Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Stargazer71
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Stargazer71 » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:25 pm UTC

Chen wrote:That list of legal minds aren't legislators though. If no one brings a case up before them, why would they need to consider the interpretation of the amendment to cover that circumstance?


So in your opinion, the intentions of the authors is irrelevant when interpreting an amendment?

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:35 pm UTC

Remember this is the same USA that had the clause "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." in their declaratoin of independence AND ALLOWED SLAVERY.

Stargazer71
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Stargazer71 » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:57 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Remember this is the same USA that had the clause "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." in their declaratoin of independence AND ALLOWED SLAVERY.


Hmmm...the United States that I know and love has the following in its constitution:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


It seems strange to me that people look at the United States as a static entity that does not evolve with time. To quote Bill Clinton*:

William J. Clinton wrote:There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America.


*Considering my voting record, this is an odd person for me to quote. However I think that with this statement, he was absolutely right.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Dauric » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:14 pm UTC

The Constitution does not exist in a vacuum.

It is interpreted by the society that operates in accordance with their interpretation of it.

To wit: In the early colonies indentured servitude and slavery were practiced against members of every race. However Africans weren't actually seen as "Human", so when the earliest codifications of "All men were created equal", the social interpretation did not include people of African descent (or Asian descent for that matter if you look at early railroad building in the west).

Our society has long since changed from that view to the view that all people from any region around the world count under the statement "All men" (even women), and (at least formal) slavery is not acceptable regardless of skin color or heritage.

Original intent of legislation written a century ago, hell even a few decades ago, may have little or no bearing on creating/fostering/enforcing a society that exists in the current social environment.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Obby
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Obby » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:26 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:
Chen wrote:That list of legal minds aren't legislators though. If no one brings a case up before them, why would they need to consider the interpretation of the amendment to cover that circumstance?


So in your opinion, the intentions of the authors is irrelevant when interpreting an amendment?

I believe Chen's point was that the Supreme Court cannot rule on cases like this (or, indeed, any case) until it is brought before them. Meaning, party A has to sue party B for something, and then that case has to be elevated through the different levels of courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, before a decision can be made by them. The argument about the previous 135 years of legal minds being wrong is largely irrelevant (and implies a false dichotomy, to boot) because this issue was not brought before the Supreme Court at any point in those 135 years.
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Chen » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:28 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:So in your opinion, the intentions of the authors is irrelevant when interpreting an amendment?


They should probably have written it less broadly if they didn't want it to be interpreted in a way to allow homosexual marriage. If they specifically wanted to exclude marriage equality they could have, easily. I mean, there didn't seem to be any problem in re-interpreting the amendment to allow interracial marriages in 1967. That was still almost 100 years after the amendment was created. Why did no one in those intervening 100 years do anything about it? Because society still hadn't evolved to the point of being tolerant to it and thus no cases were brought up to the Supreme court to have them interpret the amendment.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Derek » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:00 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Derek wrote:This is actually what I believe, but unfortunately we're long past the point of government interference in marriage and it would be extremely difficult to untangle the current system.

So, that would mean the government doesn't recognise of give benefits to heterosexual marriages either?

Yes.

That seems nice in some ways but would have an impact on inheritance laws. If a man dies and didn't leave a will, how do you decide if the woman he was calling his "wife" gets anything? Guess it means everyone needs to write a will if they want their spouse(s)* to get anything in the event of their death.

* Why not, in this system the only reason to stop this arrangement is in the case on of the parties is being abused, under aged, wrong species etc.

Yes. In this hypothetical scenarior, having a will and living will would be much more important, since there would be no government legislated default behavior. But I don't think this is really a bad thing. It just means that instead of stopping by the county courthouse to get a marriage certificate, you stop by the local lawyer to sign a standard form contract.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby sam_i_am » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:48 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:I'm for gay marriage too, but not yet totally convinced that it should have been upheld based on the Constitution. Justice Alito has a pretty long pro-gay record but he voted against the majority today, so I'm not sure.


One line of logic you can go for is that according to the 14th amendment,

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If same sex marriage were banned, then a male could not marry another male, but a female could marry a male. This is not equal protection of the laws and violates the 14th amendment. Whether or not you can marry a male applies to people differently based on their gender.

This is not the line of logic that the supreme court used.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Thesh » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:57 pm UTC

So does anyone know how this ruling affects sex with ducks?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Chen » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:01 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:So does anyone know how this ruling affects sex with ducks?


I don't think ducks are protected by the fourteenth amendment. Unless they're like Howard the Duck, Donald Duck (and his nephews) or any other duck who would be considered a person. Anyways, considering a lot of those Disney ducks don't wear pants, clearly they're asking for it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:06 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:So does anyone know how this ruling affects sex with ducks?


I believe it would only affect marriage to ducks. But in theory, if we recognized ducks as people, and some states allowed marriage to them...

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:57 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Remember this is the same USA that had the clause "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." in their declaratoin of independence AND ALLOWED SLAVERY.


Fun fact: An early version of the Declaration of Independence specifically condemned slavery.

For economic reasons, it didn't survive long.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby leady » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:35 pm UTC

Isn't the US supposed to have separation of powers - surely any movement in social attitudes and interpretations should be actively legislated on principle?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Thesh » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:37 pm UTC

leady wrote:surely any movement in social attitudes and interpretations should be actively legislated on principle?


LOL
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Dauric » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:52 pm UTC

leady wrote:Isn't the US supposed to have separation of powers - surely any movement in social attitudes and interpretations should be actively legislated on principle?


The republicans put legislation in place in response to the social change, Defense of Marriage Act. It was struck down by the Supreme Court.

To bring up the old adage: "Anyone who likes sausage or respects the law should watch neither being made". Legislative response to social changes is not necessarily in line with those social changes, and knowing how a change in society at large will play out is often not clear until well after that change becomes the current normal.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:53 pm UTC

leady wrote:Isn't the US supposed to have separation of powers - surely any movement in social attitudes and interpretations should be actively legislated on principle?


In theory, maybe. In practice, there's a disagreement over the whole living constitution concept of dynamic reinterpretation(and what, precisely, the limits of that might be) vs...not. It's complicated by the willingness of some to use different frameworks depending on their support for the issue at hand.

And of course, you can simply disagree over the "correct" interpretation, and who's got the power to tell the supreme court no? I mean, I guess in theory, you could pass an amendment, but that's *really* hard.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby leady » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:34 pm UTC

this is where my understanding of the US system fails (largely from the west wing) but surely gay marriage isn't a constitutional change just a federal law? or are there restrictions on what federal laws can be passed?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:01 pm UTC

leady wrote:this is where my understanding of the US system fails (largely from the west wing) but surely gay marriage isn't a constitutional change just a federal law? or are there restrictions on what federal laws can be passed?


The constitution is the top tier of federal law. Underneath it are a bunch of various laws passed by congress. Under that, there's various non-law regulations passed by this agency or that(which trace back to authority given via one of the above). There's also the state branch, which is similar, and mostly under federal...but this can get complicated. This is all a HUGE simplification.

SCOTUS can decide that something is unconstitutional, and if that's the case, well...that's kind of a trump card, barring an explicit amendment to the constitution, which is really difficult to do.

There are constitutional protections regarding equality that generally support the gay rights case, but I haven't delved through the legalese to see what all arguments have explicitly been made in this case. Given that DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional, there's effectively no legislative recourse available short of
A. denying marriages altogether
or
B. a constitutional amendment.

Both face severe practical difficulties, so on a federal level, this pretty much settles things, though I expect stubborn states to dig in their heels, create further bad situations, and to then lose subsequent lawsuits hard.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Derek » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:38 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:The republicans put legislation in place in response to the social change, Defense of Marriage Act. It was struck down by the Supreme Court.

It was passed by a majority of both parties and signed into law by Clinton.

It really just shows you how flexible the opinions of politicians are.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Djehutynakht » Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:43 am UTC

DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional because it legislated marriage at the federal level; saying that only same-sex marriages were legitimate for federal benefit, even if a state also allowed Same-sex marriage.

DOMA was struck down on the grounds that the Federal government had no grounds to make laws about marriage; that the right was solely restricted to the states.
_______________________________

This ruling (Obergefell) ruled that although the states have the right to make laws about marriage, and that many had passed laws only allowing same-sex marriage, those laws were in violation of a provision of the Federal Constitution, which trumps state decisions when appropriate. I believe it was that the same-sex marriage bans violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

I guess the closest comparable case would be when the Supreme Court ruled that the states couldn't ban interracial marriages on grounds of the equal protection clause, even though, like now, marriage law is in the realm of state governments. It didn't hold because the marriage law in question violated a superseding right.


The only option states really have to resist same-sex marriage any longer is to simply stop issuing state licenses for marriage in general. Which is feasible, although I'm not sure how getting rid of the legal instrument of marriage would play out.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:36 am UTC

You aren't being creative enough. Think how abortion is being restricted by conservatives. Sure it's unconstitutional to ban abortion, but there's nothing against the law about restricting how you get it. Now apply those tricks to gay marriage. The easiest way is to apply religious freedom laws and try to restrict gay marriage that way. You might reduce gay marriage by 5-10% if the people willing to marry you are all 100+ miles away. Throw in some light terrorism by 'unaffiliated' 3rd parties, and you got yourself a conservative game plan for the next couple years. Of course, they could just roll over on this, after all there's still brown people and muslims to oppress. Or even black muslims.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Derek » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:21 am UTC

sardia wrote:You aren't being creative enough. Think how abortion is being restricted by conservatives. Sure it's unconstitutional to ban abortion, but there's nothing against the law about restricting how you get it. Now apply those tricks to gay marriage. The easiest way is to apply religious freedom laws and try to restrict gay marriage that way. You might reduce gay marriage by 5-10% if the people willing to marry you are all 100+ miles away.

Religious figures can and should have the freedom to not conduct gay weddings, but marriage licenses aren't abortion clinics. They must be available from the local government office or not at all, and government officials do not have the freedom to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It's not possible to make gay marriage inconvenient without making all marriage inconvenient.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Zamfir » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:00 am UTC

Of course, they could just roll over on this, after all there's still brown people and muslims to oppress. Or even black muslims.

That's basically how it played out here. "We have to protect our judeo-christian tradition of gay rights against the barbaric muslim immigrants"

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Lazar » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:47 am UTC

Derek wrote:and government officials do not have the freedom to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

I agree, but the Texas attorney general doesn't. I think we're going to see a few more court cases involving issues like this.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5943
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Angua » Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:53 am UTC

Now, what I don't understand about the Texas Attorney General is this - ok, you might be able to wrangle that the individual staff saying it's against their religion to sign the marriage certificates, but surely a government run office can't put resources into defending them - that's no longer individual action...
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:03 pm UTC

From the article. Paraphrasing, we are behind you 100 percent. Way behind you. You can refuse and get sued and good luck with that.
In the statement, Paxton noted that officials who refuse to issue marriage licenses are likely to be fined or face litigation. He assured those willing to “defend their religious objections” that there were “numerous lawyers” willing to defend their rights – many of whom would offer their services free of charge.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby leady » Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:30 pm UTC

So I can see and understand how and why the "defence of marriage act" would be struck down on a constitutional basis if only because its seeking to forever mandate a discriminatory perspective. I can understand the perspective that its a state system decision and I could understand a federally mandated legal change to supercede the rights of the states. But the supreme court taking overtly legislative decision has got to be bad idea.

As an aside I find it quite interesting that the UK has more devolved powers than the US in this area, which given the knife edge politics of NI isn't changing soon (which itself is ironic given that Eire as a staunch catholic country has made the transition - a position that is arguably the opposite of the last 100 years)

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Derek » Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:35 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:I agree, but the Texas attorney general doesn't. I think we're going to see a few more court cases involving issues like this.

Any clerks who refuse will get sued, they will lose (it's obvious that government employees cannot use their religious views to not perform their jobs), and they will quit or acquiesce.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:42 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
sardia wrote:You aren't being creative enough. Think how abortion is being restricted by conservatives. Sure it's unconstitutional to ban abortion, but there's nothing against the law about restricting how you get it. Now apply those tricks to gay marriage. The easiest way is to apply religious freedom laws and try to restrict gay marriage that way. You might reduce gay marriage by 5-10% if the people willing to marry you are all 100+ miles away.

Religious figures can and should have the freedom to not conduct gay weddings, but marriage licenses aren't abortion clinics. They must be available from the local government office or not at all, and government officials do not have the freedom to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It's not possible to make gay marriage inconvenient without making all marriage inconvenient.


