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

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 8:50 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote: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.

I apologise if I was not clear, but this was exactly my point.

If your religion prevents you from doing your job, then you should look for another job.

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 8:58 pm UTC

I agree. I'm fine with religious exemptions – for example, allowing Muslim women or Sikh men to wear non-standard headgear – as long as they don't interfere with the substantive performance of a job. But if your religion prohibits alcohol, you can't expect to get a job at a liquor store and not handle alcohol.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Mutex
Posts: 1311
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

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

Postby Mutex » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
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?


Well, the issue is that since marriages have legal implications they're not simply a religious thing, the priest is performing a public service. The USA has marriage, it's available to straight and same-sex couples, so anyone who works in the business of marrying people has to serve same-sex couples in the same way a place selling food has to serve gay people.

It's a murky issue though...

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3880
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 9:24 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
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?


Well, the issue is that since marriages have legal implications they're not simply a religious thing, the priest is performing a public service. The USA has marriage, it's available to straight and same-sex couples, so anyone who works in the business of marrying people has to serve same-sex couples in the same way a place selling food has to serve gay people.

It's a murky issue though...


Not in that way though. Priests can do whatever they want, they're authorized to perform the ceremony but there's a purely secular government position authorized to do the same called a "Justice of the Peace". Before the ceremony can take place though is issuance of the license which is a purely governmental function, and in Texas the Attorney General is backing county clerks in not issuing the licences, not priests, secular government employees demanding 'religious accommodation'.
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: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:52 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Well, the issue is that since marriages have legal implications they're not simply a religious thing, the priest is performing a public service. The USA has marriage, it's available to straight and same-sex couples, so anyone who works in the business of marrying people has to serve same-sex couples in the same way a place selling food has to serve gay people.

It's a murky issue though...


The marriage license does not require you to be religious whatsoever. You can simply go down to the courthouse and skip the ceremony entirely, or have a secular ceremony or no ceremony at all as you desire. Or get married by Elvis in Vegas.

Yes, you can go full on religious for a ceremony if you wish, but that's at your option. The religious component is not a requirement for the legal component, and should not be viewed as equivalent, so there's really no murky-ness to be had.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

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

Postby Diadem » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:00 am UTC

Dauric wrote:Not in that way though. Priests can do whatever they want, they're authorized to perform the ceremony but there's a purely secular government position authorized to do the same called a "Justice of the Peace". Before the ceremony can take place though is issuance of the license which is a purely governmental function, and in Texas the Attorney General is backing county clerks in not issuing the licences, not priests, secular government employees demanding 'religious accommodation'.

In The Netherlands something like this was a compromise for the first decade that we had gay marriage. Civil servants were allowed to refuse to marry gay couples*. That was clearly unfair, but it wasn't a huge deal, since there were always plenty of civil servants around who had no objections to perform the ceremony. And most gay couples do not want to be married by someone opposing their lifestyle anyway. The non-christian parties got rid of the compromise in 2011 (The Christian Democratic Party was in power from 2002 to 2010, so they couldn't do it earlier). But by then gay marriage had become so utterly normal that no one really cared about it anymore.

I don't know how things work in the US. Would such a compromise work? If a country clerk refuses to issue you a license, can you just go to another clerk, or is that not possible? It's not exactly fair, but it might help as a compromise.

* Marriage in The Netherlands works a bit differently than in the states. The legal marriage is actually performed by the state. Originally, marriages were performed by the church, and this is still the case. So for religious folk a marriage typically has two parts. First they marry for the church (which they consider to be the real marriage) and then they sneak off to the city hall to quickly sign the actual marriage papers. Some non-religious people copy this pattern, with a ceremony of their choosing instead of the church ceremony. Others promote the legal marriage to a full ceremony.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Derek
Posts: 2176
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

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

Postby Derek » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:13 am UTC

Diadem wrote:I don't know how things work in the US. Would such a compromise work? If a country clerk refuses to issue you a license, can you just go to another clerk, or is that not possible? It's not exactly fair, but it might help as a compromise.

As long as there are sufficient clerks willing to issue a same-sex marriage license, it could work. However, there are areas in the US where there may not be enough availability. There are counties that are very sparsely populated, and very conservative. It's better imo to tell clerks that they just have to do their job.

