Gordon Shumway
Banned
Pretty sure this is correct. Church is just a ritual. The marriage license is distributed by the courthouse..
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Conservative lawmakers and faith groups seek exemptions after same-sex ruling
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
You really don't want to discuss logic and religion at the same time.
Takamura-San
Member
Good to be clarified. Question: If the church is not needed, why does the church signs it?
LostCaress
Member
I think we can. I was always in favor of gay marriage (or as we call it now, marriage), but also was ok with the idea of churches not performing these types of weddings. But now I'm not so sure anymore - churches have to obey the law to some degree. Can they have polygamist weddings? Can a church celebrate a wedding between a 4 year old and a 60 year old?
And yet at the same time I don't think a catholic church should be forced to marry a couple of muslims (and vice-versa), and have no problem with private clubs just for men or women.
Yes they can have a ceremony for it. It just can't and won't be recognized by the gov't.
No, as a that would be child abuse since a 4 year can't consent to such a ceremony.
fixedpoint
Member
If a business cannot make hiring decisions based upon a candidate's religious beliefs or race (which they cannot), and cannot refuse service based upon a customer's religion or race, they also should not be allowed to refuse service based upon a customer's sexual orientation.
One positive upshot of all of this whiny, bigoted handwaving is that it's likely to bring about more protected class legislation across the country. Unfortunately that probably won't happen until after a couple more of these 'religious protection' acts are floated, passed and challenged in backwards parts of the country.
There's nothing to 'believe in' - one person's religious tenets cannot preclude others from exercising their civil rights, period.
It would be nice, however, for people who do not support others' civil rights to be more open minded. And/or mind their own fucking business.
One positive upshot of all of this whiny, bigoted handwaving is that it's likely to bring about more protected class legislation across the country. Unfortunately that probably won't happen until after a couple more of these 'religious protection' acts are floated, passed and challenged in backwards parts of the country.
There's nothing to 'believe in' - one person's religious tenets cannot preclude others from exercising their civil rights, period.
It would be nice, however, for people who do not support others' civil rights to be more open minded. And/or mind their own fucking business.
fixedpoint
Member
In most cases I don't think churches are considered to be 'places of public accommodation', which means they are free to be as discriminatory as they like. Churches have nothing to do with marriage from a legal perspective.
Wiktor
Member
Yes. For priest to be able to issue the license after Church wedding the country needs to have signed a concordat wih Vatican AFAIR USA has not done this.
GameGuru59
Banned
No. I really feel you don't understand what was going on back in those years. Governmental segregation (which I'm not in favor of allowing) was pretty much the essential element in the societal segregation you speak of. The government segregated schools and the busses that carried kids there. The government (and realtors/developers) segregated housing. All of public transportation and recreation was segregated. Voting was segregated. Every interaction you had with the government was segregated. To me, this was far more impactful than private segregation by businesses- though it was certainly impactful.No there is no difference when private businesses openly discriminate and you're wrong, segregation is ABSOLUTELY the right word here.
Do you know what the old south was like before the Civil Rights Act aside from the gov't level?
Done on private property after a sit-in.
Another private property rule.
Yet another
If you don't think there is a difference between supporting the right for this to happen but not supporting it on a gov't level I don't know what to tell you because both cases lead to societal segregation and something morally reprehensible. Arguing some philosophical distinction is what is moot when the results in the larger context are the same and arguing there is some practical distinction is even more absurd.
Calling for private businesses to be able to do what they want on their own property is not calling for segregation, but to call for the society to reveal itself to its participants honestly. To me, that's what America is truly about. A place where you can be yourself, and perhaps change yourself with inputs with others. Racists and bigots can't do that if they can't express themselves honestly in society.
I fucking dare them to try. Do it, Texas. See how far you get with that.How on Earth would that be enforceable? Also, I can't believe you're calling for a return to Jim Crow styled accommodations...
This? Really?
old manatee
Banned
It's funny watching them choose between their hatred of gays and their love of tax exempt status.
Here's the problem with those "black wall streets": segregation-era white people destroyed them. Tulsa, the wealthiest black community in the US at the time, was destroyed by white people who used rape of a white woman as an excuse to burn an entire community to the ground. The community couldn't even rebuild itself, not only because of the extensive damaged caused by things like aerial bombardment, but by new building codes that made things more expensive than they used to be.
The "upsides" to segregation you claim to exist with regards to "black wall streets" have no basis in reality when communities like Tulsa were burned to the ground or constricted to prevent regrowth. Lynch mobs tended to target those who showed the signs of becoming economic competitors. Black people were, in essence, not allowed to compete. There aren't any "black wall streets" today not because of integration, but because any of the potential ones were snuffed out a long time ago and the largest one was demolished by a hateful mob that couldn't stomach the thought of having to compete with black people. Black community resources were so constricted during times of economic prosperity that they could never recover (and have yet to).
TL;DR: The lack of "black wall streets" has more to do with white people demolishing them and less to do with integration.
Vicetrailia
Member
Religion is so good and yet so evil, a never ending duality. I thought about believing, but when I think about it is exclusively the people who drive it in its ways. So its not even about religion.
You sound like a politician. Saying something that may sound slightly reasonable at face value, but when you ponder the realities through history and common sense you realize the true implications of who wins and who loses.
You sound like a politician. Saying something that may sound slightly reasonable at face value, but when you ponder the realities through history and common sense you realize the true implications of who wins and who loses.
Because God's seal of approval in the afterlife is worth more than love and government tax breaks and hospital visitation rights on this plane of existence.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Remember when the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act because racism "wasn't a problem anymore"? How many states immediately passed strict Voter ID laws aimed specifically at minorities?
I'm sorry, but you must be pretty sheltered if you think any type of segregation, even private business, will go down well. Segregation will cause people to form a more 'us vs. them' tribal mentality and increase sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, religious intolerance, and so on. You will see a lot of riots and violence out in the street, consent murder and abuse on innocent people, and mobs destroying both private and public property. It will be a nightmare, and the country will be even more greatly divided than it already is.
Let's also go about the fact there are minorities much worse off than others in terms of how society looks and treats them. For transgender people like me, we won't last a week in this proposed new America that you bring up. 90% of businesses will refuse to serve us and I bet that the new hostility caused by the reinforcement of 'us vs them' will end up getting us killed faster than before. I mean, I already have a hard time living my life in a liberal place like Massachusetts, God help those like me who live in Mississippi or Louisiana, they would really suffer even greater.
To me the question is: why would a gay couple even want to get married in a church run by homophobes?
Apparently several people have suggested otherwise, I thought this was interesting.
Also, I think gay bakers should be allowed to refuse baking a pro-conservative cake. Can they?
Like if a campaign organizer for an anti-gay marriage politician came in and wanted a cake with his name on it, could they legally refuse?
Vicetrailia
Member
They likely don't, but this about the law and not about preference.
Nikodemos
Member
Roberts and Kennedy can fuck right the fuck off for pulling that shit. I had no illusions about The Gang of Three, but the aforementioned really fucked the porcupine with their support for this thinly-veiled racist garbage.
GameGuru59
Banned
I'm sorry, but I really don't believe this is true. I live in Alabama, and I've seen crossdressers and similarly "unconventional" people get served at bars and such just as well at businesses as any white person- and you can discriminate now against LGBT people in Alabama. Moreover, if Indiana is any indication, people do not react positively to businesses discriminating. Those businesses are shunned and considered outliers. This would still happen under my proposal, and in my opinion the consternation is a good thing. It is better for the public itself to enforce a social norm indirectly than have the government enforce it by law.
Someone authorized by the government has to essentially sign off on the marriage. To keep churches included (because there is demand for that), ministers/priests/pastors are authorized to do that. You could get the license signed by a clerk at a local government office or by your priest, there's no difference at all.
They would starve.
Are you Uncle Rukus?
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Blacks need bootstraps
No, you're the one that doesn't understand basic human conditioning. The gov't was simply reflecting the ideals of the general public not the other way around. To suggest that if their local gov't were forced to disallow segregation that would shame them into compliance is laughable. The only people they care about and reveal themselves to is the same hive minded people. Not everywhere in the U.S. is New York, Los Angles, or any other large urban area. There are local business that couldn't give one flying fuck about what people in Washington or anywhere else think. Especially now with the paranoia over the evil brainwashed big government that are trying to take their rights away. You have people in the South arguing right at this very minute that the Confederate flag is actually a symbol of peace and heritage, not oppression. They don't think twice about this stuff the way you seem to think they do.
GameGuru59
Banned
No they wouldn't be shamed by the local government, they'd be shamed by society. I do agree in some really small towns that you'd have problems, but mechanisms could be put in place to deal with harms that are too great.
Nope
Sho_Nuff82
Member
This is why these arguments never get anywhere. You just handwaved literally half of the effects of segregation (the private side) as "not real segregation" and "not a big deal".
If an entire neighborhood of homeowners won't sell to me because of my race, religion, or sexual orientation, and an entire neighborhood of shops won't sell to me because of the same, am I supposed to go dancing in the streets because I can use the post office, parks, and DMV?
Private discrimination can make government integration invisible. Who cares if the government forces school integration if no black people are allowed to live, work, or shop in the neighborhood where the school is? How many black parents will be in that neighborhood's elections? On the PTA?
Your segregated utopia is never going to happen. You haven't remotely considered the logistics of not being a member of a protected class on everyday private life. You suffer under the delusion that it will just be a handful of anti-gay or anti-black or anti-Muslim shops peppered among all the "normal" stores so you can easily avoid them, when in reality there will be entire towns closed off due to collusion for those looking for reasonable accommodations.
Perhaps easy enough for minorities who can "pass" between one group or another, not so much for anyone else.
Edit: and what "mechanisms" might these be?
No not really small towns. We're talking mid-sized cities with populations over 100,000 like Charleston, Savannah, and Jackson. They're are not going to be shamed in those places by a large segment of the population. If mechanisms have to be put in place in all the areas this would include in the South, it should just be universal because you admit there is a flaw in your logic when you say there needs to be mechanisms put in place.
GameGuru59
Banned
I think you really underestimate the progressive capacity of these southern cities. It would be a problem in really, really, small towns. Maybe Jackson, but that's because its Mississippi.
Well, first off the fair housing act would remain in place in my conception, so half the argument is irrelevant. Further, in this day and age, most businesses aren't going to discriminate (indeed, thanks to the social change forced by the civil rights act). Therefore, only a few businesses would even use their right to discriminate. 90% of businesses wouldn't discriminate against anyone.
I've already mentioned the mechanisms. Namely, a commission set up to handle claims of undue hardship.
Nope, you're simply overestimating racial harmony, and anyway you just admitted that Mississippi would be a problem.
Mississippi has nearly 3 million people. I would say that's a very large problem.
'The church' doesn't sign it. A person who has legal authority by the state to observe that the marriage is legit (called an Officiant) signs it. This is usually someone from a church, but that is not always the case. Other people from the state such as judges have the same authority. There are other non-religious Officients too such as people who belong to humanist associations.
This all means that a church is not required to get married, and people have no right to demand they be wed at any particular church. It flies in the face of the first amendment because Churches have the right to exercise their religious beliefs.
If you believe in separation of church and state you have to believe in both sides of the arrangement.
GameGuru59
Banned
Mississippi would be a problem (maybe also Louisiana), but you could always put those states under some type of federal control in there were too many undue hardship claims.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
...again, all of this hassle for the benefit of some businesses elsewhere being allowed to discriminate. Why is that worth all of this extra legal mess you're constructing?
If you have to put entire states under undue hardship claims, that goes against the entire philosophy you're debating. lol
So certain businesses based in certain localities shouldn't have those same rights because of undue hardship. You know you'd have to put "undue hardships" in places besides the south as well. So in Bumfuck Missisppi or Shreveport, La. or wherever they can't discriminate but they can say in Phoenix. Do you know how convoluted and silly that sounds?
BertramCooper
Banned
We're getting to the point where the folks who still refuse to support same-sex marriage are genuine bigots.
The country has moved so rapidly and so decisively on this issue that the people still dragging their feet are just ignorant morons, pure and simple.
It's kind of reductive to say people with religious convictions are simply morons. Misguided, yes, but not morons. And you're surely not going to change their beliefs by calling them names.
GameGuru59
Banned
Because private business owners should be able to allow who they want into their stores. Period.
I've always found this line argument so mental. It basically amounts to "You need to respect their hate and disrespect for you if you want them to eventually respect you!"
It's like telling a bullied kid that he needs to respect the bully's rights to bully him if he wants to bully to eventually respect him enough to stop bullying him.
No they can't by your own admission. Exclamation point.
But your own example says otherwise
- Status