Yes. Not having any local clergy around who want to perform your ceremony is a different matter from if you can legally get a license. It is right and proper that all have equal access to licenses. Any BS or tedium applied to some should be applied to all.

But it'd be ridiculous to try to force the local clergy to officiate at your wedding if they're against it.

leady wrote:So I can see and understand how and why the "defence of marriage act" would be struck down on a constitutional basis if only because its seeking to forever mandate a discriminatory perspective. I can understand the perspective that its a state system decision and I could understand a federally mandated legal change to supercede the rights of the states. But the supreme court taking overtly legislative decision has got to be bad idea.


That'd be a constitutional crisis, if it were controversial with other branches of government. However, I don't think this really is. Regardless of if the specific grounds this was decided on are the correct ones, the decision seems pretty safe, constitutionally speaking. DOMA, etc violating equal rights seems pretty open and shut, and if you can't ban interracial marriages....it takes some SERIOUS hair splitting to come to a different conclusion for gay marriages.

So, I don't view this as a particularly strong case for judicial overreach.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby mathmannix » Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:16 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
Lazar wrote:I agree, but the Texas attorney general doesn't. I think we're going to see a few more court cases involving issues like this.

Any clerks who refuse will get sued, they will lose (it's obvious that government employees cannot use their religious views to not perform their jobs), and they will quit or acquiesce.

My uncle told me this weekend that the two clerks in the courthouse in his county are planning to refuse on religious reasons if it comes up, and expect to be protected. You can't make people do things they are opposed to for religious reasons.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:47 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Derek wrote:
Lazar wrote:I agree, but the Texas attorney general doesn't. I think we're going to see a few more court cases involving issues like this.

Any clerks who refuse will get sued, they will lose (it's obvious that government employees cannot use their religious views to not perform their jobs), and they will quit or acquiesce.

My uncle told me this weekend that the two clerks in the courthouse in his county are planning to refuse on religious reasons if it comes up, and expect to be protected. You can't make people do things they are opposed to for religious reasons.

Define "make". I would be very, very surprised if they could not be terminated from their positions for refusing to perform their assigned duties if it came to that.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Lazar » Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:23 pm UTC

There's some further discussion of the question here.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby PolakoVoador » Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:38 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Derek wrote:
Lazar wrote:I agree, but the Texas attorney general doesn't. I think we're going to see a few more court cases involving issues like this.

Any clerks who refuse will get sued, they will lose (it's obvious that government employees cannot use their religious views to not perform their jobs), and they will quit or acquiesce.

My uncle told me this weekend that the two clerks in the courthouse in his county are planning to refuse on religious reasons if it comes up, and expect to be protected. You can't make people do things they are opposed to for religious reasons.


What if my religion forbids me to work after 16h, and also on Fridays? Did I mention I need a 2h lunch break for meditation?

I doubt this would fly, so I see no reason why theirs excuse should.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:25 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:
mathmannix wrote:
Derek wrote:
Lazar wrote:I agree, but the Texas attorney general doesn't. I think we're going to see a few more court cases involving issues like this.

Any clerks who refuse will get sued, they will lose (it's obvious that government employees cannot use their religious views to not perform their jobs), and they will quit or acquiesce.

My uncle told me this weekend that the two clerks in the courthouse in his county are planning to refuse on religious reasons if it comes up, and expect to be protected. You can't make people do things they are opposed to for religious reasons.


What if my religion forbids me to work after 16h, and also on Fridays? Did I mention I need a 2h lunch break for meditation?

I doubt this would fly, so I see no reason why theirs excuse should.


Well, there's a certain reasonable standard for it being an actual religious belief. Conversely, there's a reasonable standard for accomodations. If you want to wear a hair covering, and it doesn't interfere with your job, rock out. But if your belief involves not actually doing your job....reasonability definitely gets called into question. I mean, maybe if there's one clerk that really, really doesn't wanna do it, and can arrange shifts so that someone else is always covering that part of the job, whatever. The job still gets done.

But I don't think you can justify just not doing the job at all.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Mutex » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:35 pm UTC

In the UK a few years ago there was a case where a Muslim man, working for a supermarket, tried to sue his employer for forcing him to handle alcohol, when it was against his religion. The outcome of the case was, if it's against your religion to do X, don't take a job that requires you to do X.

