Gay Marriage At Scotus: One Wedding Ring Thread To Rule Them All...

[california boy]

After reading parts of the Oral Arguments (which, admittedly, are never good indicators) I must say that I think this is going to be closer than I had previously thought. I still think they will rule in favor of SSM, but I am not quite as confident as I was even a week ago.

 

I still stand by my prediction that the courts will rule 6-3 and possibly even 7-2 in favor of gay marriage.  

[rockpond]

As my mom used to tell me "You have to kiss a lot of toads before you find your princess".  I don't believe God is going to refuse a blessing just because we didn't know where to find it, as long as we're looking.

 

I feel the same way.  And the Brethren seem to be teaching that principle as well.  But it still stands in contrast to 132:16.  But I suppose this is too large a tangent for the thread so I'll set it aside for now.

[Gray]

 

An interesting article on one of the points Justice Roberts brought up yesterday.

 

 

 

 

Gender Bias Issue Could Tip Chief Justice Roberts Into Ruling for Gay Marriage

 

 

 

 

I think that's a great point - the civil rights act may already cover gay marriage rights. 

[webbles]

 

An interesting article on one of the points Justice Roberts brought up yesterday.

 

 

 

 

Gender Bias Issue Could Tip Chief Justice Roberts Into Ruling for Gay Marriage

 

 

 

I heard that argument and it made me think about sibling marriages.  Most of the rational basis behind disallowing sibling marriages (or close relatives) is the problem of birth defects.  But a marriage between 2 brothers or 2 sisters does not have that problem.  So you'd have the same situation, Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe but because all three are siblings and Sue is female, only Joe and Bob can marry.  Also, the second question that they have to resolve (should a marriage performed in another state have validity in all states?) will affect sibling marriage laws as well since those laws aren't uniform across states either.

[Gray]

I heard that argument and it made me think about sibling marriages.  Most of the rational basis behind disallowing sibling marriages (or close relatives) is the problem of birth defects.  But a marriage between 2 brothers or 2 sisters does not have that problem.  So you'd have the same situation, Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe but because all three are siblings and Sue is female, only Joe and Bob can marry.  Also, the second question that they have to resolve (should a marriage performed in another state have validity in all states?) will affect sibling marriage laws as well since those laws aren't uniform across states either.

 

Gender is a protected class though. Relatedness is not. 

[california boy]

LGBT Advocates, Anti-Gay Groups Find Common Ground on Marriage Bill

 

 

In what would be an unprecedented move, some leading LGBT advocates say they’re prepared to throw their support behind legislation related to same-sex marriage that’s been championed by anti-gay groups, including Texas Values and the Texas Pastor Council.

House Bill 3567, by Rep. Scott Sanford (R-McKinney), states that churches and clergy cannot be forced to participate in the “solemnization, formation, or celebration” of a same-sex marriage.

“It’s my job here at the ACLU to protect religious liberty, and if the bill is really about religious liberty, we’re going to come out in favor of it,” said Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director for the ACLU of Texas. “There’s not a single example of any clergy being forced to perform a wedding that they don’t believe is consistent with their faith, but nevertheless we agree with the principle.”

The Texas Pastor Council, which has led efforts to overturn nondiscrimination ordinances in Houston and Plano, brought in dozens of religious leaders to testify in favor of the bill during a committee hearing last week. Meanwhile, LGBT advocates said the bill was too broad and could allow religiously affiliated organizations, including hospitals and universities, to discriminate against gay couples.

However, Sanford has since introduced a substitute that addresses many of those concerns by significantly narrowing the bill’s scope. In a letter to Sanford on Wednesday, Equality Texas, theTexas Freedom Network and the ACLU of Texas requested one additional minor change that the groups said, if made, would allow them to support HB 3567.

Texas is one of only 13 states where same-sex marriage is still banned, but the U.S. Supreme Court is widely expected to change that next month.

Robertson said other states have enacted similar protections in conjunction with marriage equality legislation or nondiscrimination laws. Texas is one of only 13 states where same-sex marriage is still banned, but the U.S. Supreme Court is widely expected to change that next month.

“There’s a reason that we can all get together on this bill,” Robertson said. “It’s a principle we all agree on, and people can take comfort in the fact that their personal faith traditions are not going to be threatened. There’s room for both religious liberty and equality. We have a big Constitution.”

Several media outlets reported Thursday that Senate Republicans had attempted to fast-track a companion bill at the request of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, only to have a hearing delayed by Democrats in a procedural move.

That bill, by Sen. Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls), is identical to the original version of HB 3567. The LGBT groups are hopeful Estes will be willing to address their concerns in the same way Sanford has. Neither Estes nor Sanford responded to messages seeking comment.

“There are ongoing conversations that are headed in the right direction, and if they continue in how they’re going, there’s every real possibility we’ll wind up with a bill we can support,” said Daniel Williams, legislative specialist for Equality Texas.

LGBT advocates say churches and clergy are already protected from being forced to participate in same-sex weddings under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Texas Constitution and the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“There are churches today that will refuse to perform a wedding for couples of different faiths, or for a couple where one of them has divorced, or for interracial couples, and these churches absolutely have that right,” Williams said, “and once the freedom to marry comes to the state of Texas, churches will absolutely have the right to refuse to perform or recognize those weddings.

“Absolutely no one is trying to change that, and so long as any proposed legislation conforms to the current standards, it will have our support.”

Dave Welch, executive director of the Texas Pastor Council, said his group continues to support the substitute version of HB 3567, and would not balk if SB 2065 is similarly revised.

“It’s frankly not one of the stronger bills,” Welch said. “It’s not one that deals with some of the other fundamental threats against religious liberty that we still need to see happen, so I’m not surprised [LGBT advocates would support it] because in reality all it’s saying is that pastors should have the right to continue to do what they’ve always done.”

Welch said his group is still pushing religious freedom measures that are more sweeping, including some that critics say would establish a “license to discriminate” against LGBT people. But most of those proposals appear stalled amid opposition from business leaders who fear the type of backlashseen in Indiana after it passed an anti-LGBT religious freedom law in March.

“Some of the Republican leadership are going to have to face the music if they don’t stand up for the principles upon which they were elected,” Welch said. “If they’re going to cater to the profit-at-all-cost corporate greed of the Texas Association of Business, which is basically standing on an empty platform of deception, they’ll ultimately lose the next election. … If Apple is going to pull out of Texas because we’re going to defend our religious freedom that has produced the same climate that brought them here to begin with, then frankly, move back to California.”

 

 

 

 

It is clear that the ACLU and gay rights activist groups are more than willing to support religious rights unless there are those that will use those religious rights to discriminate against gay Americans.  But as Indiana found out, when religion tries to pretend those rights include the right to discriminate, then people are going to push back.  

[Storm Rider]

If gays can stay out of my religious beliefs, I can stay out of their civil marriages. That is fair. However, once they start dictating what my religious beliefs need to be, then there is a problem worth fighting for and lines will be drawn.  I am comfortable with that.  I will never forsake my beliefs to meet the demands of any government or other group of people that demand that all must worship at their alter.

[thesometimesaint]

You have every right to believe anything you want. When you start down the road of doing anything you want because of those beliefs, then you are on the road to trouble.

[Russell C McGregor]

You have every right to believe anything you want. When you start down the road of doing anything you want because of those beliefs, then you are on the road to trouble.

Oh yes. Heaven forbid that anyone should actually be allowed to live their religion!

[sethpayne]

Oh yes. Heaven forbid that anyone should actually be allowed to live their religion!

 

You raise a good point. 

 

But there are limits to the scope of what "living" a religion means.  We certainly don't want a society where human sacrifice is part of what we view as "lived" religion.  I think that perhaps what TSTS was referring to was those who may use religion as a cover for breaking the law.  Like tax evasion, whatever.  

 

Do you think that -- at this time -- there are limits placed upon you that prevent you from fully living Mormonism?

[Russell C McGregor]

You raise a good point. 

 

But there are limits to the scope of what "living" a religion means.  We certainly don't want a society where human sacrifice is part of what we view as "lived" religion.  I think that perhaps what TSTS was referring to was those who may use religion as a cover for breaking the law.  Like tax evasion, whatever.  

 

Do you think that -- at this time -- there are limits placed upon you that prevent you from fully living Mormonism?

Upon me? No.