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 » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:23 am UTC

Yeah – from what I can tell, states vary in whether marriage licenses are issued by municipal clerks or county clerks (more commonly the latter). So in low-density, conservative areas, you might need to drive a fair distance to find a willing clerk.
Exit the vampires' castle.

iamspen
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

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

Postby iamspen » Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:48 am UTC

Derek wrote:As long as there are sufficient clerks willing to issue a same-sex marriage license, it could work. However, there are areas in the US where there may not be enough availability. There are counties that are very sparsely populated, and very conservative. It's better imo to tell clerks that they just have to do their job.


No, that wouldn't be acceptable in any situation. This is really a no-brainer. The state is constitutionally barred from promoting religion; agents of the state are therefore barred from doing so, as well. If they're not okay with that, they're welcome to end their employment with the state.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

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

Postby ahammel » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:17 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:
Derek wrote:As long as there are sufficient clerks willing to issue a same-sex marriage license, it could work. However, there are areas in the US where there may not be enough availability. There are counties that are very sparsely populated, and very conservative. It's better imo to tell clerks that they just have to do their job.


No, that wouldn't be acceptable in any situation. This is really a no-brainer. The state is constitutionally barred from promoting religion; agents of the state are therefore barred from doing so, as well. If they're not okay with that, they're welcome to end their employment with the state.


The clerks are presumably not allowed to refuse to issue licences for interfaith marriages, even though their religions may forbid it. I don't see what's different about the present case.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1784
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: pew! pew! pew!

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

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:51 pm UTC

Diadem wrote: Marriage in The Netherlands works a bit differently than in the states. The legal marriage is actually performed by the state. Originally, marriages were performed by the church, and this is still the case. So for religious folk a marriage typically has two parts. First they marry for the church (which they consider to be the real marriage) and then they sneak off to the city hall to quickly sign the actual marriage papers. Some non-religious people copy this pattern, with a ceremony of their choosing instead of the church ceremony. Others promote the legal marriage to a full ceremony.



This is what my wife and I did. We had a big formal wedding ceremony in one state, but as our officiant was only licensed in the next state over, we went across the border into NH and were officially/legally married... at a gas station.
"We have met the enemy, and we are they. Them? We is it. Whatever."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:29 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:* Marriage in The Netherlands works a bit differently than in the states. The legal marriage is actually performed by the state. Originally, marriages were performed by the church, and this is still the case. So for religious folk a marriage typically has two parts. First they marry for the church (which they consider to be the real marriage) and then they sneak off to the city hall to quickly sign the actual marriage papers. Some non-religious people copy this pattern, with a ceremony of their choosing instead of the church ceremony. Others promote the legal marriage to a full ceremony.


That sounds pretty similar to America actually.

In fact, the most "complicated" marriage was a Muslim / Christian marriage. We first had the Church ceremony, then we all drove to a different place for the Muslim ceremony (Marriage Contract signed by the parents, etc. etc.). Then they were legally married (quietly) by some judge (I believe the judge signed the documents earlier in the day, before the marriage ceremonies).

I'm surprised they found a Minister who was willing to do a cross-religion ceremony. Maybe they didn't tell him? In any case, I've seen it done but I didn't know the nitty-gritty details on everything about the wedding.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:37 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm surprised they found a Minister who was willing to do a cross-religion ceremony. Maybe they didn't tell him? In any case, I've seen it done but I didn't know the nitty-gritty details on everything about the wedding.


Happens in the US, too. Being an atheist marrying a catholic, this was something of a sticking point for some officiants, but we found a nice fellow who was fairly open minded and not bothered about such things.

elasto
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

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

Postby elasto » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:20 am UTC

The Guardian's come out with a piece that wouldn't go amiss in The Onion...

In the wake of the US supreme court ruling that legalised same-sex marriage throughout America, many commenters and objectors have claimed it will have disastrous consequences. But rather than just dismissing them as irrational bitterness, it’s important to consider the genuine scientific basis for such claims.

Same-sex marriage is now legal throughout the USA. This is a good thing, it’s always nice when people get equal treatment under the law. Sadly, not everyone agrees. Such is the speed of modern news and communication that announcement of the Supreme Court decision was essentially immediately followed by furious objections and doom-laden predictions of the collapse of society for various reasons.

It’s easy to dismiss these objections as angry incoherent bitterness from people who can’t or won’t accept that the rest of the human race doesn’t have to conform to their antiquated views, and many people do just that. But what if they’re not? What if there are genuine scientific reasons to fear same-sex marriage? After all, we in the UK know that same-sex marriage caused extreme flooding when it was legalised here, and now that it’s permitted in a country with the size and influence of the USA the consequences could be even more catastrophic. Here are just some possibilities we should brace ourselves for.

Governor Mike Huckabee pointed out that for the Supreme Court to legalise same-sex marriage is to overturn nature, which is impossible: "The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity."