So, if the same principle applied in the US, then it comes down to whether being a priest or similar is a job like any other. If so, then when you take the job of priesthood, you accept you'll be required to marry couples, regardless of whether they're same-sex or not.

In the UK I believe priests etc have the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples if they wish, although I'm not aware of that happening much if at all (homophobia actually has quite a social stigma here now). This is why the same-sex marriage doesn't apply to the Church of England, because for some reason the CoE has to marry any couple that ask them to, so they wouldn't be able to refuse a same-sex couple. That issue is a whole nest of bastard snakes on its own though.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:42 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:In the UK a few years ago there was a case where a Muslim man, working for a supermarket, tried to sue his employer for forcing him to handle alcohol, when it was against his religion. The outcome of the case was, if it's against your religion to do X, don't take a job that requires you to do X

So, if the same principle applied in the US, then it comes down to whether being a priest or similar is a job like any other. If so, then when you take the job of priesthood, you accept you'll be required to marry couples, regardless of whether they're same-sex or not..


That's generally fair. So, if, as policy, religion X performs gay marriages, you'd have a difficult time claiming a religious exemption. If they don't, then...it isn't really part of the job, is it?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:45 pm UTC

What the actual priests do isn't really at issue. Even if you're getting married with a 'church wedding' with a priest and all the trimmings, -first- you have to get a marriage license from the county. This is the part where the county clerks issuing the licenses are getting their panties in a twist and demanding 'religious accommodation'. The priests can do whatever they like however they interpret their religions, but state/county governments don't get that leeway.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Derek » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:46 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:In the UK a few years ago there was a case where a Muslim man, working for a supermarket, tried to sue his employer for forcing him to handle alcohol, when it was against his religion. The outcome of the case was, if it's against your religion to do X, don't take a job that requires you to do X.

So, if the same principle applied in the US, then it comes down to whether being a priest or similar is a job like any other. If so, then when you take the job of priesthood, you accept you'll be required to marry couples, regardless of whether they're same-sex or not.

But if you're a Catholic priest, and the Catholic church is opposed to same-sex marriage*, then the Catholic church isn't likely to require you to perform same-sex marriages. But if you're a country clerk, granting same-sex marriage license is a part of your job, so if you're not willing to perform that duty, then you should be fired.

*I believe the Catholic church is still opposed to same-sex marriage. If I'm wrong, then substitute some other religion that opposes same-sex marriage.
Last edited by Derek on Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby leady » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:48 pm UTC

Pretty sure thats not true and the CoE has an explicit opt out, I think exactly because there were rumblings that as part of the government establishment they might be forced to. (yes the UK has never had the fake separation of powers or religon, I still think moving to a supreme court model was an error over the law lords who were far less political - but then the appointed lords model kind of works strangely well as all the partisanship is diluted, but this is a massive bracketed discussion)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:30 pm UTC

leady wrote:Pretty sure thats not true and the CoE has an explicit opt out, I think exactly because there were rumblings that as part of the government establishment they might be forced to. (yes the UK has never had the fake separation of powers or religon, I still think moving to a supreme court model was an error over the law lords who were far less political - but then the appointed lords model kind of works strangely well as all the partisanship is diluted, but this is a massive bracketed discussion)


It's true in the US, which is primarily what we're talking about here, I think.

The separation is sometimes problematic, but the supreme court isn't overly political. Yes, yes, there are distinct tendencies among the blocks, and you can see certain breakdowns happen a lot, but I feel safe saying they're a lot less politicized than the overtly political legislative branch. Even the executive branch is very heavily politicized at the highest levels, and...splitting power three ways has a certain stability to it. The UK has some separation of power, etc...not really exactly the same as us, but there's a definite sharing of power as part of the way things are normally done.

It's likely that some religions will still be rather intolerant. This, unfortunately, cannot be really fixed by a law. It takes time, and acceptance. Getting the legal system fixed is a great acheivement in itself. Probably the largest single acheivement in the whole fight, though not really an end to it entirely. So, no point stressing overly much about the doomed viewpoint of various religious nuts. It's much easier to choose not to be in a religion than it is to say, avoid all states without adequate legal protection for gay marriage was.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Deva and 8 guests