The fact that you need an adjective for "identical" highlights the problem.

If you could just say "identical," there would be nothing to talk about.

Ref http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,841362,841362#msg-841362

There was no hidden meaning in any of this. I was hoping to start a thoughtful dialog about the working-out of the legalization of same-sex marriage. I was looking to hear input on this without having to wade through the ever-present cries of hatred, bigotry and homophobia.

It didn't quite work out that way. I doubt this forum is well suited to a thoughtful examination of the topic.

Not buying it.

The simple fact is, the type of marriage we are talking about is a CIVIL marriage, which is NOT a religious practice and is not a protected religious freedom. Thoughtful people would understand that this means that changing the definition of CIVIL marriage in no way infringes on any religious right.

As far as your claim that a business refuse service to a gay married couple, well that was addressed here:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,846220,846220#msg-846220

in particular notice this post:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,846220,846233#msg-846233

Which points out that, under current federal law, a public accommodation business can not refuse business for arbitrary reasons like they just don't like who you are.

Your posts have been met with thoughtful responses, but that is, evidently, not what you really wanted.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 11:59PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-----------
> Your posts have been met with thoughtful
> responses, but that is, evidently, not what you
> really wanted.


Actually, I painted with too broad a brush. A couple of your posts were exactly what I was looking for.

I'm not exactly clear on the working out of your position. Are you okay with churches being allowed to forbid use of their facilities, etc. ?

If they want to perform Civil marriages, they should conform to the rules laid out for Civil marriages. If they choose not to conform to the rules, they are free to not perform civil marriages. But civil marriages are not part of protected religious practices.

If the buildings are used for religious purposes only, they are free to use them in accordance with their religion. If they use the buildings in a way that qualifies them as a public accommodation business, they are governed by the laws that govern public accommodations. Public accommodation is not a religious practice almost by definition.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 12:10AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they want to perform Civil marriages, they
> should conform to the rules laid out for Civil
> marriages. If they choose not to conform to the
> rules, they are free to not perform civil
> marriages.

Am I reading you correctly, that, for example, if a Catholic church chooses not to perform same-sex marriages, they should not be allowed to conduct any civil marriages?

They would be choosing not to perform civil marriages because they do not agree to the terms that govern civil marriages. The choice is theirs, not the governments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 12:15AM by MJ.

So, I take it you disagree with the allowed discrimination that is written into the New York law?

Statutory rape laws are discrimination. I Don't have problems with those discriminatory laws, you? There are laws that discriminate against people that have been convicted of felonies, or are non-citizens. The law discriminates in all sorts of ways that I may or may not support.

I oppose the discriminatory practice of granting the privilege of performing civil marriages to ministered based only on their religious status but having no way for an Atheist to get such privilege with out associating them selves with a religious organization. Granting the privilege to perform civil marriages should not be based on religious status.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 12:29AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Statutory rape laws are discrimination. I Don't
> have problems with those discriminatory laws, you?
> There are laws that discriminate against people
> that have been convicted of felonies, or are
> non-citizens. The law discriminates in all sorts
> of ways that I may or may not support.
>
> I oppose the discriminatory practice of granting
> the privilege of performing civil marriages to
> ministered based only on their religious status
> but having no way for an Atheist to get such
> privilege with out associating them selves with a
> religious organization. Granting the privilege to
> perform civil marriages should not be based on
> religious status.

How do you feel about pushing to get government out of the marriage business entirely? This seems it may be a broader solution. I'm not sure of the logistics, but it seems it would open the door for atheist groups to solemnize marriages without any religious affiliation.

Other than a religious test for who could perform civil marriages, there is NO problem other than religion unreasonably wanting to control a CIVIL institution. Stop religion from trying to dictate what a secular CIVIL institution should be and there is no problem.

Get rid of people insisting that religion should have some say in what a civil marriage is and the religious test as to who could perform marriages, and there wouldn't be the problem you seem to think needs a solution.

It is a virtual certainty that there are more CIVIL marriages than religious marriages, so if we eliminate one, let's eliminate the one that affects the LEAST number of people.

Marriage started as a contract, a CIVIL institution, religion only got involved much later. So, let's keep the original civil marriage and scrap the religious marriage that has corrupted the civil institution.

No, I am not really advocating elimination religious marriages, I am just pointing out that you unreasonably seem to assume that it is the civil institution that should be done away with when there are reasonable arguments that it is the religious marriages that should go away.

Oh, and how do you propose dealing with the over 1000 benefits provided by law to married couples? Going to take that away from everyone that want them?

Also, you have read my posts enough to know that my solution is not to scrap the civil institution because there is discrimination in who can perform marriages. Discrimination you seem to be fine with. I have repeatedly said that the fix would be to make a "marriage performer license" that is provided to ANYONE that meets the SECULAR requirements. This would remove the religious test, be more in accordance with separation of church and state and does not destroy the civil institution for the misguided attempt to claim that religion defines marriage,something religion never really did.

Without civil marriages, there is nothing for atheists to solemnize.

To be honest, your suggestion is so riddled with flaws, I am starting to wonder if you are really interested in thoughtful discussion and only interested in persevering the misguided belief that religious marriages are what define marriage.

I'm beginning to think Brother Of Jerry may be right. Your suggestion of eliminating Civil marriage to solve the religion/gay marriage issue clearly was not thought out in any way.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 11:56AM by MJ.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:

> How do you feel about pushing to get government
> out of the marriage business entirely? This seems
> it may be a broader solution. I'm not sure of the
> logistics, but it seems it would open the door for
> atheist groups to solemnize marriages without any
> religious affiliation.


Actually, the broader solution is to do what's done in the majority of Europe nowadays and stop allowing *churches* to legally marry people. Abroad, in the majority of countries, you can have 250 church weddings if you feel like it, but not one of them counts legally. For that, you must have the registry wedding.

That seems like the best solution to me, because it takes all of the religious "objections" to equality under the law right out of the picture.

I think the better solution would be to have a secular "marriage performer license" that anyone that met the secular requirements could get. I think it discrimination to deny an ordained minister the ability to perform marriages just because they are ministers. I have no problem with ordained ministers marrying people. I have a problem with there being a relgious test to determine who can or can not perform civil marriages.

I also like the idea of being able to have a person important in your life perform the act of solemnizing the marriage. I know a lot of people that would want a friend or relative to perform the act rather than a stranger.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 11:45AM by MJ.

There is no religious test for who can or cannot perform marriages, though. And if there is a special friend whom you would like to have officiate, you can arrange it through your local justice of the peace office, where you also buy your marriage license. In Marin County, CA, they call it "knighting" (just to name one example). It designates a given person as a JoP for the day of your wedding.

http://www.sccoclerk.com/civilmarriage.htm

Using the above example, we see that the over all test for who can perform marriages is:

Test A) Certain government officials

Test B) Certain religious people.

Indisputably, the law tests the religious status of a person to determine if they are allowed to perform the legal solemnization



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 12:56PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sccoclerk.com/civilmarriage.htm
>
> Using the above example, we see that the over all
> test for who can perform marriages is:
>
> Test A) Certain government officials
>
> Test B) Certain religious people.
>
> Indisputably, the law tests the religious status
> of a person to determine if they are allowed to
> perform the legal solemnization


And those "certain religious people" are given the courtesy by the *state.* Just like I previously cited. Anyone who is ordained is, basically, "certain religious people."

I don't even understand what you are saying. If you are thinking you are invalidating my claims about a test, you are very mistaken.

To determine if the person meats the STATE's REQUIREMENTS to perform marriages, they have qualifications, or tests that must be met.

One test is to ask the religious affiliation of the person performing the service.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:

> Am I reading you correctly, that, for example, if
> a Catholic church chooses not to perform same-sex
> marriages, they should not be allowed to conduct
> any civil marriages?

Good lord. The Catholic church in your example is only allowed to perform *any* legally binding marriage as a courtesy granted by the state. No piece of paper from the state, no marriage.

Again, though, churches can, do and always will pick and choose whom they marry *in their sanctuaries.* A church wedding is NOT a civil wedding.

Civil marriages between previously divorced persons are permitted by laws in all 50 states. The divorces of such persons must be final, of course.

The Catholic Church will marry divorced persons under two circumstances:

1. The marriage was annulled

or

2. The ex-spouse has died.

Normal divorced, non-annulled persons with living ex-spouses cannot be married in a Catholic ceremony. The Catholic Church is not forced to marry anyone if it conflicts with their beliefs. The marriage of divorced persons therefore proves that legalizing civil marriage for certain classes of persons does not threaten traditional marriage, since no religion is forced to offer a religious wedding ceremony to those who fail to follow their rules. No Catholic wedding masses or LDS temple marriages would have to be offered to civilly married same sex couple, any more than the Catholic Church has to marry divorced persons.

They (Catholic Church) don't perform civil marriages. They have legal authority to perform a RELIGIOUS wedding ceremony after a county license has been issued, but they offer this only to persons who meet their religious requirements (at least one member of couple must be Catholic, cannot be divorced w/o annulment or dead ex-spouse). They are not compelled to offer a ceremony to persons who don't meet their requirements, such as a same-sex couple or those who are divorced.

http://www.sccoclerk.com/civilmarriage.htm

The act of solemnizing the union is the act of performing the marriage, and yes, the catholic church does that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 11:52AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sccoclerk.com/civilmarriage.htm
>
> The act of solemnizing the union is the act of
> performing the marriage, and yes, the catholic
> church does that.

Which they can only do by citing the *courtesy authority* granted to them by the state.

That is my problem, the state codifies a religious test as part of who is granted the ability to perform civil marriages.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 12:51PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is my problem, the state codifies a religious
> test as part of who is granted the ability to
> perform civil marriages.


::headdesk::

A "religious test," under the law, means that someone must be of a certain faith in order to do a certain thing. THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS TEST in this case.

so a religious test could be "are they part of a religion"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 01:31PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
>
> If the buildings are used for religious purposes
> only, they are free to use them in accordance with
> their religion.

This is the one that may have broader ripples. If you allow a group to discriminate based upon their religious beliefs, it does open a door. I'm not sure how we would respond to a church that bars blacks, asians, etc. based upon a religious belief.

I am saying they have the right to freedom of association. I can buy a building and have all the PRIVATE parties I want and invite ONLY who I want. I would not be held to anti-discrimination laws because I would not be running a public accommodation business. Religion is likewise NOT a public accommodation business, thus does not fall under the preview of anti-discrimination laws for the same reason that private parties are not governed by anti-discrimination laws.

If I start to use the building as a public accommodation business, I am no longer having private parties and am subject to anti-discrimination laws.

If a church starts to use it's buildings as a public accommodation business, they no longer are practicing their religion, they are running a business.

The point I am making is in regards to PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION businesses and performing CIVIL marriages is public accommodation by the nature that it is CIVIL, AKA PUBLIC.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 12:41AM by MJ.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Are you okay with churches being
> allowed to forbid use of their facilities, etc. ?

Churches always have been, and always will be, able to determine who marries within their *sanctuaries.* However, like the case in New Jersey in which the church owns a pavilion that they rent out to the public, it becomes a ::wait for it:: public accommodation, and they cannot discriminate.

The crux of the problem is this. Laws and constitutional interpretations are NOT DOCTRINE. (This is why very religious people often hate the court system.) The meaning of a phrase in the bill of rights will change if the courts rule so. Definitions will change. Being gay is a lifestyle choice in one decade but will be as inherent as your skin color in another.

Legal concepts are often simply stated but get very complicated in real life practice. People deserve protection against being discriminated for the things they CANNOT change about themselves. People cannot change what color their skin is, but can restrain themselves from being foul mouthed, naked or smoking in a restaurant.

Then there's the conflicting rights of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. And add in freedom of speech. In accepting employment or licenses you may also agree to modify your own behavior.

Courts have to sort out these overlapping issues and draw lines. And probably redraw them in the future. The ACLU doesn't come in and write and lobby for legislation, they just sue and make the courts draw the lines.

When you offer your services to the public, you don't get to discriminate based on unchangeable inherent qualities of the clientele. If homosexuality is NOT a choice but an immutable fact, you don't get to say no. If it is a choice you can say no.

Judging by our history, the laws as written by State Legislatures generally don't work, and it takes the court system 20 years to draw the lines in a manner that makes sense.

Then a fundamental definition changes and we start all over again. Ever trying to perfect the lines between YOUR rights and MY rights.

Obviously life is a whole lot easier if you don't take so much offense by what other people decide to do.

Ben and Beth are Conservative Jews who run a kosher restaurant and catering business. In a given week they turn down jobs to cater a bachelor party with strippers, a romantic getaway for a married man and his mistress, and they refuse to serve the foul-mouthed members of an “outlaw” motorcycle gang that show up at their restaurant.

This is beyond hypothetical, it's batshite crazy. Do you really think this "clientele" (let alone a gay couple)is banging down the doors demanding kreplach? The few times I've been in a kosher restaurant the customers pretty much consisted of one or two hipsters, and about a dozen Jews over sixty complaining that you can't get good knish in New York any more.

Give us an example less mind-boggling.

i laughed so hard at your post i almost choked!!

Hervey Willets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben and Beth are Conservative Jews who run a
> kosher restaurant and catering business. In a
> given week they turn down jobs to cater a bachelor
> party with strippers, a romantic getaway for a
> married man and his mistress, and they refuse to
> serve the foul-mouthed members of an “outlaw”
> motorcycle gang that show up at their restaurant.
>
> This is beyond hypothetical, it's batshite crazy.
> Do you really think this "clientele" (let alone a
> gay couple)is banging down the doors demanding
> kreplach? The few times I've been in a kosher
> restaurant the customers pretty much consisted of
> one or two hipsters, and about a dozen Jews over
> sixty complaining that you can't get good knish in
> New York any more.
>
> Give us an example less mind-boggling.

Once we create a new protected group, bring on the lawyers. No example will prove too outlandish.

Lawyers currently troll business across the country looking for minor ADA infractions and then threaten suit.

http://www.browardbar.org/articles/93.html

The "Christian Business Directory" will likely prove a goldmine for these lawyers.

Lawsuits have already begun:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/christian_photographers_sued_f.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/gay-couple-sues-illinois_n_827115.html

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/new-hampshire-house-squashes-bill-allowing-vendors-to-refuse-serving-gay-weddings/2012/03/15/?print

A point I addressed here:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,846220,846233#msg-846233

For people that are not part of a protected class, the business can not reject business for arbitrary reasons.

The Catholic Church won't perform marriages for divorced people. It is illegal to discriminate against people based on their marital status. Cite me one single legal case where the Catholic Church lost and was forced to marry a couple where one of the partners was divorced.

The LDS Church exercises absolute veto power over who can have a temple marriage, and who can attend. This is not a power they have, but in practice rarely use. They use it for every single person in every single wedding in a Mormon temple. Cite anny legal suit they have lost, where they were forced to perform a temple wedding, or even forced to allow someone to attend.

There is no precedent that I am aware of that would lead one to believe that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages. None.

During the Prop 8 debate in California, the case of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?_r=0

was brought up as an example of government coercion of a church, but it was very convoluted. The associate owned a satellite pavilion facility on a beach boardwalk. It was not used for regular religious services, but some weddings had been performed by Methodist ministers for members of the church. Two lesbian couples sought to rent the pavilion for a ceremony and reception, for which they would provide their own officiant. Because the church refused to rent to the two couples, the church eventually lost its tax exemption for the pavilion property. However, no Methodist minister was ever compelled to perform a wedding ceremony for either couple. What got the church in hot water is that the pavilion was regularly rented out to the public, without any restrictions as to religion (a non Christian couple could have their own customs and officiant), and that the rental fees constituted a public accommodation, and the lesbian couples appear to have been denied rental use solely on the basis of gender. Had the church rented only to its own members, they would not have had the legal problems that ensued. But they were never forced to conduct a marriage ceremony against their beliefs...they simply lost a tax exempt status for one of their properties.

The other issue that muddied the water is that the church participates in the state's Green Acres Program, which provides public money to maintain private property (the beach and the pavilion, in this instance). So while the beach and pavilion were private property, they were maintained by public funds.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 12:06PM by PtLoma.

The church was running the building as a "public accommodation" business, renting the hall for special events. At that point it was a BUSINESS, not a religious protected religious practice.

A clear and simple example of a BUSINESS trying to discriminate against a customer.

As I've mentioned a billion or so times before, the religious aspect of marriage has no legal standing. The parties involved still have to get a license and sign the paperwork which must then be filed with the state. All religion provides is pomp and circumstance.

It would do folks well to look-up the word "solemnize." It simply means to celebrate with ceremony. I'm not for regulating that in any way, shape or form.

LGBT types aren't looking for advantage. They simply demand equal treatment under the law which they are entitled to. Religious heterosexual types don't stand to lose anything, but think they're entitled to some form of compensation.

Boggles the mind!

Timothy

http://www.sccoclerk.com/civilmarriage.htm

And religious ministers are granted the authority to perform the legal solemnization simply because they are ministers.

Unfortunately, religion is given special treatment here, in violation of separation of church and state IMHO.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sccoclerk.com/civilmarriage.htm
>
> And religious ministers are granted the authority
> to perform the legal solemnization simply because
> they are ministers.
>
> Unfortunately, religion is given special treatment
> here, in violation of separation of church and
> state IMHO.


I DO concur that granting the courtesy right to ministers to provide legally binding marriage is a violation of the establishment clause. IMO, it was done to keep there from being lines out the door at the JP offices.

I have also said many times (here and elsewhere) that the correct answer is not to take the government out of the marriage business, but to stop granting that courtesy right to churches.

As I have said, it would be discriminatory to reject the ability to perform marriages based on religion. To reject them based on religion would be to perform another form of religious test.

If the state wants to enable non-government people the privilege of doing the marriage, (and that is what they are doing when they extend the privilege to priests) they should grant secular licenses that have no religious tests at all. Anyone that qualifies, religious or not, could get the license.

BoJ said
"There is no precedent that I am aware of that would lead one to believe that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages. None."

I don't believe Tall Man is suggesting that there is law, currently in effect, that mandates religious institutions to perform same sex marriage. I think he predicts that it could become an issue that courts visit in the future - especially when it is worked out at a national level - and after the courts grant same sex marriages all the legal perks of hetero marriages.

Do look up the legal definition of "precedent". What I am fairly sure BoM is saying is that, as far as he knows, there has never been a case where religion has EVER been forced to perform a marriage they did not want to perform and that there is no reason to think that this would change because the issue du jour is "gay marriage".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 01:24PM by MJ.

Churches should have the right to insist that the marriage contract be agreed by the parties to be indisolvable and that the parties agree that there can be no grounds for divorce. The free right to contract should be allowed in our laws and enforced in our courts. If one wishes to call this a "marriage contract" so be it. The solumnization of a contract agreement should not require any public official and, hence, the great ease of finding someone to witness it whether for people who are gay or not. I know of no-one who could not find someone to perform the ceremony desired - but they should NOT have the right to insist on a particular person even a public official, who does not approve of the contract signing.

On a separate related matter: on another thread a poster said that the marriage license was the wedding document and the ceremony of no effect. Note quite here. The marriage is not constituted by the license but by a ceremony afterwards, with witnesses. In many places, the marriage is not valid until being consumated after the ceremony. In the marriage is not consumated it can be annulled rather than requiring a divorce.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 12:14PM by rhgc.

It probably would not be recognized by law as a marriage to receive the benefits associated with marriage, but they are still free to contract what ever relationship they want. If people want the benefits assigned to marriage, they must conform to what the government defines marriage as. If they do not want those benefits, they can contract whatever they want. Nobody is forcing marriage upon them. Nobody is preventing them from doing what you suggest.

Churches are free to assign whatever requirements they want to RELIGIOUS marriages, but not to CIVIL marriages.

Your argument is a tempest in a tea pot.

I don't think you quite understand. We do not allow the courts to enforce such contracts. I am suggesting a change in the laws which I actually introduced as a bill when I served in the legislature. Government has made a mess of marriage by making it too easy to divorce. If someone wants to contract, on the other hand, for divorce as easy as the Muslim: "I divorce you" repeated three or four times being sufficient, it should be permitted so long as the parties agreed to it. Similarly, people getting married should, within certain necessary bounds, be allowed to limit or not limit their rights to divorce, property, etc.