The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Illinois is number 15! *cheer* And from what I hear it's already been signed into law (although I can't find a new story about that on the web right now.)

that article wrote:

Religious leaders opposed say the bill doesn't go far enough to protect their rights. For example, they contend they might be forced to provide health insurance to an employee's same-sex spouse.

O_o And? What, exactly, do you think would give you the right to do that? *grumble*

Hypatian wrote:
that article wrote:

Religious leaders opposed say the bill doesn't go far enough to protect their rights. For example, they contend they might be forced to provide health insurance to an employee's same-sex spouse.

O_o And? What, exactly, do you think would give you the right to do that? *grumble*

Nothing boils my blood faster than the notion that things like the above are "rights." There is no right to inflict financial ruin in any of the Bills of Rights I've ever read. Employers aren't our f*cking kings.

Hypatian wrote:

Illinois is number 15! *cheer* And from what I hear it's already been signed into law (although I can't find a new story about that on the web right now.)

that article wrote:

Religious leaders opposed say the bill doesn't go far enough to protect their rights. For example, they contend they might be forced to provide health insurance to an employee's same-sex spouse.

O_o And? What, exactly, do you think would give you the right to do that? *grumble*

While I am really glad that we passed this I just keep looking at the voting and thinking "61-54? f*ck you, Southern Illinois".

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Makes my wedding this weekend all the sweeter! Also makes me wish I was getting married in Illinois instead of in PA. C'mon PA, get with the program!

Hypatian wrote:

Parents like these are exactly why laws like this are a necessity. Ugh.

I would say that this should be possible grounds for getting that kid away from his parents, frankly. Being a gay teen in an environment like that cannot be healthy.

Hypatian wrote:
that article wrote:

Religious leaders opposed say the bill doesn't go far enough to protect their rights. For example, they contend they might be forced to provide health insurance to an employee's same-sex spouse.

O_o And? What, exactly, do you think would give you the right to do that? *grumble*

They might be forced? There'd better be no 'might' about it. It should be mandatory, and if religious businesses don't like it, hopefully they'll pack up their ball and go home. The fewer businesses of this nature existing, the better.

NathanialG wrote:

[While I am really glad that we passed this I just keep looking at the voting and thinking "61-54? f*ck you, Southern Illinois".

It's Downstate Illinois, really. Nearly everything outside Chicago is a conservative religious wasteland there. Fortunately, Chicago is the only part of that state which really matters.

The way I look at this if you want your freedom of religion you HAVE it. Go do whatever you want no need for money to be involved, or if you want to that is fine too.
BUT...
If you want to employ people directly... you are subject to employment laws.
Just like if you decide to build a place of warship you are subject to building and fire codes. I don't care if your religion DEMANDS 20,000 people and one cramped exit, you can't have it.

realityhack wrote:

The way I look at this if you want your freedom of religion you HAVE it. Go do whatever you want no need for money to be involved, or if you want to that is fine too.
BUT...
If you want to employ people directly... you are subject to employment laws.
Just like if you decide to build a place of warship you are subject to building and fire codes. I don't care if your religion DEMANDS 20,000 people and one cramped exit, you can't have it.

Well put, this a million times over.

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

You're requiring the part of the organization that hires and pays people (who may not necessarily follow that religion) to follow the same rules as every other employer - nothing more, nothing less. Just like they have to pay federal income and FICA taxes for anyone they actively employee.

realityhack wrote:

The way I look at this if you want your freedom of religion you HAVE it. Go do whatever you want no need for money to be involved, or if you want to that is fine too.
BUT...
If you want to employ people directly... you are subject to employment laws.
Just like if you decide to build a place of warship you are subject to building and fire codes. I don't care if your religion DEMANDS 20,000 people and one cramped exit, you can't have it.

I giggled.

LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

Which is why any organization opposed to marriages between people of different skin color can clearly deny spousal benefits to those married couples.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

Which is why any organization opposed to marriages between people of different skin color can clearly deny spousal benefits to those married couples.

I was about to question this, then I realized what you were doing.

McIrishJihad wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

You're requiring the part of the organization that hires and pays people (who may not necessarily follow that religion) to follow the same rules as every other employer - nothing more, nothing less. Just like they have to pay federal income and FICA taxes for anyone they actively employee.

You're invoking "rules is rules" here, but it's not applicable. US law is not Sharia law, but if it were and it forced churches to do things that are contrary to their belief practices and violates them, then that is not freedom of religion. This is not a comprehensive violation of religious freedom, but it is one, and it should concern anyone concerned with freedom of expression.

If this sort of coercive action is what the churches in your country were afraid of when these laws were being proposed, it seems like they had very good and justifiable cause for concern.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

Which is why any organization opposed to marriages between people of different skin color can clearly deny spousal benefits to those married couples.

Is there a church with such a doctrinal item?

LarryC wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

Which is why any organization opposed to marriages between people of different skin color can clearly deny spousal benefits to those married couples.

Is there a church with such a doctrinal item?

Absolutely; there are any number of smaller churches with white supremacist attitudes that use Biblical references to justify racism, bans on miscegenation, and even slavery. They aren't large-scale organizations, but, if the argument is freedom of religion, I fail to see how that matters. The simple fact is if you state you can deny rights to same-sex couples based on religious beliefs, then that same attitude should be taken for couples from different ethnic backgrounds.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
LarryC wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

Which is why any organization opposed to marriages between people of different skin color can clearly deny spousal benefits to those married couples.

Is there a church with such a doctrinal item?

Absolutely; there are any number of smaller churches with white supremacist attitudes that use Biblical references to justify racism, bans on miscegenation, and even slavery. They aren't large-scale organizations, but, if the argument is freedom of religion, I fail to see how that matters. The simple fact is if you state you can deny rights to same-sex couples based on religious beliefs, then that same attitude should be taken for couples from different ethnic backgrounds.

I'm willing to support the stance that religious organizations with those beliefs can withhold benefits to marriages they don't recognize. Would there be any reason why a mixed-marriage couple would have a marriage in another church, but be employed by a church solely composed of people who hate their guts? Seems to me that there'd be a rather fatal employee-employer discord in that relationship.

EDIT: I would like to apologize for not using the word "race." Just using it makes me feel ill knowing what I do now of your history. I do not like even thinking the word.

LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

It's a freedom of religion issue if you (the general "you" not you specifically, Larry) think that "freedom of religion" means "My religious beliefs allow me to break any other law in the country". Every "freedom of" in the United States is curbed to some extent - freedom of speech is an easy example. It's just another example of people trying to handwave "freedom of" into saying "I can do anything I like, or you're persecuting me!"

Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

It's a freedom of religion issue if you (the general "you" not you specifically, Larry) think that "freedom of religion" means "My religious beliefs allow me to break any other law in the country". Every "freedom of" in the United States is curbed to some extent - freedom of speech is an easy example. It's just another example of people trying to handwave "freedom of" into saying "I can do anything I like, or you're persecuting me!"

Not anything. This particular thing. Many church representatives feared that they would be coerced to recognize secular marriages by the state in various ways. This was handwaved away as a pointless fear. It seems to me now that they were absolutely right to be worried, and that their fears were well-founded, after all. It's not like this is just a made-up objection or difference with secular law. Many longstanding institutions battled against this law because of ancient prohibitions against it within their traditions.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice the religion of your choosing, NOT force your religious beliefs on every person under the sun that you have even a little bit of power over.

Sorry churches, you don't want to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples... then you clearly need to stop employing people. End of story. These same people trying to argue for this would be up at arms at the idea of a Church of Gaydom denying marriage benefits to heterosexual married couples, so why should they be allowed to do the same?

Demosthenes wrote:

Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice the religion of your choosing, NOT force your religious beliefs on every person under the sun that you have even a little bit of power over.

Sorry churches, you don't want to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples... then you clearly need to stop employing people. End of story. These same people trying to argue for this would be up at arms at the idea of a Church of Gaydom denying marriage benefits to heterosexual married couples, so why should they be allowed to do the same?

I'm having a bit of a problem where people don't perceive that forcing people to grant marriage benefits to marriages they don't recognize IS a coercion of religious belief in itself. It's forcing recognition. The converse is actually not. THIS church (which for some reason is your employer) isn't recognizing your marriage, but you already knew that. It's not forcing this non-recognition on you. You can always work somewhere else that does recognize your marriage.

LarryC wrote:

I'm having a bit of a problem where people don't perceive that forcing employers to grant legally mandated marriage benefits to employees

If I re-frame it like this, does that help?

It's forcing employers to all work to the same standard, regardless of their nature as a religious entity or otherwise.

If your religion is also an employer, guess what Pastor, you need to follow employment law, just like every other schmuck who's issuing paychecks.

LarryC wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice the religion of your choosing, NOT force your religious beliefs on every person under the sun that you have even a little bit of power over.

Sorry churches, you don't want to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples... then you clearly need to stop employing people. End of story. These same people trying to argue for this would be up at arms at the idea of a Church of Gaydom denying marriage benefits to heterosexual married couples, so why should they be allowed to do the same?

I'm having a bit of a problem where people don't perceive that forcing people to grant marriage benefits to marriages they don't recognize IS a coercion of religious belief in itself. It's forcing recognition. The converse is actually not. THIS church (which for some reason is your employer) isn't recognizing your marriage, but you already knew that. It's not forcing this non-recognition on you. You can always work somewhere else that does recognize your marriage.

Every employer has to recognize marriage. What you are describing is an exception for an employer. In this instance the church is no longer a religious institution it is a business.

Jonhausered!

LarryC wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice the religion of your choosing, NOT force your religious beliefs on every person under the sun that you have even a little bit of power over.

Sorry churches, you don't want to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples... then you clearly need to stop employing people. End of story. These same people trying to argue for this would be up at arms at the idea of a Church of Gaydom denying marriage benefits to heterosexual married couples, so why should they be allowed to do the same?

I'm having a bit of a problem where people don't perceive that forcing people to grant marriage benefits to marriages they don't recognize IS a coercion of religious belief in itself. It's forcing recognition. The converse is actually not. THIS church (which for some reason is your employer) isn't recognizing your marriage, but you already knew that. It's not forcing this non-recognition on you. You can always work somewhere else that does recognize your marriage.

But, we wouldn't allow a non-religious organization discriminate against a gay couple... so why would we allow a religious one to do the same? I get not allowing them to marry in the church as that violates the church's beliefs... but employment is employment, it's not a religious thing.

And frankly, a Christian church that says, we would rather condemn a sinner to less healthcare and well-being for their religious beliefs rather than helping a fellow human being... kiiiiiiiiiiind of sucks at their religion... so their statements on what their religion dictates kind of falls out of the window for me.

I will ask again, Larry; do you believe racist business should have the rights to deny benefits to mixed-race couples? Plain and simple. If you believe religious beliefs are grounds for denying benefits to same-sex couples, how about other couples the business may find inconvenient?

Your employment of someone is a well-defined secular legal relationship. Their marriage to someone is a well-defined secular legal relationship. The requirement that you provide certain benefits to that person that they're married to is a well-defined secular legal requirement.

The problem comes in from not wanting to allow the word "marriage" to include "marriages that aren't valid in our religion".

Except... that this isn't true, either: Non-Catholic marriages aren't sacramental marriages like Catholic marriages are... and yet, the Church has no problem paying benefits to spouses of employees married by a different rite, including civil ceremonies.

So now, it's down to not wanting to allow the word "marriage" to include "marriages of people that my religion doesn't think should be allowed to marry".

But the word marriage is not owned by any one religion, or even by religion at all. So.... yeah.

I think part of the problem is the conflation of civil marriage (a contractual arrangement conferring various privileges in the eyes of the state, including tax benefits, visitation rights, etc.) with religious marriage (a ritual where two souls are joined together before the eyes of God or whatever). The government isn't interfering in religious marriage--it isn't forcing these churches to hold gay marriage ceremonies, or even acknowledge that the marriage is valid before God. It's just saying that everyone needs to follow the laws dealing with civil marriage.

Look at visitation rights. In many states (though still too few), gay people have the right to visit their spouse in the hospital. The hospital can't refuse that right, even if they don't believe that the couple is "really" married. LarryC, do you think that hospitals should be able to refuse visitation rights? If not, what's the difference between that and legally mandated partner benefits?

LarryC wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice the religion of your choosing, NOT force your religious beliefs on every person under the sun that you have even a little bit of power over.

Sorry churches, you don't want to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples... then you clearly need to stop employing people. End of story. These same people trying to argue for this would be up at arms at the idea of a Church of Gaydom denying marriage benefits to heterosexual married couples, so why should they be allowed to do the same?

I'm having a bit of a problem where people don't perceive that forcing people to grant marriage benefits to marriages they don't recognize IS a coercion of religious belief in itself. It's forcing recognition. The converse is actually not. THIS church (which for some reason is your employer) isn't recognizing your marriage, but you already knew that. It's not forcing this non-recognition on you. You can always work somewhere else that does recognize your marriage.

Sorry; but I have to point out that the freedom of religion we have in this nation includes the freedom FROM religion as well. Marriage unfortunately is a term used for both a civil contract and a sacred pact with your deity. Because of this, a church has the right to ignore the fact that two people are married if they disagree with the marriage by order of their faith. This is the case for many Catholics that marry a non-Catholic. Their marriage is not recognized by the Catholic Church and any children they are often considered bastard children. However, the state recognizes the civil contract of their marriage and gives them full rights and recognizes the children and other property rights given by this contract.

Now, how does this affect a religious employer? Since the employee is not necessarily a member of the church that runs the organization they would not have to be bound by the rules following that faiths sacred recognition of marriage. However, the religious employer is committing a civil contract with that employee to employ them in the state or municipality where they are located. They have to follow all statutes and rules implemented by the state for employers including OSHA safety rules, minimum wage, and hourly employment rules such as overtime. So, based on this precedent the religious employer would need to follow the civil recognition of the marriage contract for matters of employment.

Many may not agree with this but if I were debating this on legal grounds this is where I end up.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I will ask again, Larry; do you believe racist business should have the rights to deny benefits to mixed-race couples? Plain and simple. If you believe religious beliefs are grounds for denying benefits to same-sex couples, how about other couples the business may find inconvenient?

Not business. Churches. I stand by the right of a racist church not to recognize marriages it does not want to, including its actions as an employer.

Double.

LarryC wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I will ask again, Larry; do you believe racist business should have the rights to deny benefits to mixed-race couples? Plain and simple. If you believe religious beliefs are grounds for denying benefits to same-sex couples, how about other couples the business may find inconvenient?

Not business. Churches. I stand by the right of a racist church not to recognize marriages it does not want to, including its actions as an employer.

I stand in agreement with you, but it's that line where a church is a business where we split paths. A business being defined, loosely in this case, as any institution that pays individuals for work done.

LarryC wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I think that the objection is related to being forced to acknowledge the marriage in very concrete ways - such as providing benefits to a spouse in a marriage they don't recognize. That is kind of a freedom of religion issue. You're forcing the organization to recognize the marriage.

It's a freedom of religion issue if you (the general "you" not you specifically, Larry) think that "freedom of religion" means "My religious beliefs allow me to break any other law in the country". Every "freedom of" in the United States is curbed to some extent - freedom of speech is an easy example. It's just another example of people trying to handwave "freedom of" into saying "I can do anything I like, or you're persecuting me!"

Not anything. This particular thing. Many church representatives feared that they would be coerced to recognize secular marriages by the state in various ways. This was handwaved away as a pointless fear. It seems to me now that they were absolutely right to be worried, and that their fears were well-founded, after all. It's not like this is just a made-up objection or difference with secular law. Many longstanding institutions battled against this law because of ancient prohibitions against it within their traditions.

Every thing is a particular thing, Larry. That's a hair you can't really split, sorry.