But then I don't live in the US, and I'm not involved in the hospitality industry. So I can't be legally compelled to participate in a "same sex marriage" against my will, my conscience and my better judgement.

Meanwhile, in the (heh heh) "land of the free," the advocates for "gay marriage" divide their time between (1) loudly insisting that "gay marriage" can't possibly impact anyone else in any way, and (2) working out ways to legally coerce as many people as possible to actively support it.

And so, even though it doesn't impact me, I feel that I should say something about it. If I only cared about how well things worked out for me, and paid no attention to the consequences for anyone else, that would be rather "gay" thinking.

[california boy]

Upon me? No.

But then I don't live in the US, and I'm not involved in the hospitality industry. So I can't be legally compelled to participate in a "same sex marriage" against my will, my conscience and my better judgement.

Meanwhile, in the (heh heh) "land of the free," the advocates for "gay marriage" divide their time between (1) loudly insisting that "gay marriage" can't possibly impact anyone else in any way, and (2) working out ways to legally coerce as many people as possible to actively support it.

And so, even though it doesn't impact me, I feel that I should say something about it. If I only cared about how well things worked out for me, and paid no attention to the consequences for anyone else, that would be rather "gay" thinking.

 

I also don't think you completely understand the accommodation laws and the civil rights laws in this country.  Just because someone is religious does not always mean they can break the laws of this country.  Maybe in NZ they let religion be an excuse for breaking the laws.

[Russell C McGregor]

I also don't think you completely understand the accommodation laws and the civil rights laws in this country.  Just because someone is religious does not always mean they can break the laws of this country.  Maybe in NZ they let religion be an excuse for breaking the laws.

If your view of the world were not almost as US-centric as it is "gay" centric, it might just have occurred to you that other countries have different laws.

It is not the case that in New Zealand "they let religion be an excuse for breaking the laws." That was a spectacularly ignorant remark; which fully explains why Rockpond voted it up. It is the case that in New Zealand, the laws are different. So much so, that buyers and sellers are equal before the law, in that both are equally free to choose with whom they will and will not do business, and are answerable to nobody for that choice.

[california boy]

If your view of the world were not almost as US-centric as it is "gay" centric, it might just have occurred to you that other countries have different laws.

It is not the case that in New Zealand "they let religion be an excuse for breaking the laws." That was a spectacularly ignorant remark; which fully explains why Rockpond voted it up. It is the case that in New Zealand, the laws are different. So much so, that buyers and sellers are equal before the law, in that both are equally free to choose with whom they will and will not do business, and are answerable to nobody for that choice.

 

 

As usual you consistently misquote what I wrote.  Re read my post

 

Maybe in NZ they let religion be an excuse for breaking the laws.

 

 

Do you see the word MAYBE???????

 

I don't presume to know NZ law.  You might think about not presuming to understand U.S. law.

[Nofear]

A Warning from Canada: Same-sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

 

Some fuel for a fiery discussion.

[Daniel2]

If your view of the world were not almost as US-centric as it is "gay" centric, it might just have occurred to you that other countries have different laws.

It is not the case that in New Zealand "they let religion be an excuse for breaking the laws." That was a spectacularly ignorant remark; which fully explains why Rockpond voted it up. It is the case that in New Zealand, the laws are different. So much so, that buyers and sellers are equal before the law, in that both are equally free to choose with whom they will and will not do business, and are answerable to nobody for that choice.

I had not previously realized, Russ, that you are not a US citizen. The last several posts (especially this last one) help me understand and put into context a lot of your views. Thank you for sharing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As usual you consistently misquote what I wrote.  Re read my post

 

 

Do you see the word MAYBE???????

 

I don't presume to know NZ law.  You might think about not presuming to understand U.S. law.

Talk about missing the point.

[Daniel2]

A Warning from Canada: Same-sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

Some fuel for a fiery discussion.

My first thoughts:

Children of divorce often experience extreme emotional trauma. In speaking from my own experience, divorce is like cancer in a family, wreaking emotional havoc on those most susceptible--the children. I believe all efforts to strengthen families and keep parents together are and should be commended.

I firmly believe that children do best when the parents that decided to conceive and raise them (or, when such is not possible, decide to adopt them) stay married in a loving and mutually-supportive co-parenting relationship until that children reach adulthood.