However, same-sex marriage is now legal, so clearly it is possible for humans to overturn nature. This opens up a wide variety of problems, given how nature is responsible for everything that keeps the planet running. Clearly LGBT people have the power to overrule nature to suit their own needs. While we can hope they restrict this ability to things like increasing the number of rainbows, there’s no guarantee of this. What if some careless homosexual is struggling with a heavy suitcase and decides to lower the mass of the planet to reduce the strength of gravity? We’d all be flung out of the atmosphere without warning.

This wouldn’t be a problem if same-sex marriage were natural, like opposite-sex marriage. Opposite-sex marriage occurs all the time in nature. Numerous species are regularly seen in naturally occurring registry offices signing naturally occurring forms to ensure their marriage is recognised by naturally occurring legal frameworks. Penguins are especially known for this, which is why they look like they’re wearing suits.

As already hinted at, the celebrations of the legalisation of same-sex marriage have resulted in a stark increase in the number of rainbows seen everywhere. The rainbow is the symbol of the LGBT movement, so this makes sense. No harm in rainbows, right?

Wrong! It may seem like harmless celebration to put rainbows in every possible location, but what about the effect this is having on the eyes of those who have to look at them? The retina in the eye relies on photoreceptors, specialised cells that detect light. Because they’re organic and rely on biological processes, these photoreceptors can become exhausted if exposed to a particular stimulus for too long. Constant exposure to rainbows could mean people can’t see colours as well, and this could be disastrous. How will they know when to stop or go at a traffic light? Or which wire to cut when defusing a bomb?

This isn’t even considering the possible damage to children. The young brain’s visual cortex is still developing and this development is based on what the young person sees. Constant exposure to bright primary colours in the same regular pattern could potentially disrupt or warp their visual system leading future generations to have altered colour perception. Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!

Legalising same-sex marriage has one obvious result; more marriages. This means, more weddings. Weddings mean a lot of people gathered in one place, a situation which normally makes a place very warm, seeing as how people give off body heat. People also have to travel to weddings, often over long distances. This requires vehicles, the vast majority of which give off CO2.

This situation is even worse if you include destination weddings, where the happy couple and guests fly to other countries to tie the knot, and flying gives off even more CO2. Increasing the number of weddings will no doubt lead to more of this, and thus increasing the threat and potential damage of climate change.

Overall, opponents of same-sex marriage could make an effective and logical case against marriage simply by highlighting the dangers of climate change. None of them seem to be doing this though. Weird.

One of the main arguments against same-sex marriage is that marriage is for procreation, and a couple of the same sex can’t reproduce. However, given that legalising same-sex marriage overturns the laws of nature, this means the laws of nature preventing same sex couples from reproducing are now null and void, so maybe same sex couples can reproduce.

Another argument is the slippery slope argument, which says that legalising same sex marriage will inevitably lead to people entering polygamous marriages, entering into incestuous marriages, or even marrying animals like dogs and cats.

What if this happens? What if people enter into legal marriages with animals? With the laws of nature now obsolete, this would mean such marriages can include procreation. And where will this end up? A race of half-human half-animal hybrids, that’s where! We’ll turn Earth into a veritable planet of Doctor Moreau, bringing human civilisation to an end.

Admittedly, most of the things discussed here aren’t exactly “likely”, more “the fevered ramblings of an unhinged mind” at best.


link

User avatar
phillip1882
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:11 pm UTC
Location: geogia
Contact:

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

Postby phillip1882 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:50 pm UTC

i am kinda both for and a gainst same sex marraige. i think it should be legal, but i think is morrally wrong, and churches should not be forced to marry same sex couples.
bitcoin address: 13vssfEZzNPDazBJG8tweuLYRxCb2Ap43H

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:29 pm UTC

phillip1882 wrote:i am kinda both for and a gainst same sex marraige. i think it should be legal, but i think is morrally wrong, and churches should not be forced to marry same sex couples.

You'll be relieved to know that no one, ever, suggested that the church should be forced to marry them.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Mutex
Posts: 1311
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

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

Postby Mutex » Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:40 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
phillip1882 wrote:i am kinda both for and a gainst same sex marraige. i think it should be legal, but i think is morrally wrong, and churches should not be forced to marry same sex couples.

You'll be relieved to know that no one, ever, suggested that the church should be forced to marry them.

I've seen that one get spouted out so many times now. I can only assume the suggestion was only put out there by people who don't want other people doing things they don't approve of, and so spread this straw man.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests