Gay Marriage Discussion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
522

Professor Turkey on why the intellectual muddle of Kennedy’s opinion will cause problems.

Libertarians are oriented to liking and “finding” anything in the Constitution that promotes liberty. But as Turley notes, such a view runs headlong into our obvious state power to engage in morals legislation (up to a point).

Also, finding - or really extending - a right to marriage in Due Process is frankly bizarre. No one has a right to a marriage. If your state do away with all the laws instituting a public marriage, you don’t have a constitutional right to go to said state and demand they grant you one.

The issue is, and rightfully is, an Equal Protection one - if a state chooses to offer amd recognize public marriage to a class of people, is the state entitled under EP to exclude certain classes from it?

But under Kennedy’s formulation, a certain level of “dignity” affords you an unalloyed right to get married. What does “dignity” mean? And under what standards does a court determine that dignity and then balance it against other policies and/or rights?

Kennedy never says. What a mess.

523

I think that this is also worth a read from the other side of the aisle, even if you don’t agree - yes, it’s a Breitbart version from the other side of the aisle, but worthy of digestion from other fellow Christians: After gay marriage, expect conservative amnesia

I wholly agree that we must preserve religious liberty, including the freedom of those to dissent, and I don’t think anyone’s livelihood or social standing needs to be affected by respectful opposition to same-sex marriage, but you can’t deny that Christians have been equally guilty of some pretty unChristlike behaviors towards the gay community at times, as the author notes.

524

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Professor Turkey on why the intellectual muddle of Kennedy’s opinion will cause problems.

Libertarians are oriented to liking and “finding” anything in the Constitution that promotes liberty. But as Turley notes, such a view runs headlong into our obvious state power to engage in morals legislation (up to a point).

Also, finding - or really extending - a right to marriage in Due Process is frankly bizarre. No one has a right to a marriage. If your state do away with all the laws instituting a public marriage, you don’t have a constitutional right to go to said state and demand they grant you one.

The issue is, and rightfully is, an Equal Protection one - if a state chooses to offer amd recognize public marriage to a class of people, is the state entitled under EP to exclude certain classes from it?

But under Kennedy’s formulation, a certain level of “dignity” affords you an unalloyed right to get married. What does “dignity” mean? And under what standards does a court determine that dignity and then balance it against other policies and/or rights?

Kennedy never says. What a mess.[/quote]

Indeed, even the word itself is a mess. Merriam-Webster has it that “dignity” denotes “the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.” If dignity is now central to some Constitutional right, we’re going to have to be a little more specific: Worthy of what? The answer cannot be marriage – this would be question-begging (“homosexuals are entitled to marriage because they are worthy of marriage”).

There is simply too much mush there for me – I don’t really know what dignity means even after having looked it up. I much prefer my courtroom to deal in things like, Does the state have a compelling reason to refuse…

525

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Professor Turkey on why the intellectual muddle of Kennedy’s opinion will cause problems.

Libertarians are oriented to liking and “finding” anything in the Constitution that promotes liberty. But as Turley notes, such a view runs headlong into our obvious state power to engage in morals legislation (up to a point).

Also, finding - or really extending - a right to marriage in Due Process is frankly bizarre. No one has a right to a marriage. If your state do away with all the laws instituting a public marriage, you don’t have a constitutional right to go to said state and demand they grant you one.

The issue is, and rightfully is, an Equal Protection one - if a state chooses to offer amd recognize public marriage to a class of people, is the state entitled under EP to exclude certain classes from it?

But under Kennedy’s formulation, a certain level of “dignity” affords you an unalloyed right to get married. What does “dignity” mean? And under what standards does a court determine that dignity and then balance it against other policies and/or rights?

Kennedy never says. What a mess.[/quote]

Indeed, even the word itself is a mess. Merriam-Webster has it that “dignity” denotes “the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.” If dignity is now central to some Constitutional right, we’re going to have to be a little more specific: Worthy of what? The answer cannot be marriage – this would be question-begging (“homosexuals are entitled to marriage because they are worthy of marriage”).