I also believe that no parents are perfect, and examples of good, bad, terrible, horrible, self-sacrificing, self-centered, sublime, and amazing parents can be identified in both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples who are raising children.

The author this article is one of six individuals who submitted a brief to the Supreme Court of United States of America.

One of six.

I do not doubt that there are imperfect and perhaps even self-centered same-sex parents who do not give their children everything that their children deserve.

And certainly, this woman's pain is important to hear and acknowledge and learned from, if we are to become a nation of better parents--as is the voice of every child who is being raised by negligent or abusive parents, regardless of the parents' personal characteristics.

 

I also definitely understand the need for same-sex parents to be sensitive to the fact that children need role models of the gender that is not parentally-represented in their children's home, and to provide extra efforts to make up for that gap.

However, I do not find the author's experience to be a compelling reason to deny wiiling and loving parents for the many thousands of children who need homes, many if whom have been successfully raised by non biological opposite sex parents, single parents, and same-sex parents able and willing to foster and adopt.

This woman's voice, wild horse exploring and discussing, is not the only voice of an adult raised by same sex parents. There are many others who are likewise able to articulate their experience with having grown up in households headed by same-sex parents.

One such individuaG is Abigail Garner, the now 40-something daughter of two dads after the divorce of her biological father from her mother. Abigail interviewed thousands of children raised in same sex families, and compile them into an incredible book called "Families Like Mine," which takes a candid approach to acknowledging the differences and challenges, as well as successes of same-sex parenting: http://familieslikemine.com/

Hopefully we can take into account the experiences and voices from all walks of life to help create better familial and parental experiences for the most dependent and in-need-of-our-best-efforts members of our families for those of us who are parents: our children.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I'm not sure whether or not this will be relevant, but it is interesting the SCOTUS rejected hearing any appeal regarding effort to change teenagers' sexual orientation:
 

U.S. top court rejects challenge to New Jersey 'gay conversion therapy' ban

http://news.yahoo.com/u-top-court-rejects-challenge-jersey-gay-conversion-134608305.html

Reuters By Lawrence Hurley 4 hours ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact New Jersey's ban on counseling intended to change the sexual orientation of gay children.

The court declined to hear a challenge to the law, meaning that a September ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the ban is the final word on the matter.

The appeals court said the ban, which Republican Governor Chris Christie signed into law in August 2013, did not violate the free speech or religious rights of counselors offering "gay conversion therapy" to convert homosexual minors into heterosexuals.

The panel also said the plaintiffs, who included licensed therapists and a Christian counseling group, lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of their minor clients.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder, but various conservative and religious groups have since argued that sexual orientation can be changed.

Plaintiffs challenging the New Jersey ban included two counselors, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and the American Association of Christian Counselors.

Monday's action marked the second time the high court has declined to hear a challenge to such a law. In June 2014, the court left intact California's conversion therapy ban.

The case is King v. New Jersey, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-672.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Things have been relatively quiet as we await SCOTUS's decision, expected to be released this coming month.

 

In anticipation of the ruling, GALLOP conducted a new poll, and majority support for civil marriage recognition for same-sex couples continues to climb at a dizzying pace:

 

 

Poll: Support for Gay Marriage Reaches Record-High

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-19/poll-support-for-gay-marriage-reaches-record-high

 

May 19, 2015 4:45 PM MDT

A Gallup survey finds that 60 percent of U.S. believes same-sex marriages should be legally recognized.

by David Knowles  

 

America continues to change its mind on gay marriage. 

 

A record 60 percent of U.S. adults surveyed now say that same-sex marriages should be recognized by the law, a new Gallup poll finds. Support for extending full marriage rights to gay couples has risen dramatically since 1996, the first year that Gallup began polling on the subject, when 68 percent of Americans said that they did not think same-sex marriages should be recognized.

 

Seventy-six percent of Democrats surveyed, 64 percent of Independents, and 37 percent of Republicans now say that gay marriages should be recognized in the same way as heterosexual unions. Each political group has seen a marked rise in support for marriage equality since 1996, when just 33 percent of Democrats, 32 percent of Independents, and 16 percent of Republicans held that opinion.

 

Gallup cited the age disparity among political parties as one possible explanation for why Republican support for same-sex marriage rights trailed that among Democrats:

 

 

The party divide between Democrats and Republicans may hinge largely on the age groups that compose each party. Gallup has found that younger Americans are significantly more likely to lean Democratic, while older Americans skew Republican. And while majorities of each age group under 65 support marriage equality in 2015, those aged 65 and older are still more likely to oppose it. This is a new phenomenon for the 50- to 64-year-old group. Last year, just 48% of these middle-aged Americans supported legally recognizing gay marriage. But in 2015, this figure has climbed to a majority of 54%.

 

 

The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule next month on whether gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

 

 

Fascinating that in less than 20 years since the polling began, the views on this topic have virtually flip-flopped (1996: 68% opposed.... 2015: 60% favor).

 

More on GALLOP's poll can be found here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183272/record-high-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx

Edited May 20, 2015 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

Fascinating that in less than 20 years since the polling began, the views on this topic have virtually flip-flopped (1996: 68% opposed.... 2015: 60% favor).

 

 

Fascinating, but hardly surprising given society today and the media flood of support.

Most people believe what they are told.

Edited May 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Daniel2]

Most people believe what they are told.

 

Interesting.

 

What are specific messages from this "the flood of media support" that you're referring to that most people have been "told" about civil marriage recognition for same-sex couples that "most people" have come to "believe" that have caused this shift?

[Buckeye]

If gays can stay out of my religious beliefs, I can stay out of their civil marriages. That is fair. However, once they start dictating what my religious beliefs need to be, then there is a problem worth fighting for and lines will be drawn.  I am comfortable with that.  I will never forsake my beliefs to meet the demands of any government or other group of people that demand that all must worship at their alter.

 

If only the churches had adopted your wisdom 20 years ago ....

 

http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

[JLHPROF]

Interesting.

 

What are specific messages from this "the flood of media support" that you're referring to that most people have been "told" about civil marriage recognition for same-sex couples that "most people" have come to "believe" that have caused this shift?

 

Nah, I'm not going to debate on this issue.  (It just gets threads locked anyway).

You're a smart fellow.  I'm going to assume that you have seen the same public support messages of same sex marriage on social media, television, news, etc that I have.

And people (as a general populace) love nothing better than to go with the majority view or believe what they are told is correct.

As time rolls on and generations grow up more and more are raised to believe SSM is a good, normal, positive thing.  They don't decide that, they are taught it.  Anyone that teaches the opposite is accused of hate speech and nobody likes that label.

 

So yes, society changes its view.

Edited May 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

Interesting.

 

What are specific messages from this "the flood of media support" that you're referring to that most people have been "told" about civil marriage recognition for same-sex couples that "most people" have come to "believe" that have caused this shift?

 

Well, i'm not JLH but I think one thing that we've been told that has impacted people's support of SSM is that if you don't agree with SSM then you are homophobic.  It's not true, but since people are being told that over and over again, they believe it.

 

I see multiple memes with variations of that idea (using the specific word homophobic) many times a week on my Facebook feed alone. The idea that disagreeing with the practice of homosexuality (to put it politely, though i know the phrase is lacking in some ways) or SSM means you are afraid of or hate homosexuals is rampant.  And since most people are good people who don't hate others, even when they disagree with them, they naturally shy away from such labels.  In our current society the only way to NOT be labeled homophobic is to support SSM.  Few people are willing to wear that name and so they change until it no longer applies to them.

 

I don't mean that they have adopted that ideology on the outside just to go with the flow but remain against SSM in secret, but rather that, when confronted over and over again with the connection that 'not supporting SSM = being a hate monger in line with people who would sic dogs on black school children' they change their ideology on the inside in order to be more at peace the way society views them.

 

Another obvious way that media has caused an increase of support for SSM is that what seems normal will eventually be accepted by society at large, regardless of what it is.  The more SSM and homosexuality in general is portrayed as normal (and even good) in the media the more people will accept it.  Not because anything else has changed but just because they become accustomed to it.  That's true for everything, from manners to childrearing to fashion.  Normal = o.k.   The media has spent the last few years telling people homosexuality is normal, so it makes sense that the number of people who believe it to be o.k. has increased accordingly.