Scott Lloyd Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 The ACLU is not stupid enough to even consider a stunt like that. It would be an embarrassment and a PR nightmare.From what I've observed, the ACLU has never been overly concerned about its public image -- at least among the more conservative segment of the populace.
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 The idea the government forces employers to provide any type of insurance for their employees is insane in and of itself, let alone insurance that provides for birth control, etc. The protection of religious rights is only as good as the government enforcing the laws. We've seen rights of individuals and organizations trampled on for years in the pursuit of so-called "civil rights". There is no reason to believe that gay marriage won't provide the government with another excuse to trample on the rights of religious people.I personally think that health insurance itself is an insane monopoly and we need to either go back to capitalism in the medical field and have doctors compete in pricing or we need to set up socialized medicine. I do not care much which way we go but we need to choose. The current system is a protection racket run by the insurance companies that costs too much to employers and employees but they are basically the medical equivalent of unions and only they can get good deals with doctors.
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 How would you bring that case to court? By law you CANNOT force a religious leader to perform a marriage. When was the last time an LDS Bishop or Catholic Priest was hauled into a US courtroom on discrimination charges for refusing to marry a Protestant or atheist couple? Now suddenly when a gay couple does it it is going to find its way through appellate courts to the Supreme Court? Not a chance. There is no law or judicial precedent to even begin such a proceeding.The ACLU is not stupid enough to even consider a stunt like that. It would be an embarrassment and a PR nightmare.20 years ago it would would have been crazy to think that gay marriage would be accepted anywhere as valid in the United States. Changes can happen quickly if you're not vigilant.
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 From what I've observed, the ACLU has never been overly concerned about its public image -- at least among the more conservative segment of the populace.I actually respect them in many ways. They have protected the civil rights of conservatives. I find some of their stances distasteful (pornography for example) but they are consistent.I would point out that there has never been a right to be married by a member of the clergy so it would not be a civil liberty.
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I personally think that health insurance itself is an insane monopoly and we need to either go back to capitalism in the medical field and have doctors compete in pricing or we need to set up socialized medicine. I do not care much which way we go but we need to choose. The current system is a protection racket run by the insurance companies that costs too much to employers and employees but they are basically the medical equivalent of unions and only they can get good deals with doctors.I think we at least need to get away from an employer based system. It might all be cheaper if people looked at health insurance like they do auto insurance with health insurance companies competing in a free market place. I do think a single payer system would be better than Obamacare even if I wouldn't like it -- Obamacare leads to a single payer system in the end because all of the regulations will force the insurance companies out of the market.
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I actually respect them in many ways. They have protected the civil rights of conservatives. I find some of their stances distasteful (pornography for example) but they are consistent.I would point out that there has never been a right to be married by a member of the clergy so it would not be a civil liberty.I don't respect them at all. They are ambulance chasers when it comes to civil rights. Rights can be redefined quickly.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I actually respect them in many ways. They have protected the civil rights of conservatives. I find some of their stances distasteful (pornography for example) but they are consistent.Be that as it may, "How will this look from a PR standpoint?" seems to have never been a high priority in their considerations. This is part of the consistency you speak of.
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 20 years ago it would would have been crazy to think that gay marriage would be accepted anywhere as valid in the United States. Changes can happen quickly if you're not vigilant.They can and if I see a law proposed forcing religious clergy to perform marriages on demand from anyone who asks I will fight it tooth and nail. I just do not imagine it will and this is definitely not it nor is it necessarily a step in that direction.Such a law would be a blatant violation of the 1st amendment unequaled in history. Sadly that statement means almost nothing to some conservatives who believe talk radio hosts who blather on about how everything the democrats have done in the last two decades was a violation of the constitution (protip: they are wrong).
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Be that as it may, "How will this look from a PR standpoint?" seems to have never been a high priority in their considerations. This is part of the consistency you speak of.Perhaps true but I have never known them to make up civil liberties to defend which is what this would be. I personally wish they would spend more time ripping apart the rather Orwellian-named Patriot Act and focus less on porn.
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 The University of Notre Dame will be required to provide such things as will BYU under the current regulation beginning in August 2013. The Archdiocese of Indianapolis and the LDS Church will be required to provide such coverage as well. The only organizations exempted will be those whose mission is completely religious -- if they have a school or a soup kitchen that serves people who aren't of their religion they will be required to provide the insurance. It is not a stretch to believe that a church officer with the legal right to perform marriages will be required to marry same sex couples in the event such marriages are legally recognized.It is a stretch because as everything stands there is no legal way to exercise compulsion for a church leader to perform a marriage. All the legalization of same-sex marriage will do is allow church leaders to perform that marriage if they so choose. In the same way they can choose to perform marriages for people not of their faith. It is an option, not a requirement.If the government were to force church personnel to perform marriages for anyone who wants one they would be government officials entitled to government pay. I am LDS and even with that my bishop is under no legal obligation to marry me to someone or to approve me getting sealed to someone. If he refuses I cannot sue him or take him to court to force the issue or compel him to marry me to someone. Legalizing same sex marriage will NOT give them the right to demand a marriage from anyone outside a government official. Again, this whole thing is not going to happen. It does not happen with heterosexuals. It is not going to happen with homosexuals.
DavidB Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Be that as it may, "How will this look from a PR standpoint?" seems to have never been a high priority in their considerations. This is part of the consistency you speak of.Do you think Christ was worried about PR among "conservatives" when he sat at meat with publicans and sinners.
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Do you think Christ was worried about PR among "conservatives" when he sat at meat with publicans and sinners.Are we seriously going to compare the ACLU with the Messiah?
DavidB Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Are we seriously going to compare the ACLU with the Messiah?To an extent yes.
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 To an extent yes.Well in that case:"The ACLU is not the messiah. It is a very naughty boy."
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 In some countries it is now considered hate speech to call homosexual acts sin. There are jurors in the US, some sitting on the Supreme Court, who are willing to use international law as a way of interpreting the US constitution. To say it can't happen here is naive.
DavidB Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Well in that case:"The ACLU is not the messiah. It is a very naughty boy."In the spirit of Elder Oaks, it is not a perfect analogy/comparison but it woAlso I am on android at the moment, will attempt to clarify the comparison later. Edited December 10, 2012 by DavidB
Bob Crockett Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) I don't respect them at all. They are ambulance chasers when it comes to civil rights. Rights can be redefined quickly.I work for the ACLU as its lawyer, and I am politically conservative. It does not ambulance chase for civil rights. I'm curious what you think its role might be in the Prop 8 debate. In reality, for good or bad, gays did lose their civil rights with the passage of Prop 8. When the California Supreme Court granted gays the right to be married, it elevated marriage to a civil right. See my published piece on this point.The ACLU is a strong advocate for free speech and religious freedoms. I for one do not want my children being forced to pray in school or even have a minute of silence to pray to God of their choice. Government has no role in that. If I wanted that, I'd send them to a private school. Edited December 10, 2012 by Bob Crockett 1
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I work for the ACLU as its lawyer, and I am politically conservative. It does not ambulance chase for civil rights. I'm curious what you think its role might be in the Prop 8 debate. In reality, for good or bad, gays did lose their civil rights with the passage of Prop 8. When the California Supreme Court granted gays the right to be married, it elevated marriage to a civil right. See my published piece on this point.The ACLU is a strong advocate for free speech and religious freedoms. I for one do not want my children being forced to pray in school or even have a minute of silence to pray to God of their choice. Government has no role in that. If I wanted that, I'd send them to a private school.When religious rights and gay rights collide, can we be sure that religious rights will win? I don't think so.
cdowis Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 To have a living sealing, one must have a temple recommend specific for that purpose (e.g. to avoid polygamy. A SS couple would not not be issued such a recommend and there is no practical way to have legal control over who does and does not get a recommend. Even with a gun, they cannot force the church to issue such a recommend. Now if civil marriages were forbidden in the temple, it is merely a matter of having the civil marriage and immediately have the sealing session, as they do in England.This is paranoia and not going to happen.I prefer the 50 year rule -- anything can happen in 50 years. It would have been inconceivable that SS marriage would be discussed fifty years ago.No religious clergy can be forced to perform a heterosexual marriage and no charges of discrimination can be made.OK, and the guys with the guns can simply take away the right of LDS ministers to perform any marriages. In order to perform a legal marriage, you must provide that marriage to anyone who requests it, as long as they have a license from the state. Again, the 50 year rule.No one can force a Catholic priest or an LDS Bishop to perform a marriage. No one can force the church to perform a sealing on anyone.Sealings are not recognized by the government, so the Mormons are free to seal anyone they wish. But if you want to perform a marriage, you must follow the rules.Religious leaders cannot be forced to perform marriages. Drive through wedding vendors in Vegas do not have to marry anyone they do not want to. The only person who would have to perform such a marriage would be a government official as part of their job.
Bob Crockett Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Nothing is sure. A gay's right to marry another gay in California is a civil right. (Maybe not in other states, but it is in California.) The right to speech is a civil right. Which is the more powerful right? Who is to say?
cdowis Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Such a law would be a blatant violation of the 1st amendment unequaled in history.How would removing the authority to perform marriages a violation of the First Amendment. You do not follow the published rules for performing marriages, and you lose your license. Your rights are intact.
Bob Crockett Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Let us imagine the Supreme Court does legalize gay marriage. At that point churches should stop cooperating with the state when it comes to marriage. The best bet would be for the state to have civil marriages required for everyone. The church should just celebrate their sacraments based on their own rules. Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. who do not support gay marriage would just have non-legally binding ceremonies which the churches recognize in their own communions.That's wise advice, but for now the only reason a Catholic priest has the lawful means to marry somebody is because the state licenses him to do so. If the Catholics decide that they will no longer marry people pursuant to the laws of the state, then you have an entire group of communicants denied the rights the law provides married couples. And, rest assured from this libertarian, government is not going to relinquish power over marriage.It is somewhat like suggesting to a church that it no longer claim tax exemptions for its building and revenues. Theoretically possible to do so; would never occur. Edited December 10, 2012 by Bob Crockett
The Nehor Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 How would removing the authority to perform marriages a violation of the First Amendment. You do not follow the published rules for performing marriages, and you lose your license. Your rights are intact.You misunderstood. I said compelling a religious minister to perform a marriage would violate the 1st Amendment.
The Nehor Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 When religious rights and gay rights collide, can we be sure that religious rights will win? I don't think so.Nothing coming from the same sex marriage legal battles has removed a religious right. 1
Bart Burk Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 That's wise advice, but for now the only reason a Catholic priest has the lawful means to marry somebody is because the state licenses him to do so. If the Catholics decide that they will no longer marry people pursuant to the laws of the state, then you have an entire group of communicants denied the rights the law provides married couples. And, rest assured from this libertarian, government is not going to relinquish power over marriage.It is somewhat like suggesting to a church that it no longer claim tax exemptions for its building and revenues. Theoretically possible to do so; would never occur.That's why everyone will first be married legally by the state. Then a church can privately marry according to its own rules in a separate ceremony which the state would not recognize as binding.
Recommended Posts