A new thought (at least to me) on the gay marriage issue

[Roosesvelte]

I'm not sure if this has been tried or suggested. Any insight would be welcome. Several religions recognize the sanctity and validity of gay marriage. Has anyone tried going to court on constitutional grounds? It seems that failing to recognize gay marriage, is in effect, giving certain religions preferential treatment. Thoughts? Beat downs? Past threads? Links?

[Ukonkivi]

1. Whole religions?

Which ones, Wicca? Buddhism?
Or are you counting denominations as religions too, like Unitarian Universalism?

[Roosesvelte]

9. I include denominations

Certain Christian denominations recognize the validity of gay marriages.

[Betty Karlson]

2. First of all, please note that I'm a supporter of marriage equality.

That being said, you don't have a case.

The problem here is that legally, the defenders of the status quo (no gay marriage) have the perceived "tradition" on their side. The law has never included gay people in its 200-odd years of existence, so if GLBT people want to get married, the law has to be changed.

It should be noted that lawes get changed (by courts of by legislators) when the tolerance toward gay people reaches a tipping point in their state (roughly 50%). It would be much more worthwhile to try and increase that number. One word of advice: railing against religion(s) will be too confrontational to convince well-meaning Christians to let go of their prejudices against you. Railing against religion(s) in court may even have the reverse effect.

I know, it's not fair.

[Ukonkivi]

3. Atheists, biggest minority in America?

railing against religion(s) will be too confrontational
Ah yes, that is true. You have to convince Christians that LGBTQs can be good.
Rallying against religion will only be preaching to the minority Atheistic choir.
Baby steps. The U.S. isn't anywhere near forward enough to embrace even skepticism.

Being an Atheist or anti-religious about it, will only help to solidify their stance of homosexuality as "wrong by religion".
It's beneficial for the anti-religious to use this stance against religion, but not beneficial for the gay rights to use a stance against religion.

That being said, supporting gay rights by minority religion might just work. A little bit.
It really helps to drive in a wedge the argument, "but can non-Christians at all get married then, if marriage is a religious, Christian thing?". It puts the religious tolerance of the country on the line. But at this point I would say tactfully so and without sacrifice.

I don't think that people are going to back up to the point of religious intolerance, denying minority religions the right to marry, if gay rights latches on.
Even many of the very bigoted Christians believe and say very strongly about the country is a freedom of religion. So it makes for a very good wedge.

It, by nature, throws into the pot of debate something many Conservative Christians want to ignore. And that's separation of church and state, and why marriage is a religious thing. Highlighting religious acceptance of gay and lesbians, is effectively a good wretch to throw into their gears.

[Betty Karlson]

4. Some of these points are well worth thinking about,

But they are not the debate the OP tried to entamate.

[Ineeda]

5. I agree that Constitutionality will be the successful challenge.

But not on religious grounds, probably. Churches can (and should) make their own rules. But those rules should apply only within that specific church and absolutely not to civil law. Churches should be able to marry or deny marriage to anyone they want within their church. The Constitutional challenge, I think, will be that one specific segment of the community is being denied rights that are granted to all others. IMO, same sex couples should not be singled out to be granted those same rights, but have been singled out to be denied them. I also agree that any church that is actively involved in any political issue outside of their pulpits, should not be tax exempt. They can preach all they want to their congregations, but must leave it there.

[Ukonkivi]

6. Church rights versus Gay rights false dichotomy

>>Churches should be able to marry or deny marriage to anyone they want within their church.
Yes indeedy. What's unfortunate is that Christians often conflate the two, the right not to marry who they don't want to, and gays having the legal ability to do so. And surely they are intelligent enough to realize they are doing this and are doing it anyway.

Though it certainly doesn't seem that the OP is arguing for this. Merely that laws in place about marriage give Christianity denominations that reject homosexuality preference over religions and denominations that do not. That is something that should be mentioned with the claim that religious suppression of gay rights violates separation of church and state.

[Ineeda]

8. Yes, they conflate the two. but I disagree about the premise of your point.

I am not at all religious and I totally support the rights of marriage for all consenting adults. However I think you have it backwards. Forcing churches into accepting secular standards would violate the separation of church and state. Churches have the right to set their own standards/rules. People can obey the rules of a particular church, or not. Same sex couples, if they want a religious blessing of their marriage, have the right to seek out a church that will provide that. You are right in the fact that anti-gay (or anti-abortion) religions/denominations should not impose their 'morality' onto those who don't subscribe to their doctrines. And those doctrines should certainly not be the basis for the law of the land. The law should be equality. Period.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. All of this is your imaginings

Right now, any Church that wants to can do full tilt same sex weddings. There has never and will never be a thing to stop them, just as there will never be a thing to make any Church practice any ritual they do not wish to. This whole pile of bull about churches being forced to do anything is just a giant lack of understanding on your part. Dig it, Catholic Church says 'no divorce' but they can not stop Catholics from getting a civil divorce. They can refuse them remarriage, they can refuse them communion. But another church can remarry them, feed them host, whatever. So no one forces the RCC to remarry those who are legally divorced, as the Church does not recognize that divorce. It is still a divorce in the world.
To be clear, no one has ever suggested forcing chruches to do anything at all, because that is utterly beside the point, and also fully illegal under the Constitution. No one could force them, no one would, no one needs to, and no one has the power to.
It is the government that discriminates, as I could have a church wedding tomorrow if I wanted to, with mainstream clergy and full choir if I wished. Well, maybe in a week if we want the choir. But no matter how many ministers over see our vows, the State will not recognize that marriage. Plenty of Churches will and those that don't are of no importance. They can and should do exactly as they wish in regard to their hearts and faiths.
But they should get the fuck out of secular law.

[Ineeda]

15. Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was afirming that exact perspective.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

17. The Whole Thing About Churches Being Forced To Perform Same-Sex Weddings...

is, IMO, nothing but a big, fat, stinky red herring. Even IF a same-sex couple were to sue because the religion of their choice refused to marry them I can't see why any self-respecting SS couple would bother--just find another religion), the case would get laughed out of court...assuming that some lawyer would be stupid enough to take it and that it actually got into court. The religious reich homophobes are counting on people in this country being too stupid to realise that the right to refuse to perform ceremonies, give people communion, excommunicate them, etc. is absolutely protected by the constitution.

The OP's idea is interesting, but unless there are whole denominations that can prove that their right to perfrom legal SSMs is being violated, I don't see any chance of it getting anywhere. I think the best argument is that to refuse legal CIVIL marriage to same-sex couples because of religious beliefs is a violation of Church and State, hence unconstitutional is the best way to go. No one is saying that these churches can't set their own policies--they just don't get to make it the law of the land according the the Constitution.

BTW, has anyone noted that even when the religious exemption is made clear, SSM gets voted down in states where people can vote on something such as that? The religious reich isn't interested in religious liberty? They don't want us to have the right to marry, period. Mean-spirited bastards.

[Ukonkivi]

13. Wait...what?

>>Forcing churches into accepting secular standards would violate the separation of church and state.
Yeah...okay? Are you responding to me? When did I say thing to the contrary?
In fact, I'm pretty sure I went pretty well out of my way to clarify what I meant was exactly what you're saying.
>>Churches have the right to set their own standards/rules.
Yes, of course. You do realize that's exactly what I've been saying, right?

What is it I said that you disagree with? Because perhaps, even though I made great pains to show what I was saying an alleviate misunderstanding, you somehow misunderstood my posts.

[Ineeda]

16. I guess I didn't express myself clearly. I agree.

[Unvanguard]

7. I don't think it's a good constitutional argument, because marriage is not a religious institution.

To restrict its access to some couples in no sense impairs the capacity of each religion to recognize the relationships it wants; it simply determines which relationships get government recognition and benefits.

There are better constitutional arguments: it's an equal protection violation and, at least according to the logical implication of Supreme Court case law, a Due Process Clause violation as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Many ministers feel they are discriminated against

because they are not allowed to practice their faith as they believe it. They can not equally marry those who they would marry. They can of course do the ceremony, and they do, but they feel discriminated against when the State does not honor that as they do other religious marriages. I see it as a violation of equal protection clauses, but many clerics I have met feel it is a First Amendment violation as well.
To put it clearly, the minister's religious rights are violated, my civil rights are violated.

[Unvanguard]

12. It's not ministers who marry people, it's the government.

Sometimes ministers act as proxies, but this is a matter of administrative convenience, not a religious right.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. And yet the govenment discriminates in marriage

the minister does not. And much of the confusion so many have about this comes from such statements as Obama's insistence that God is 'in the mix' about equality issues. Why does he say this if it is all about the government, and how can it be all about the govenment while the government invokes religion as the reasons for their discriminatory law?
Your statement is of course correct. But Obama's God talk does not fit into those facts. And if you read this thread, you will see the confusion others have because of those in government who cloud this issue with religious talk. Many think that churches are currently forbidden from performing same sex ceremonies, which they are not, and many thing equality would force them to do ceremonies they do not wish to perform, which it will not.
I would love it if more straight people explained to their community exactly what you are saying here. The government, not the Churches is the problem. That is where the change must come. It should be obvious to everyone that a church or a cleric is not needed to make a marriage, as one can marry at city hall. But it is not obvious to them at all.

[Roosesvelte]

18. Wow, what timing

Suddenly a DOMA suit, but not including the grounds in my OP. Curious to see how it pans out.