that's somehow a problem?
I know of at least one case of a doctor that practices in-vitro who was told by the court that he must offer services to a lesbian couple, even though it went against his religious beliefs.
Good. Actually, I'd rather not have someone whose religious beliefs are going to get in the way of providing medical care licensed at all, but whatever.
Under the current "ruling", a "clergyman" can lose his right to perform marriages if he refuses to join a same-sex couple. Church and state are getting dangerously close here and it's just a matter of time before this actually happens and we see how the courts react.
This doesn't seem like church and state getting close at all. It's a bit of a weird issue, since legally marriage is a state affair, not a church one. But church dudes are legally able to perform the marriage ceremony because it's been sort of grandfathered in. Really, the whole system is awkward and doesn't make sense. Which is why I've already said I'd just as soon do away with marriage as a legal institution and have "civil unions" or something with less loaded history available for everyone.
The thing that gets me is that we effectively ignore 200 years of custom and tradition based on an assertion that it is okay and that there's nothing specifically against it in the constitution. Never was their an initiative on the ballot to allow same-sex marriage. IMO, If these people want same-sex marriage, they should put it on the ballot instead of putting the burden on those who oppose it. It's no wonder they have already been rescinded once and possibly will be again in November.
By that logic, courts are unnecessary. Anyone who has any problem with anything can just "put it on the ballot."
Ironically, same-sex couples already have all of the rights of traditional couples based on civil unions. This is about pushing a very dangerous agenda.
That certainly isn't true across the board for the U.S. There may be some state in which civil unions actually do grant literally all of the same things as marriage. But there are at least some things missing in most of them and that's only the states that actually even have civil unions. Most of them don't. Pretty sure most of those won't even recognize the civil unions of other states either, which is another issue...
And what's the dangerous agenda anyway?
BigBlue said:
It's one thing to allow same-sex marriage, it's quite another to force traditional marriages to conform to some bland document so as to not offend the minority of marriages.
The extent of their "conforming" is that the words "bride" and "groom" are replaced with generic designations?
The Dr. case seems odd... Discrimination cases involve showing you belong to a protected class and were denied service because of that - and thus far sexual orientation has never been a protected class in any state that I've heard of... He doesn't perform life-threatening procedures, so it's hard to see him being forced to provide care the same as an emergency room is forced to provide care. I'm not saying I don't believe you. I'm just surprised a court would seem to overstep it's jurisdiction and that surely the Dr. could probably win an appeal to a higher court.
Hmm, it is a protected class, although I wouldn't know in which states. And I think it is very possible for a doctor not in an emergency room to be forced to provide care. I'm not sure what the circumstances are or how to research this while still being lazy though...
Mooseman said:
The Denial of the license in CA is true, from a simple search on google, but the reason was that CA rules have stated that forms may not be changed. That is why it was denied.
Well, it makes sense, although it seems kind of harsh in this case.
There was a case of the doctor, but is was overturned by an appellate court. (physicians, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, refused to perform IVF for Guadalupe Benitez)
They sited a California state law that bars for-profit businesses from "arbitrarily" discriminating against clients based on characteristics such as race, age and sexual orientation.
Haven't found anything about the Clergyman and having to marry anyone.
The big question here is that race and sexual orientation are equated in CA.... I don't think they are the same.... one is a behavior and the other is not.
Sexual orientation isn't a behavior. Also, discrimination based on it may be treated the same legally (not sure about California).
EricBess said:
As for the denial of the licence, the point isn't whether or not it is legal to change a form in California, but the fact that the form was changed in the first place. Technically, people married in California from here on out will not be "husband and wife", but will be "party A and party B".
So what?
rokapoke said:
Recently, in Philadelphia, one of the "big two" cheesesteak places posted a sign to the effect of "Order in English or we won't serve you." In essence, they were a private business purporting to selectively not serve people. However, word was that nobody was actually denied service.
Somewhere down the line, a politician made a fuss and ended up being the driving force in a lawsuit against the company. The end result, if I'm not mistaken, was that because nobody was denied service, the suit was dropped.
So it sounds like they got the suit dropped on a technicality because it was the easiest thing to do. That doesn't mean they would have lost had someone actually been denied service. Restaurants ARE able to refuse to serve people.
EricBess said:
That's sort of the point. If they referred her to another facility, then why were they sued? Even if that was part of the resolution, why couldn't they have just gone somewhere else in the first place. Why try to insist that this person do something that they don't feel comfortable doing?
Yeah, that seems weird.
Here's another one to think about. I thought my wife had mentioned something like this somewhere in the states, but I couldn't find it. Still, the Bible is pretty clear, calling homosexuality "An abomination before God" and similar language. But it is equally clear about hating the sin, but accepting the sinner, so I guess the real problem is that no one ever wants to take the Bible in context.
Anything like that should be struck down as unconstitutional (First Amendment) here.
EricBess said:
BTW, everyone keeps talking about the separation of church and state, but nowhere in the consitution does it use that terminology. The only right guarenteed by the constitution is that there will be no government-established religion. In other words, everyone is free to worship as they will.
Man, I know I've already gone over this before. Oh well, time to do it again. It is true that the U.S. Constitution does not actually use the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment does, however, effectively invoke such and the phrase was used in reference to it from early on, by at least one person who actually worked on the Constitution. The First Amendment actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This is much stronger than simply saying that the government cannot establish a religion and has been treated by all courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, as effectively constituting a wall of separation between church and state.
But marrying people? I assume you are talking about clergy and clergy is nearly always (I would say somewhere over 99% of the time) associated with a particular religious organization. If the tenants of that religious organization are that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are abominable (as stated in the Bible), then do you not consider forcing the clergy to marry against the tenants of the religion to be something that might qualify as the government imposing a religious will?
No, because legal marriage is not a religious institution. The state could simply refuse to allow anyone who isn't a judge to perform a legal marriage ceremony.
While I personally don't agree with you on the case of fertility doctors (or adoption agencies, or...), I can at least accept your argument. But when you apply that same argument to something that is fundimentally tied to religion, I don't even respect that as an argument.
Marriage isn't legally tied to religion.
DarthFerret said:
Btw...yes, a judge has the power to marry you. Another FYI here is that a judge is not allowed (by law) to accept payment for such services. Probably why it is not done often. My first marriage was conducted by a judge who also was a friend of the familiy. I tried to pay him and he could not leagally accept it.
Not sure why you think it's not done often. It's done all the time.
Secondly, I do find it funny that everyone just skipped right over what EB said. It says specifically in the constitution that Government shall make no law in the establishment of a religion. Again, does not say seperation of church and state. Does not say freedom of religion (or more specifically from religion).
DF, you were the person I corrected on this in another thread. And I know you can read, so you should really know better.
As for IV fertilization, well, I am of two minds here. On the moral side, I believe it is wrong. fundametally because it is not raising the child in an envirionment that is condusive to appropriate moral behavior. This however is just my moral opinion. On the legal side, if a same sex couple is recognized as a legal union, then I think the option should be open to them. BUT, I do not belive that the court system should be able to require a specific Dr. to perform such a procedure. If one refuses, I am sure there are others out there that will do it. If not, well...move somewhere that does if it is that important to you.
Well, I'll at least commend you for not conflating morality and law.
