tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post5551647032571174424..comments2023-07-20T01:00:45.892-07:00Comments on Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry: Fourt-Part Series on Marriage Equality and Religious Liberty By Professor John Culhane: Part I: Defining the Conflicts and IssuesMichael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-46059804698214299702009-08-05T16:06:40.815-07:002009-08-05T16:06:40.815-07:00I don't understand the religious opposition to...I don't understand the religious opposition to this issue at all. You want to keep same-sex marriage out of your church? Fine by me. But in all other aspects of life, such as commercial settings, just follow those rules, and keep your own faith. The ultimate goal of any religious person is entry into the Kingdom of Heaven (or whatever denominationally appropriate afterlife reward they believe in). Will approval of marriage equality stop anyone from getting into Heaven? If your God knows you're against it, then you're golden. Outside of that, you should simply live your life, content in your faith that the sinners will end up in Hell (or whatever denominationally appropriate afterlife punishment you believe in).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-5262053635711580932009-08-04T11:51:18.454-07:002009-08-04T11:51:18.454-07:00Bravo, public defender!
Take it even one step fur...Bravo, public defender!<br /><br />Take it even one step further, I say. <br /><br />If civil servants can be exempted from issuing licenses to couples that offend personal religious beliefs then we need to know if this scenario is also applicable:<br /><br />If a clerk is opposed to divorce according to strict religious beliefs around dissolution of marriage, can they refuse to issue a license to an individual that has been previously married? <br /><br />The act of issuing a license to a divorced person is tantamount to being an accomplice to mortal sin, isn't it? <br /><br />Or is it only when a same-sex couple exerts their civil liberties that religious offense can be exercised?<br /><br />We should not be held to a higher standard than the vast majority of people are. If we must uphold Catholic priciples - then so should everyone. I'd like to know under what pretense we are subjected to biblical law that is overlooked in the extension of dissolution rights.Patrick Connorsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-5722049553397249252009-08-04T07:15:55.930-07:002009-08-04T07:15:55.930-07:00I asked this question over on the Volokh Conspirac...I asked this question over on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, where Dale Carpenter points to your entry here:<br /><br />Why is this issue ever only discussed in the one direction--states the permit same-sex marriage and religious objectors to the practice?<br /><br />What should happen in states the prohibit same-sex marriage when religions sue to have the marriages they have performed recognized in law?<br /><br />Yes, the <a href="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090731/tuk-quakers-agree-to-allow-gay-weddings-6323e80.html" rel="nofollow">current case</a> is in the UK, but we have Quakers here, too, and their religious freedom is being trampled just as much as in the reverse case.<br /><br />Public_Defender added a related question: "If a state employee can refuse to give a marriage license to a gay couple because his anti-same-sex-marriage religious beliefs require the refusal, why shouldn't a state employee be allowed to issue a marriage license if his pro-same-sex-marriage religious beliefs forbid him from discriminating against same sex couples?"chiMaxxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-84272109702506093962009-08-03T19:56:26.845-07:002009-08-03T19:56:26.845-07:00In crafting your categories of potential exemption...In crafting your categories of potential exemptions for religious organizations, you need to go beyond simply performing the marriages themselves. I think you get a new and much more important category with this question: are religious organizations -- including charities and non profits and licensed social service providers -- going to be forced to treat legally married same-sex couples the same way they treat legally married male-female couples?<br /><br />For example, suppose a religious organization runs an emergency shelter that provides one kind of housing for married couples and a different kind for singles. Will they be forced to offer the option of married-couple housing to a legally-married same-sex couple?<br /><br />Or suppose a religious organization operates an adoption agency that matches children to married couples wishing to adopt. Will they be forced to place children in adoptive homes with same-sex couples? Think I've heard that one somewhere before.