There is simply too much mush there for me – I don’t really know what dignity means even after having looked it up. I much prefer my courtroom to deal in things like, Does the state have a compelling reason to refuse…[/quote]

Clyde Bruckman: You know, there are worse ways to go, but I can’t think of a more undignified way than autoerotic asphyxiation.
Mulder: Why are you telling me that?
Clyde Bruckman: Look, forget I mentioned it. It’s none of my business.

526

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The issue is, and rightfully is, an Equal Protection one - if a state chooses to offer and recognize public marriage to a class of people, is the state entitled under EP to exclude certain classes from it?

[/quote]

Yup.

527

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Professor Turkey on why the intellectual muddle of Kennedy’s opinion will cause problems.

Libertarians are oriented to liking and “finding” anything in the Constitution that promotes liberty. But as Turley notes, such a view runs headlong into our obvious state power to engage in morals legislation (up to a point).

Also, finding - or really extending - a right to marriage in Due Process is frankly bizarre. No one has a right to a marriage. If your state do away with all the laws instituting a public marriage, you don’t have a constitutional right to go to said state and demand they grant you one.

The issue is, and rightfully is, an Equal Protection one - if a state chooses to offer amd recognize public marriage to a class of people, is the state entitled under EP to exclude certain classes from it?

But under Kennedy’s formulation, a certain level of “dignity” affords you an unalloyed right to get married. What does “dignity” mean? And under what standards does a court determine that dignity and then balance it against other policies and/or rights?

Kennedy never says. What a mess.[/quote]

Indeed, even the word itself is a mess. Merriam-Webster has it that “dignity” denotes “the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.” If dignity is now central to some Constitutional right, we’re going to have to be a little more specific: Worthy of what? The answer cannot be marriage – this would be question-begging (“homosexuals are entitled to marriage because they are worthy of marriage”).

There is simply too much mush there for me – I don’t really know what dignity means even after having looked it up. I much prefer my courtroom to deal in things like, Does the state have a compelling reason to refuse…[/quote]

Clyde Bruckman: You know, there are worse ways to go, but I can’t think of a more undignified way than autoerotic asphyxiation.
Mulder: Why are you telling me that?
Clyde Bruckman: Look, forget I mentioned it. It’s none of my business.[/quote]

Woah – I’ve seen the show enough to know the characters fairly well, but I never saw that one. I just looked up the context. Was it said with a wink and a smile? If not, that is kind of disturbing haha.

528

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Professor Turkey on why the intellectual muddle of Kennedy’s opinion will cause problems.

Libertarians are oriented to liking and “finding” anything in the Constitution that promotes liberty. But as Turley notes, such a view runs headlong into our obvious state power to engage in morals legislation (up to a point).

Also, finding - or really extending - a right to marriage in Due Process is frankly bizarre. No one has a right to a marriage. If your state do away with all the laws instituting a public marriage, you don’t have a constitutional right to go to said state and demand they grant you one.

The issue is, and rightfully is, an Equal Protection one - if a state chooses to offer amd recognize public marriage to a class of people, is the state entitled under EP to exclude certain classes from it?

But under Kennedy’s formulation, a certain level of “dignity” affords you an unalloyed right to get married. What does “dignity” mean? And under what standards does a court determine that dignity and then balance it against other policies and/or rights?

Kennedy never says. What a mess.[/quote]

Indeed, even the word itself is a mess. Merriam-Webster has it that “dignity” denotes “the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.” If dignity is now central to some Constitutional right, we’re going to have to be a little more specific: Worthy of what? The answer cannot be marriage – this would be question-begging (“homosexuals are entitled to marriage because they are worthy of marriage”).

There is simply too much mush there for me – I don’t really know what dignity means even after having looked it up. I much prefer my courtroom to deal in things like, Does the state have a compelling reason to refuse…[/quote]

Clyde Bruckman: You know, there are worse ways to go, but I can’t think of a more undignified way than autoerotic asphyxiation.
Mulder: Why are you telling me that?
Clyde Bruckman: Look, forget I mentioned it. It’s none of my business.[/quote]

Woah – I’ve seen the show enough to know the characters fairly well, but I never saw that one. I just looked up the context. Was it said with a wink and a smile? If not, that is kind of disturbing haha.[/quote]

IMO it might have been my favorite moment in x-files history. Peter Boyle delivered the line perfectly and David Duchovnery’s facial reaction was priceless. I wish I could find a youtube clip. But it is not clear to me whether Bruckman was fucking with him or whether he was dead serious.

529

[quote]JR249 wrote:
I think that this is also worth a read from the other side of the aisle, even if you don’t agree - yes, it’s a Breitbart version from the other side of the aisle, but worthy of digestion from other fellow Christians: After gay marriage, expect conservative amnesia

I wholly agree that we must preserve religious liberty…
[/quote]

Too late now.

530

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Too late now. [/quote]

What does it mean to preserve religious liberty?

Does it matter whether the religion is a prominent one that holds great power in society? Or does even a minor pissant of a “religion” like Wicca also need to have its religious liberties preserved?

I mean… Muslims like to have their women cover themselves head to toe. A major part of their religion is no image of Muhammad and God.

How are we supposed to respect and preserve those religious liberties while also preserving our right to say “fuck y’all. Those are stupid and I’m going to draw a picture of Muhammad whenever I want!” or “It’s unjust to force people to wear a certain piece of clothing even if they don’t want to!”

Or w.e. Stuff like that.

No, seriously, I have no idea wtf preserving religious liberty means in a Constitutional standpoint. Does it mean that government cannot make laws that deny a religion its ability to practice its beliefs? Does it mean that government cannot make laws that piss off practitioners of a certain religion?

Is it about the bakeries across the nation that are getting harangued by angry gay people and forced to do things by government?

Edit- Removed idiotic question.

531

[quote]magick wrote:

What does it mean to preserve religious liberty?

[/quote]

As a general rule, the government doesn’t get to define beliefs related to God or worhsip, the state is neutral between religions, citizens are permitted to believe or not believe in a sacredness of their own choosing, and to engage (or not) in religious practices or belong to whatever religious organizations are congruous with the dictates of their own individual or collective conscience. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution also clearly indicated that there are to be no religious tests for holding offices.

There has, however, been cases where religious practices directly conflict with secular law, e.g., Christian bakeries not wanting to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception. This will continually test the meaning of the First Amendment, and other cases litigating the same legal issue were before the courts long before gay rights was on the national radar. While I’m not one in agreement that this particular decision has, as of right now, done anything to alter religious freedom, it certainly has the potential to become an issue down the road.

532

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Professor Turkey on why the intellectual muddle of Kennedy’s opinion will cause problems.

Libertarians are oriented to liking and “finding” anything in the Constitution that promotes liberty. But as Turley notes, such a view runs headlong into our obvious state power to engage in morals legislation (up to a point).

Also, finding - or really extending - a right to marriage in Due Process is frankly bizarre. No one has a right to a marriage. If your state do away with all the laws instituting a public marriage, you don’t have a constitutional right to go to said state and demand they grant you one.

The issue is, and rightfully is, an Equal Protection one - if a state chooses to offer amd recognize public marriage to a class of people, is the state entitled under EP to exclude certain classes from it?

But under Kennedy’s formulation, a certain level of “dignity” affords you an unalloyed right to get married. What does “dignity” mean? And under what standards does a court determine that dignity and then balance it against other policies and/or rights?

Kennedy never says. What a mess.[/quote]

Agreed.

If I were a judge I couldn’t join Alito’s dissent in full. Nor Thomas’s. But the one thing that stuck out to me from Thomas (I think, kinda foggy still mentally this morning) was one of his widely quotes excerpts–the government doesn’t grant “dignity”. It never has, it is innate. Just like the government does not grant rights: it recognizes they already existed. This is a big, huge, monumental issue.

533

[quote]magick wrote:

What does it mean to preserve religious liberty?[/quote]

When you hear/see this question, you know religious liberty is already under attack. This is simply what we’ve started asking to feel better about it.

Edit: I mean hey, tweak the meaning of this and tweaking the meaning of that and today we can suddenly run people out of their businesses (unless they abandon their ancient beliefs) for not making cakes or providing birth control in their coverage. All while somehow feeling sure that we have done nothing to curtail religious freedoms. How? I have not the slightest clue how so many people can be so self-deceptive. But what do I know. We live in a post-Christian era that lampoons us with spaghetti monsters while somehow unashamedly running stories about 8 year old transgenders. We live in a society that redefines an institutions that it has increasingly abandoned. We live in a society that demands equal protection for radically unequal things.

