Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...

[Daniel2]

Simply put, as the highest constitutional court in France said in 2011, the "difference in situations of same-sex couples and couples made up of a man and a woman … can justify a difference in treatment concerning family rights.” http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-01-28-france-gay_N.htm

Of course I do know that French law is not American law, but it should be remarkable that France can acknowledge legitimate differences between hetero and same-sex couples, being a country that is explicitly nonreligious in the law.

In my opinion, somewhere in its reasoning, the American judicial process has lost a bit of sanity somewhere.

Thank you for clarifying that your comment wasn't regarding or applicable to the U.S. Constitution, but to France's Constitution.

Of course, since the French court's 2011 ruling you quoted above, France subsequently legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2013 and that ruling became obsolete, so it's difficult to consider the merits of that quote seriously.

The latest polling results that I find for France indicate that 68% of respondents were in favour of same-sex marriage and 53% supported adoption rights for same-sex couples."

Edited June 25, 2015 by Daniel2

[Meadowchik]

Thank you for clarifying that your comment wasn't regarding or applicable to the U.S. Constitution, but to France's Constitution.

Of course, since the French court's 2011 ruling you quoted above, France subsequently legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2013 and that ruling became obsolete, so it's difficult to consider the merits of that quote seriously.

The latest polling results that I find for France indicate that 68% of respondents were in favour of same-sex marriage and 53% supported adoption rights for same-sex couples."

 

On the contrary, another intelligent, legal entity concerned deeply with equality independent from religious dogma can say that there are valid differences between hetero and gay couples. This should give pause to any rational being who claims that the only valid differences can be religious.

 

And the fact that a court refuses to write new law but defer to the normal legislative process is fundamental to the integrity of the judicial and legislative process of any nation.  Crossing these boundaries should be of moral and ethical concern to us, even if you do want the final legal result. 

[Daniel2]

On the contrary, another intelligent, legal entity concerned deeply with equality independent from religious dogma can say that there are valid differences between hetero and gay couples. This should give pause to any rational being who claims that the only valid differences can be religious.

 

Of course there are "differences" between many diverse types of couples which choose to civilly marry (such as "young couples vs. elderly couples," or "mixed-religion couples vs. same-religion couples," or "same-race couples vs. interracial couples," or "poor couples vs. rich couples," or "educated couples vs. uneducated couples," or "convict couples vs. non-convict couples," or "mixed orientation couples vs. same-orientation couples," or "same-sex couples vs. opposite-sex couples," or "adoptive couples vs. biological-parent couples," or "procreative couples vs. infertile couples," or "atheist couples vs. religious couples," etc.).

 

But the question isn't merely are there "rational" (or "non-religious") differences, but of "valid" differences. 

 

The question is: valid enough for what...? 

 

And in this case, the question being asked is, "Are the differences between any of the above couples valid enough to legally discriminate against gay couples by denying them the civil designation of 'marriage'?"

 

In recent years, the answer has been a resounding NO!  None of these differences are legally valid, rational, or constitutionally-compelling enough to warrant prohibiting any such couples from civilly marrying and from receiving the inalienable rights and equal protections that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

And the fact that a court refuses to write new law but defer to the normal legislative process is fundamental to the integrity of the judicial and legislative process of any nation.  Crossing these boundaries should be of moral and ethical concern to us, even if you do want the final legal result. 

 

Are you a US citizen?

 

Are you saying you disagree with judicial review, as established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (as decided before the Supreme Court in 1803) and which is part of our nation's system of checks and balances and the separation of powers?

 

Do you believe that the separation of powers, checks and balances, and judicial review are fundamental to the integrity of the judicial and legislative process of any nation?

 

Or are those only of moral and ethical concern to you if/when you don't want the final legal result? 

Edited June 25, 2015 by Daniel2

[Meadowchik]

Of course there are "differences" between many diverse types of couples which choose to civilly marry (such as "young couples vs. elderly couples," or "mixed-religion couples vs. same-religion couples," or "same-race couples vs. interracial couples," or "poor couples vs. rich couples," or "educated couples vs. uneducated couples," or "convict couples vs. non-convict couples," or "mixed orientation couples vs. same-orientation couples," or "same-sex couples vs. opposite-sex couples," or "adoptive couples vs. biological-parent couples," or "procreative couples vs. infertile couples," or "atheist couples vs. religious couples," etc.) but none of these differences are legally valid, rational, or constitutionally-compelling enough to warrant prohibiting any such couples from civilly marrying and from receiving equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

 

Regarding your second paragraph:

 

Are you a US citizen?

 

Are you saying you disagree with judicial review, as established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (as decided before the Supreme Court in 1803) and which is part of our nation's system of checks and balances and the separation of powers?

 

Do you believe that the separation of powers, checks and balances, and judicial review are fundamental to the integrity of the judicial and legislative process of any nation?

 

Or are those only of moral and ethical concern to you if/when you don't want the final legal result? 

 

Why do you want to know my citizenship status?

 

Anyway, I do believe in judicial review and the balance of powers.  I'm also well aware that judges can be fallible.

 

I think we can agree that heterosexuality is basic to humanity. Why then, apply a heteronormative structure to same-sex relationships, which is what is happening now with ssm?