<br /><br />Anyway, neither of these two situations fits neatly into your four categories. The crucial distinction in these situations is that the religious organization is not just being forced to "deal with" same-sex couples or same-sex weddings. In these situations the religious organization would be forced to recognize the legal marriage as marriage, under their own rules of operation.bearinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953735060133330755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-48638033811113367752009-08-03T19:18:40.532-07:002009-08-03T19:18:40.532-07:00You ask "whether to allow a conscience exempt...You ask "whether to allow a conscience exemption to a state worker whose religious beliefs would be compromised by facilitating a same-sex marriage. Should a clerk have to process the application of a gay couple?"<br /><br />If such an exemption should apply to employees who religiously oppose gay marriage, why not exempt clerks whose religious beliefs support gay marriage from being required to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples?Public_Defendernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-77389207924065925982009-08-03T17:43:59.916-07:002009-08-03T17:43:59.916-07:00My point isn't about discrimination against di...My point isn't about discrimination against divorced people as much as it is that there are no provisions built into law that either guarantee the rights of the divorced to have access to religious institutions that have rejected them (because divorce is considered a sin) or that specifically state that churches are not legally compelled to recognize remarriages or to extend privileges to divorced people - simply because it is legal for people to be divorced. <br /><br />The principles are not being applied - or examined - equally. <br /><br />As for interreligious relationships, my point is that Christian churches are not legally obligated to perform marriages between people of faiths that are not the same. No Jews have sued St. John the Baptist (for example) because they demanded that the Catholic church recognize or solemnize their marriage - have they? Does there need to be language added to legislation to protect Catholic churches from the civil rights of Jews or just from recognizing the civil rights of gay people?<br /><br />Why are there two standards of justice even being considered? I suppose it is considered because the electorate is too stupid to make these connections on their own...and no one else - media, politicians, advocates - is making the connections either. <br /><br />Am I off base? I don't think I am.Patrick Connorsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-30197935044144590852009-08-03T10:31:25.870-07:002009-08-03T10:31:25.870-07:00'd imagine that since divorce is not generally...'d imagine that since divorce is not generally considered something we're not allowed to discriminate against, churches have fewer worries that failing to recognize the divorced would be treated as discrimination.<br /><br />As for Christians marrying Jews, that's religion versus religion, which is hard to turn into a discrimination claim since religious freedom is on both sides.arromdeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15557981799644707842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-71860879004290289332009-08-03T10:30:13.616-07:002009-08-03T10:30:13.616-07:00I'd imagine that since divorce is not generall...I'd imagine that since divorce is not generally considered something we're not allowed to discriminate against, churches have fewer worries that failing to recognize the divorced would be treated as discrimination.<br /><br />As for Christians marrying Jews, that's religion versus religion, which is hard to turn into a discrimination claim since religious freedom is on both sides.arromdeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15557981799644707842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-49565996520767217482009-08-03T07:26:30.434-07:002009-08-03T07:26:30.434-07:00Perhaps you will address this in future posts, but...Perhaps you will address this in future posts, but I would like to know why these extra protections for religious freedom exist for same-sex marriage yet (as far as I know) they do not exist for the serial married. <br /><br />Don't churches need to be protected from recognizing the divorced? I know that many religions object to the dissolution of marriage (some to the point of excommunication) and I'm not aware of major religions that will perform or acknowledge marriages performed subsequent to divorce.<br /><br />Have churches been forced to not excommunicate a divorced person or forced to perform a second, third or fourth (etc) marriage of a divorced person?<br /><br />Do churches need to protected from being forced to perform marriages (or other rites) for other faiths? Although I know very little about either religion, I am relatively certain that (for example) a Catholic Church will not perform the marriage of a Jewish couple (or vice versa) and they are not legally required to do it. Isn't there a requirement that a non-believer actually convert to the practice of the religious institution being asked to perform the marriage? This isn't a legal requirement, yet the religious institution isn't barred from making this requirement.<br /><br />My point is this: Why do religious institutions need to be protected from same-sex couples in ways that they haven't been protected from other secular / legislative actions that are in direct conflict with their beliefs?<br /><br />Isn't this extra language evidence of legitimized bigotry?Patrick Connorsnoreply@blogger.com