[quote]Is it about the bakeries across the nation that are getting harangued by angry gay people and forced to do things by government?

Edit- Removed idiotic question.[/quote]

I mean, yeah. Sort of a clear cut case of religious liberties that have long been honored being cast away. But, you can also keep an out eye for any religiously associated organizations that have hired people outside of the faith (usually with certain agreements made) that offer benefits for spouses. This has just started. Much like how defining who, and in what number, the “married” are (I hope people don’t believe the flood gates can actually be close behind gays, now).

534

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

What does it mean to preserve religious liberty?[/quote]

When you hear/see this question, you know religious liberty is already under attack. This is simply what we’ve started asking to feel better about it.

Edit: I mean hey, tweak the meaning of this and tweaking the meaning of that and today we can suddenly run people out of their businesses (unless they abandon their ancient beliefs) for not making cakes or providing birth control in their coverage. All while somehow feeling sure that we have done nothing to curtail religious freedoms. How? I have not the slightest clue how so many people can be so self-deceptive. But what do I know. We live in a post-Christian era that lampoons us with spaghetti monsters while somehow unashamedly running stories about 8 year old transgenders. We live in a society that redefines an institutions that it has increasingly abandoned. We live in a society that demands equal protection for radically unequal things.

[quote]Is it about the bakeries across the nation that are getting harangued by angry gay people and forced to do things by government?

Edit- Removed idiotic question.[/quote]

I mean, yeah. Sort of a clear cut case of religious liberties that have long been honored being cast away. But, you can also keep an out eye for any religiously associated organizations that have hired people outside of the faith (usually with certain agreements made) that offer benefits for spouses. This has just started. Much like how defining who, and in what number, the “married” are (I hope people don’t believe the flood gates can actually be close behind gays, now).
[/quote]

Sounds a lot like this little gem from Hillary:

535

[quote]Sloth wrote:

When you hear/see this question, you know religious liberty is already under attack. This is simply what we’ve started asking to feel better about it.[/quote]

Why do you think this way? What makes religious liberty so obvious that it doesn’t even to have be defined?

The First Amendment states-

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is the religious liberty aspect.

I don’t think the bakery stuff has anything to do with “respecting an establishment of religion”, so it must be the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

But what exactly makes “I get to say no cakes for gays” the free exercise of religion?

Indeed, what does “Free exercise” mean? And what does “make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof” imply? Consider this the crux of my question.

I bring up Islam again, because of the whole “Oh fuck no to Sharia law in the U.S.!” thing that come around every once in a while. Yet, as far as I understand it, Sharia law and adhering to it is one of the crucial aspects of Islam. Why couldn’t a Muslim argue that the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment require the U.S. to allow Muslims to live by Sharia law in the U.S.?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, yeah. Sort of a clear cut case of religious liberties that have long been honored being cast away.[/quote]

I don’t actually think this is a religious issue, but rather a civil issue. It seems more analogous to the stores that denied services to blacks. That a Christian is getting attacked doesn’t necessarily make it into a religious one.

I mean, if bakeries are allowed to deny services to gays, why aren’t they allowed to deny services to black people? Or Asians? Or dog-lovers? Or anyone that they want to deny service to?

Obviously a lot of people here have argued that they should be allowed to deny service to whoever they want to, but can’t because of government restrictions and whatnot. I think this is the actual issue at heart here- What does it mean to own a business, and what are your obligations as a business owner?

The folks who make this into a gay right issue are also mistaken, imo.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Much like how defining who, and in what number, the “married” are (I hope people don’t believe the flood gates can actually be close behind gays, now).
[/quote]

Wait, weren’t Republicans and religious conservatives the people who started this by attempting to pass an amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman back in the 2000s?

537

[quote]magick wrote:

I don’t actually think this is a religious issue, but rather a civil issue. It seems more analogous to the stores that denied services to blacks. That a Christian is getting attacked doesn’t necessarily make it into a religious one.

I mean, if bakeries are allowed to deny services to gays, why aren’t they allowed to deny services to black people? Or Asians? Or dog-lovers? Or anyone that they want to deny service to?

Obviously a lot of people here have argued that they should be allowed to deny service to whoever they want to, but can’t because of government restrictions and whatnot. I think this is the actual issue at heart here- What does it mean to own a business, and what are your obligations as a business owner?

The folks who make this into a gay right issue are also mistaken, imo.

[/quote]

It is (or was) initially more of a civil issue. The recent Supreme Court decision didn’t suddenly create the issue, because anti-discrimination laws for private businesses have been on the books since at least the 1960s at the federal level (sexual orientation has never been added as a protected class under federal Civil Rights legislation), maybe even longer in individual states or municipalities.

Some states have recently added such categories as sexual orientation or style of dress or appearance (e.g., California). There really wasn’t much of an issue until some states started to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions, which then tested the meaning of those laws, because same-sex couples seeking certain services related to their wedding or civil union ceremonies (e.g., bakeries, catering services, photographers, bed and breakfast facilities, privately owned chapels, etc.) then encountered some business owners who felt their religious beliefs prevented them from providing any services related to same-sex weddings or civil unions.

This now creates a situation where the courts have to decide whether or not secular state or local anti-discrimination laws, as they apply to privately owned commercial enterprises operating within the sphere of open public accommodation, trump free exercise of religion on the part of the owners or operators. I don’t believe the Hobby Lobby case settled the matter in this instance, because it was a much narrower ruling. So far state administrative labor bureaus or appeals courts have generally sided with the person(s) filing the discrimination complaints or lawsuits, and the Supreme Court refused to take the Elane Photography case from NM on appeal last year, so that either says they side with the reasoning of lower courts (i.e., it is illegal discrimination) or they are not yet ready to take on the issue for the obvious social implications. So while it is a civil issue, the defendants have appealed to religious liberty in their legal defense in every single case, so that makes it a free exercise one too.

538

[quote]magick wrote:
I mean, if bakeries are allowed to deny services to gays, [/quote]

Are they denying services to gays, or not providing a cake for a same sex wedding between gay people?

There is a difference between the two.

539

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Are they denying services to gays, or not providing a cake for a same sex wedding between gay people?

There is a difference between the two. [/quote]

The way the courts are interpreting the law, agree or not, it is. The reasoning has been this: the primary feature distinguishing same-sex weddings (or civil unions) from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants, hence only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Consequently, the argument that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not â??because ofâ?? their sexual orientation hasn’t been a valid one in balancing what the state laws actually say versus what the bakeries are doing. Because these bakersâ?? objection goes beyond just the act of â??marriage,â?? and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, the courts or labor bureaus seem to conclude that the real objection is to the coupleâ??s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage carte blanche.

I suspect what really sealed the deal for this case in Oregon was what the baker actually said (check out the transcripts, most news sites are biased in one direction or the other): http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

The bakery owner quoted Leviticus, e.g., “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female,” stated over and over that they did not do same-sex weddings, and called the couple’s children an “abomination.” After the state contacted them, and the later correspondence with the bakery is all laid out in that ruling, they continued to stand firm in this position. They didn’t really do themselves any favors in their choice of wording here, and probably should have either refrained from commenting, leaving that to legal representation, or just gave some other reason for not baking the cake. Agree or disagree, the courts have not been holding refusal to provide a service for a same-sex ceremony as being mutually exclusive to denying service based on sexual orientation.

540

[quote]JR249 wrote:

The bakery owner quoted Leviticus, e.g., “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female,” stated over and over that they did not do same-sex weddings, and called the couple’s children an “abomination.” After the state contacted them, and the later correspondence with the bakery is all laid out in that ruling, they continued to stand firm in this position. .[/quote]

Then these people are doing the former in my question.

A simple “I’d prefer not to provide the cake for a same sex wedding, as my religious beliefs tell me I shouldn’t be involved in that ceremony. If you were to need a cake for a party or some other event I would be more than happy to supply it” would be preferred here.

Of course the news would still lambast the shit out of them, and they’d get death threats on twitter and facebook, the ultra evil “boycott” etc, but at that point it’s about the ceremony and not the people.