 

This is what I think will happen:  I predict that, once judicial decree makes same-sex marriage the law, cases will make their way up the courts, challenging the intrinsic traits of marriage.  It will be completely, totally, cut off from notions of paternity, parenthood, and procreation.  Either that, or the courts will backtrack and identify specific ways that gay marriage is not the same as marriage, not eliminating it, but providing for legal exceptions which do not apply to same-sex couples.

 

For the record, I support any kind of same-sex marriage or union which does not rely on the claim that gender is irrelevant in the law.

 

It is obvious to me that a something so fundamental to humanity, sexual gender, will have major moral implications, regardless of religious argument.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

Can you please explain how marriage can be considered constitutionally between a man and a woman without religious arguments?

If we are talking about the federal constitution we cannot use it to show that marriage exists at all.

[california boy]

If we are talking about the federal constitution we cannot use it to show that marriage exists at all.

No but we can use the constitution to show that there is equL protection under the law. And that is what the supreme court will rule on

[The Nehor]

No but we can use the constitution to show that there is equL protection under the law. And that is what the supreme court will rule on

I see it more like the Life with Brian piece with a man demanding the right to carry and bear a child.

[Daniel2]

Why do you want to know my citizenship status?

Only because it helps me put into perspective whether your worldview reflects a US outlook, or a French worldview.

Anyway, I do believe in judicial review and the balance of powers. I'm also well aware that judges can be fallible.

Sounds good. I think we both agree on these two points.

While judges certainly can be fallible, the sheer volume of rulings upholding same-sex couples' right to civil marriage across most of America, from a plurality of judges with diverse political, ethnic, gender, and religious identities, seems to indicate that the consensus probably has been interpreting this appropriately, according to the constitutional principles in question.

I think we can agree that heterosexuality is basic to humanity.

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that heterosexuality "is basic to humanity." I have some ideas, but can you clarify specifically what you mean?

Why then, apply a heteronormative structure to same-sex relationships, which is what is happening now with ssm?

Because I believe the social and legal rights, protections, and responsibilities found in and intrinsically tied to today's civil marriage contract provide and promote the greatest changes for happiness, health, and personal and social stability and responsibility for both straight and gay couples and their families, as well as for society. In short, I believe in marriage.

This is what I think will happen: I predict that, once judicial decree makes same-sex marriage the law, cases will make their way up the courts, challenging the intrinsic traits of marriage. It will be completely, totally, cut off from notions of paternity, parenthood, and procreation.

As it exists today, marriage is already independent of notions of paternity, parenthood, and procreation. None of that is intrinsic to marriage as it stands today, and hasn't been for decades.

Either that, or the courts will backtrack and identify specific ways that gay marriage is not the same as marriage, not eliminating it, but providing for legal exceptions which do not apply to same-sex couples.

I predict that in 5 years, an increasing number of us will no longer be referring to "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage"--just like none of us refer to "interracial marriage," much, outside the context of comparing the struggles of both interracial and same-sex couples to marry. They're ALL simply just "marriage." The constitution is blind to their differences.

For the record, I support any kind of same-sex marriage or union which does not rely on the claim that gender is irrelevant in the law.

How do you believe gender is or should be "relevant in the law"?

In my opinion, it is obvious to me that a something so fundamental to humanity, sexual gender, will have major moral implications, regardless of religious argument.

I agree--I support same-sex couples' right to civilly marry as a moral issue that has major moral implications on the lives of gay and lesbian couples and their children.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Daniel2

[Mormonmaniac]

Is this another gay marriage debate?

[Daniel2]

Sorry, Mormonmaniac. I didn't mean to derail this thread!

Meadowchick, if you'd like to continue this discussion, perhaps we can move further comments to the SCOTUS gay marriage thread...?

Edited June 25, 2015 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

Is this another gay marriage debate?

This problem will never be solved until we get both sides to send in a representative, oil them up, and have them wrestle until one or the other wins. Just saying....

[Meadowchik]

Sorry, Mormonmaniac. I didn't mean to derail this thread!

Meadowchick, if you'd like to continue this discussion, perhaps we can move further comments to the SCOTUS gay marriage thread...?

 

I've posted 3 times on that thread: post numbers 322, 357, 453.  The first is a more detailed reason for my opposition, the second is about managing the dissonance between same-sex marriage and the Church, and the third is my feelings about today's ruling.

 

I'd be happy to talk more if you like. In any case, as I said in the third post, I am happy for you and anyone else seeking this decision to meet the needs of their families. My heart smiles, congratulations!

[TheSkepticChristian]

In my opinion it is more Christian to fight AGW than to fight same sex marriage. 

We are in the last days, so why fight same sex marriage??

 

 

[ERayR]

To answer the question posed by the post title.  Yes.  It is the morality of a great many of the countries citizens it has just as valid a place in political discourse as does the morality of the non-religious citizens.

[TheSkepticChristian]

To answer the question posed by the post title.  Yes.  It is the morality of a great many of the countries citizens it has just as valid a place in political discourse as does the morality of the non-religious citizens.

 

but the constitution is a secular document. Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.  We should not impose our religious morality to others

Edited June 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian