Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[clarkgoble]

On 12/13/2016 at 10:56 AM, thesometimesaint said:

There is no law forcing a Muslim/Mormon owned store to carry or sell those products. There are laws saying that if they carry and sell those products they can't refuse to sell them to you.

Where it gets trickier though is when you're offering services. I don't think there's much debate over selling finished products. But can you have an orthodox Jewish caterer who caters only to Jews and not goyim? If you say yes, what about their only catering to what they accept as Jews? i.e. no reform Judaism gay couples?

The middle ground, which doesn't get a lot of defense is to distinguish offering services where people close by offer the same services from offering the only services in the region. That way you don't have the horrible situation like a funeral home refusing to do gay funerals with the next nearest funeral home being 100 miles away.

Edited May 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But can you have an orthodox Jewish caterer who caters only to Jews and not goyim? If you say yes, what about their only catering to what they accept as Jews? i.e. no reform Judaism gay couples?

Speaking of the laws as they apply to public businesses registered as such in the United States of America:

No, you cannot have an orthodox Jewish caterer who caters only to Jews and not non-Jewish customers.  If a non-Jewish customer wants to buy kosher food, the catering business must sell non-Jewish customers the same product they sell to other Jews.

It's illegal for public businesses to single out and deny selling their product to customers based on the customer's religious affiliation or lack of the business's preferred religious affiliation.

Public accommodation laws prohibit discrimination in the public realm based on religion or religious affiliation, as well as many other protected classes.

[clarkgoble]

On 5/5/2017 at 4:33 PM, Daniel2 said:

No, you cannot have an orthodox Jewish caterer who caters only to Jews and not non-Jewish customers.  If a non-Jewish customer wants to buy kosher food, the catering business must sell non-Jewish customers the same product they sell to other Jews.

Just to be clear I was discussing what laws are justifiable not which laws we have. I fully agree with you on that point.

[LittleNipper]

On 5/8/2017 at 10:52 AM, clarkgoble said:

Just to be clear I was discussing what laws are justifiable not which laws we have. I fully agree with you on that point.

However, a Jewish caterer could not be made to cater a Neo-Nazi group. And he would have every moral right not to do so! I'm sorry but it is wrong for any government (no mater how well intentioned ) to force anyone to do something against their moral conscience.  Blanket laws bring only bucket loads of misery. The only thing that is honorable is boycotting. However, the honest sincere logic is that most people will certainly help their neighbor when they are in trouble. But the government insisting people must help is not going to bring peace to anyone. It isn't the government's place. Certain laws are WRONG and should be repealed. I would be the first person to make a cake for ANYONE!  Hitler himself could come in to my bakery and I'd bake him a cake (that is my choice), however that doesn't mean I'd deliver it nor decorate it with Nazi symbolism. He'd get a nice cake with buttercream roses. And one of his henchmen would have to pick it up. A gay wedding would be a poundcake with whatever color icing desired and flowers and he would have to pick it up himself. NO TOPPER! NO GAY PRIDE VERBIAGE! NO BEST WISHES for a HAPPY MARRIAGE! However, I'd certainly witness to such an individual, as I would the young woman headed for the abortion clinic!

Edited October 3, 2017 by LittleNipper

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

However, a Jewish caterer could not be made to cater a Neo-Nazi group. And he would have every moral right not to do so! I'm sorry but it is wrong for any government (no mater how well intentioned ) to force anyone to do something against their moral conscience.  Blanket laws bring only bucket loads of misery. The only thing that is honorable is boycotting. However, the honest sincere logic is that most people will certainly help their neighbor when they are in trouble. But the government insisting people must help is not going to bring peace to anyone. It isn't the government's place. Certain laws are WRONG and should be repealed. I would be the first person to make a cake for ANYONE!  Hitler himself could come in to my bakery and I'd bake him a cake (that is my choice), however that doesn't mean I'd deliver it nor decorate it with Nazi symbolism. He'd get a nice cake with buttercream roses. And one of his henchmen would have to pick it up. A gay wedding would be a poundcake with whatever color icing desired and flowers and he would have to pick it up himself. NO TOPPER! NO GAY PRIDE VERBIAGE! NO BEST WISHES for a HAPPY MARRIAGE! However, I'd certainly witness to such an individual, as I would the young woman headed for the abortion clinic!

The difference is of course the conception of protected classes. Effectively what you are saying is that there should be no protected classes (which is a perfectly acceptable view - indeed a common libertarian position). The moral argument is that some groups have been mistreated by society so much that in terms of public (not private) actions of commerce they should be treated differently. The typical response to a libertarian for instance is to ask how the horrible behaviors of the south could have been changed. Merely getting rid of Jim Crow laws wasn't enough. Blacks were being prevented to being served in most businesses. I've never found a good libertarian response that didn't require already a substantial number of non-racists living in the south.

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The difference is of course the conception of protected classes. Effectively what you are saying is that there should be no protected classes (which is a perfectly acceptable view - indeed a common libertarian position). The moral argument is that some groups have been mistreated by society so much that in terms of public (not private) actions of commerce they should be treated differently. The typical response to a libertarian for instance is to ask how the horrible behaviors of the south could have been changed. Merely getting rid of Jim Crow laws wasn't enough. Blacks were being prevented to being served in most businesses. I've never found a good libertarian response that didn't require already a substantial number of non-racists living in the south.

So you believe in a "CLASS" system? Do you honestly feel that all such classes of behavior are equally valuable to society. I know of no one who enjoys mosquitoes and yet we love many animals. Perhaps some forms of behavior maybe even detrimental to weak and immature individuals.

What happened to many blacks in the South was not very kind. And yet if you watch --- say the movie Hotel Rwanda, things could have always been far -- far worse even in Africa in modern times among blacks. Many blacks came to be saved in the United States on account of being brought here in material chains. The revealed truth they heard had the power to set them free spiritually. They even began to perceive themselves as the chosen people in bondage. So what some men intended for evil, God was able to achieve an eternal good. 

Yes, many blacks could not get service in white owned businesses in the south. And yet many blacks also opened businesses and built their own communities where they could live and thrive without getting a handup from some white folks. Did you know that Roebuck was a black man?  

Edited October 4, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Calm]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

know that Roebuck was a black man

Have you looked at pictures of him?  It seems highly unlikely.  This appears to be a myth.

CFR for a solid reference.

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

So you believe in a "CLASS" system? Do you honestly feel that all such classes of behavior are equally valuable to society. I know of no one who enjoys mosquitoes and yet we love many animals. Perhaps some forms of behavior maybe even detrimental to weak and immature individuals.

I'm ambivalent. There are negatives and positives. However no one has yet explained how to end the bad treatment of blacks especially in the south without the notion of a protected class.

[smac97]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

So you believe in a "CLASS" system? Do you honestly feel that all such classes of behavior are equally valuable to society. I know of no one who enjoys mosquitoes and yet we love many animals. Perhaps some forms of behavior maybe even detrimental to weak and immature individuals.

What happened to many blacks in the South was not very kind.

This is a rather horrible characterization of antebellum slavery.  It's like calling the Holocaust "an off day for European Jews."

Sorry.  Had to say it.

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

21 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

However, a Jewish caterer could not be made to cater a Neo-Nazi group. And he would have every moral right not to do so! I'm sorry but it is wrong for any government (no mater how well intentioned ) to force anyone to do something against their moral conscience.  Blanket laws bring only bucket loads of misery. The only thing that is honorable is boycotting. However, the honest sincere logic is that most people will certainly help their neighbor when they are in trouble. But the government insisting people must help is not going to bring peace to anyone. It isn't the government's place. Certain laws are WRONG and should be repealed. I would be the first person to make a cake for ANYONE!  Hitler himself could come in to my bakery and I'd bake him a cake (that is my choice), however that doesn't mean I'd deliver it nor decorate it with Nazi symbolism. He'd get a nice cake with buttercream roses. And one of his henchmen would have to pick it up. A gay wedding would be a poundcake with whatever color icing desired and flowers and he would have to pick it up himself. NO TOPPER! NO GAY PRIDE VERBIAGE! NO BEST WISHES for a HAPPY MARRIAGE! However, I'd certainly witness to such an individual, as I would the young woman headed for the abortion clinic!

You were making a valid point until you declared that you wouldn't even wish a couple a happy marriage. That's just cold.

Would you wish the woman at the abortion clinic a happy life? Or are you hoping for her misery? Seriously, not even being willing to wish someone a happy marriage (which they are legally entering into) could be considered a "class"less approach to humanity.

[Guest]

On December 12, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Daniel2 said:

As has been anticipated by many, the battle ground over religious freedoms vs. civil rights related to sexual orientation isn't over.

The next issue seems to be public accomodations, as well as the ongoing issue of taxation of churches engaged in anti-LGBT civil rights initiatives (conservatives are likely to prefer the term "pro-religious liberty" or "defending the First Amendment" instead of being 'anti-LGBT').

Two recent issues in the press, unfortunately, illustrate these issues.

Do you support the idea that Churches that teach such things are sinful, as being anti-Homosexuality and agree that they would or should lose their tax exempt statues? .  

Edited October 4, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Do you support the idea that Churches that teach such things are sinful, as being anti-Homosexuality and agree that they would or should lose their tax exempt statues? .  

What a church teaches?  No.  Churches should be free to teach any belief it wants.  But when a church tries to force others outside their religion to live it's beliefs when those beliefs violates civil rights of others?  Possibly.  Tax exemption for churches is not a constitutional right.

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Do you support the idea that Churches that teach such things are sinful, as being anti-Homosexuality and agree that they would or should lose their tax exempt statues? .  

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, so I'll try and answer the question and hope that it answers what you are asking...

I believe that all churches should be able to preach and teach whatever they want to about homosexuality, whether their teaching be that homosexual relationships are sinful and forbidden by God; or that homosexual relationships are morally neutral and God doesn't care; or that homosexual relationships are inherently worthy and divinely approved.

If a church teaches that gay relationships are inherently worthy and divinely approved, I think it's understandable most people would consider that church "pro-gay" or "gay-affirming."

If a church teaches that gay relationships are morally neutral, I think it's understandable most people would call that church something along the lines of 'indifferent' with regards to it's views on homosexuality.

If a church teaches that gay relationships are sinful and forbidden by God, I think it's understandable most people would consider that church "anti-gay" or "anti-homosexual."

I don't believe churches should lose their tax-exempt status based on their beliefs.  That being said, in recent months I've learned a little more about some of the concerns surrounding the tax-exempt status of churches and concerns about their lack of financial transparency.  I would actually support more inquiry into ensuring churches are more accountable and aren't hiding illegal activity, but in all honesty, I'm not sure how that would be.  I've listened to some interesting interviews with regards to the lawyers involved with the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" (I think it was called?) who often defend that imaginary line between church and state, and they have expressed some concerns I feel are compelling enough to warrant some considerations... (but to be honest, those interviews were about a lot of the mega-Evangelical Empires that go completely unregulated and around which there is little transparency and some concern about how the funds are being used--that wasn't related to the gay marriage issue or homosexuality in any way).  I'm not really clear as to why churches are automatically exempted from paying taxes... I am open to discussion about maybe caps or some sort of regulation, but again, that would be in the interests of accountability, would have to be equally applied to everyone regardless of belief, and not based on any given church's dogma. 

Hope that answered your question, and I hope you and your family are well!

D

 

[thesometimesaint]

On 5/5/2017 at 1:25 PM, clarkgoble said:

Where it gets trickier though is when you're offering services. I don't think there's much debate over selling finished products. But can you have an orthodox Jewish caterer who caters only to Jews and not goyim? If you say yes, what about their only catering to what they accept as Jews? i.e. no reform Judaism gay couples?

The middle ground, which doesn't get a lot of defense is to distinguish offering services where people close by offer the same services from offering the only services in the region. That way you don't have the horrible situation like a funeral home refusing to do gay funerals with the next nearest funeral home being 100 miles away.

I have a problem with any business that serves the public, trying to restrict who that public is. IE; I I own a grocery store, and don't like green beans. I have every right to not carry green beans, nor sell them to anyone. What I can't legally do is carry and then not sell those green beans to you.

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, so I'll try and answer the question and hope that it answers what you are asking...

I believe that all churches should be able to preach and teach whatever they want to about homosexuality, whether their teaching be that homosexual relationships are sinful and forbidden by God; or that homosexual relationships are morally neutral and God doesn't care; or that homosexual relationships are inherently worthy and divinely approved.

If a church teaches that gay relationships are inherently worthy and divinely approved, I think it's understandable most people would consider that church "pro-gay" or "gay-affirming."

If a church teaches that gay relationships are morally neutral, I think it's understandable most people would call that church something along the lines of 'indifferent' with regards to it's views on homosexuality.

If a church teaches that gay relationships are sinful and forbidden by God, I think it's understandable most people would consider that church "anti-gay" or "anti-homosexual."

I don't believe churches should lose their tax-exempt status based on their beliefs.  That being said, in recent months I've learned a little more about some of the concerns surrounding the tax-exempt status of churches and concerns about their lack of financial transparency.  I would actually support more inquiry into ensuring churches are more accountable and aren't hiding illegal activity, but in all honesty, I'm not sure how that would be.  I've listened to some interesting interviews with regards to the lawyers involved with the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" (I think it was called?) who often defend that imaginary line between church and state, and they have expressed some concerns I feel are compelling enough to warrant some considerations... (but to be honest, those interviews were about a lot of the mega-Evangelical Empires that go completely unregulated and around which there is little transparency and some concern about how the funds are being used--that wasn't related to the gay marriage issue or homosexuality in any way).  I'm not really clear as to why churches are automatically exempted from paying taxes... I am open to discussion about maybe caps or some sort of regulation, but again, that would be in the interests of accountability, would have to be equally applied to everyone regardless of belief, and not based on any given church's dogma. 

Hope that answered your question, and I hope you and your family are well!

D

 

Religions are largely exempt from government sanction for what they preach over her pulpit. Clearly we don't want religions to be instruments of the state. Nor do we want them to have "itching ears" tuned toward the state.

[Guest]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

What a church teaches?  No.  Churches should be free to teach any belief it wants.  But when a church tries to force others outside their religion to live it's beliefs when those beliefs violates civil rights of others?  Possibly.  Tax exemption for churches is not a constitutional right.

Do you know of an example of a Church "trying, or forcing" their beliefs on those outside their Church. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Do you know of an example of a Church "trying, or forcing" their beliefs on those outside their Church. 

I consider the church's Prop 8 actions as an example of a church trying to force others to conform to their beliefs..  Just because the church doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean they should work to take away the civil rights of gay couples away.  It was wrong.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I consider the church's Prop 8 actions as an example of a church trying to force others to conform to their beliefs..  Just because the church doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean they should work to take away the civil rights of gay couples away.  It was wrong.  

Contributing money to a cause that a Church believes in, is in no way "forcing" beliefs. Not to mention we were not the only donors. 

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Contributing money to a cause that a Church believes in, is in no way "forcing" beliefs. Not to mention we were not the only donors. 

I disagree. The church goal was to not allow gay couples to marry. The result was it forced gay couples to follow church beliefs.

Edited October 5, 2017 by california boy

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

I disagree. The church goal was to not allow gay couples to marry. The result was it forced gay couples to follow church beliefs.

You know I am not trying to be combative, but two points.

1. The Church with other Churches was giving money to promote their beliefs, not to "force" others to abide by our beliefs, as they were shared beliefs. I am confident that all voted their conscience, not to mention some high profile members disagreed with the Church's position. 

2. The Church does not force Gay couples to follow their beliefs, the word "force" means to compell others, or deny their "free will". As you know Mrmons are big on "free will". 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I consider the church's Prop 8 actions as an example of a church trying to force others to conform to their beliefs..  Just because the church doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean they should work to take away the civil rights of gay couples away.  It was wrong.  

This is spin - at no other time in the history of the US did gay people have a right to marry - there was never even a question that this was a "civil right".  What was happening in the US was a change in attitudes about marriage - it created rights that had never existed before.  I think it is important to speak with honesty, rather than using falsehoods to spin an agenda that fits with our personal beliefs. It does not matter if one is religious, a church member, or a political activist; we should all just speak honestly.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You know I am not trying to be combative, but two points.

1. The Church with other Churches was giving money to promote their beliefs, not to "force" others to abide by our beliefs, as they were shared beliefs. I am confident that all voted their conscience, not to mention some high profile members disagreed with the Church's position. 

2. The Church does not force Gay couples to follow their beliefs, the word "force" means to compell others, or deny their "free will". As you know Mrmons are big on "free will". 

I am not being combative either.  Yes there were other churches that gave money.  But we are talking about what the Mormon church did. And do I need to point out that the Mormon church gave more than all of the other churches combined?

The church believes that gay couples should not marry.  When you take away their right to marry and make it legally impossible for them to exercise their right to marry, then YES you are forcing them to conform to your beliefs.  Were gay couples forced to no longer marry or not?  Could they legally marry after the church made their huge effort to outlaw gay marriage?  Did they have a choice?  NO.  I am going to disagree with you on this point no matter how you phase it.  The bottom line is that the church forced gay couples to not marry because after Prop 8, there was no longer the choice to marry given to them.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

This is spin - at no other time in the history of the US did gay people have a right to marry - there was never even a question that this was a "civil right".  What was happening in the US was a change in attitudes about marriage - it created rights that had never existed before.  I think it is important to speak with honesty, rather than using falsehoods to spin an agenda that fits with our personal beliefs. It does not matter if one is religious, a church member, or a political activist; we should all just speak honestly.

Sometimes I truly wonder if members of the church really realize exactly what they were doing when they worked so hard to take away the civil right for gay couples to marry.  The issue was way more than just one group thinking that gay couples could marry and another group thinking that gay couples should not marry.  The falsehood in your statement is "there was never even a question that this was a "civil right".  The California Supreme Court had already ruled that gay couples unquestionably had the civil right to marry.  Before Prop 8 gay couples had every right to legally marry.  Prop 8 took away that choice and right of whether to marry or not.  There is no spin.  That is an absolute undeniable FACT.  It was wrong for the Mormon church to think that their belief on marriage should be followed by others that do not share that same belief.  Just because there were others that share that belief does not mean that it was right to take away someone's civil rights.  The fact that the Constitution of the State of California had to be modified in order to force that belief tells you that your statement is absolutely false.  Those rights did in fact exist.

Throughout history there has always been times when the majority have suppressed the rights of the minority simply because of their numbers. That doesn't mean that denying those rights was ok. Prop 8 was not about a change in attitude about marriage.  It was about challenging a minorities right to have equal protection guaranteed under both the constitution of California and the United States.  Prop 8 literally rewrote the constitution of Caifornia to take away an existing civil right. When that happened, gay couples went to the United States Supreme Court to challenge their existing right to have equal protection under the law.  The courts agreed.  There was nothing added to the constitution.  There was a ruling that affirmed that civil right.  Being able to marry was the result.  Now gay couples can choose for themselves whether they want to marry.  That choice is given to them despite the efforts of the church to take away that choice.

  If the California Supreme Court had not already ruled that gay marriage was a civil right, then you might have a case.  But the court did indeed rule on this issue and it was the law of the State of California.  Prop 8 had to literally change the constitution of the State of California.  What it couldn't do is also change the Constitution of the United States.   Gay couples appealed to that constitutional right.  So now Mormons can still keep their religious belief on who should marry and who should not marry in the Mormon church.  But what the church can not do is decide who should marry and who should not marry outside that church.  Gay couples are no longer forced to conform to Mormon's beliefs on marriage.  They can make that choice according to the dictates of their conscience, and not the beliefs of the Mormon church.  

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Sometimes I truly wonder if members of the church really realize exactly what they were doing when they worked so hard to take away the civil right for gay couples to marry.  The issue was way more than just one group thinking that gay couples could marry and another group thinking that gay couples should not marry.  The falsehood in your statement is "there was never even a question that this was a "civil right".  The California Supreme Court had already ruled that gay couples unquestionably had the civil right to marry.  Before Prop 8 gay couples had every right to legally marry.  Prop 8 took away that choice and right of whether to marry or not.  There is no spin.  That is an absolute undeniable FACT.  It was wrong for the Mormon church to think that their belief on marriage should be followed by others that do not share that same belief.  Just because there were others that share that belief does not mean that it was right to take away someone's civil rights.  The fact that the Constitution of the State of California had to be modified in order to force that belief tells you that your statement is absolutely false.  Those rights did in fact exist.

Throughout history there has always been times when the majority have suppressed the rights of the minority simply because of their numbers. That doesn't mean that denying those rights was ok. Prop 8 was not about a change in attitude about marriage.  It was about challenging a minorities right to have equal protection guaranteed under both the constitution of California and the United States.  Prop 8 literally rewrote the constitution of Caifornia to take away an existing civil right. When that happened, gay couples went to the United States Supreme Court to challenge their existing right to have equal protection under the law.  The courts agreed.  There was nothing added to the constitution.  There was a ruling that affirmed that civil right.  Being able to marry was the result.  Now gay couples can choose for themselves whether they want to marry.  That choice is given to them despite the efforts of the church to take away that choice.

  If the California Supreme Court had not already ruled that gay marriage was a civil right, then you might have a case.  But the court did indeed rule on this issue and it was the law of the State of California.  Prop 8 had to literally change the constitution of the State of California.  What it couldn't do is also change the Constitution of the United States.   Gay couples appealed to that constitutional right.  So now Mormons can still keep their religious belief on who should marry and who should not marry in the Mormon church.  But what the church can not do is decide who should marry and who should not marry outside that church.  Gay couples are no longer forced to conform to Mormon's beliefs on marriage.  They can make that choice according to the dictates of their conscience, and not the beliefs of the Mormon church.  

So Cal, was the California Supreme Court something that had stood for 50 years, how about 40 years, or even 10 years?  Nope. How about 5 years? Nope.  Surely it must have been a long period of time!  Nope.  The CSC ruled that gay people could marry on June 16, 2006.  Prop 8 passed in Nov 2008.  So what we are talking about is that this "civil right", that had never existed before, was never established had existed for less than 2 1/2 years.  Now, go back to my statement - I stated that, "What was happening in the US was a change in attitudes about marriage - it created rights that had never existed before."  Now, that is absolute FACT. 

You continue to create a story that has nothing to do with the facts.  Homosexuals never had a right to marry in the US. until Massachusetts legalized it in 2004.  There were zero rights before that time period.  That is all I am saying and it is honest.  What you are trying desperately to establish is that a civil right of gay marriage had always existed and the bad old religious majority in the US was trying to take it away.  That is not accurate or honest.

Again, this was a period of transition and there was no majority support for gay marriage at that time.  That is honest, that represents that facts.  Just leave off on the spin and stick to facts.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

So Cal, was the California Supreme Court something that had stood for 50 years, how about 40 years, or even 10 years?  Nope. How about 5 years? Nope.  Surely it must have been a long period of time!  Nope.  The CSC ruled that gay people could marry on June 16, 2006.  Prop 8 passed in Nov 2008.  So what we are talking about is that this "civil right", that had never existed before, was never established had existed for less than 2 1/2 years.  Now, go back to my statement - I stated that, "What was happening in the US was a change in attitudes about marriage - it created rights that had never existed before."  Now, that is absolute FACT. 

You continue to create a story that has nothing to do with the facts.  Homosexuals never had a right to marry in the US. until Massachusetts legalized it in 2004.  There were zero rights before that time period.  That is all I am saying and it is honest.  What you are trying desperately to establish is that a civil right of gay marriage had always existed and the bad old religious majority in the US was trying to take it away.  That is not accurate or honest.

Again, this was a period of transition and there was no majority support for gay marriage at that time.  That is honest, that represents that facts.  Just leave off on the spin and stick to facts.

What you are asserting is not what I said.  Yes gay marriage began in Massachusetts.  But EQUAL PROTECTION under the law has indeed been in both constitutions for well over 100 years.  The California Supreme Court ruled that equal protection applied to gay couples as well as straight couples and because of that, there was no way under the current California Constitution could gay couples be denied the right to marry.  That is exactly what their ruling stated.  Read their ruling.  A civil right means a right guaranteed under the Constitution.  The only way to remove a civil right is to amend that right out of the constitution.  After the passage of Prop 8, that civil right of equal protection was taken away from gay couples.  Now the law of California was forced to deny equal protection to gay couples.  An exception was made because they were gay.  

This is EXACTLY the legal issue that was presented to the United States Supreme Court.  Could a state deny someone their full civil rights?  The US Supreme Court said NO.  You can not carve out part of someone's civil rights.  They are entitled to ALL of the civil rights as any other citizens.  Therefore, everyone equally has the right to marry.  Your religious beliefs does not trump equal protection.  Nor should it ever.  While the church has every right to decide who their members can marry, they do not, under the constitution, have the right to decide who others can marry.

Perhaps it is easier for you to see how the law applies when the exact same principle was applied to inter racial couples.  Inter racial couples always had the constitutional right to marry.  The constitution does not treat inter racial couples any differently than any other couple that wishes to marry.  Yet some states instituted laws that prohibited inter racial couples to marry.  THOSE LAWS were ruled unconstitutional.  

The exact same thing happened to gay couples.  They also had the constitutional right to marry inherent in the equal protection clause.  States started passing laws that prevented gay couples to marry because they knew that there was noting in their constitution that prevented gay couples from marrying.  Those states had no constitutional authority to pass such laws. It was  THOSE LAWS preventing gay couples to marry that was NEW.  Until then, there was no laws preventing gay couples to marry.  Massachusetts was the first. state to assert that fact.  You have things completely backwards.  If those states had never passed laws prohibiting gay marriage, then gay couples. could marry and the Supreme Court would not have had to rule against those laws.  In fact there were some states that never passed laws preventing gay couples to marry.  I believe New Mexico was one of those states.  When a gay couple married in that state, their marriage was recognized as legal.

Edited October 6, 2017 by california boy