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

LarryC wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. If the number of affected people is small, then it seems worthwhile to uphold the principles of separation of Church and State and freedom of religion just for precedent and statement. It is extremely damaging, IMO, to propagate the idea that the only way to be able to express your beliefs freely is to have it legislated into law.

If you think that allowing an employer to skirt/ignore Federal Law because the action is based on religion is "separation of church and state", I think one of us seriously misunderstands what that phrase means.

Actually, no. There are certain things that are central to religious practice. For instance, if the state, for some reason, does not protect Sunni Muslims while they are praying their usual 5 times a day, or otherwise makes it impossible, that would be the State interfering with religious expression, regardless of the reasons behind State actions.

Like I said, it's not just anything. It's a very particular something. Marriage happens to be one of the foundational sacraments of the Catholic Church, and is otherwise also extremely important to the religious lives of many churches. It's not just anything. Eroding the church's ability to recognize or not recognize relationships of this nature is a straight challenge of a central religious practice.

I like how you pointedly but subtly keep trying to shell-game from people citing businesses to you talking about churches. The church is allowed to do whatever it likes, Larry, no one is really refuting that. If they want to run businesses, they get to play by the same rules as everyone. That's all there is to it, no matter how many "but actually..." odd pretzel twists of logic you want to try.

Demosthenes wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

General Motors To Offer Benefits To All Gay Married Employees (James Nichols, Huffington Post)

Detail: Regardless of whether their state of residence recognizes the marriage.

Benefits if they've been unable to get married due to state restrictions?

Benefits if they go and get married in a state where they can be legally married, but continue to live in a state where that marriage is not recognized. (I believe GM has been pretty good at supporting marriage-equality campaigns, as well.)

LarryC wrote:

I actually don't expect my marriage to be recognized by all churches. If I happen to work for a non-Catholic church for some reason, I fully expect them not to extend marriage benefits. It's their thing, and I really don't feel bad about this. If I cared that much about it, I would probably not work for that church to begin with.

I hesitated to enter this fray at first, but I simply have to say something. This will be my only comment on the subject, as it is all I really have to say on the matter.

LarryC, what you're arguing for is not religious freedom. It's for the freedom for religion to discriminate. It's for the subversion of individual rights to freedom in general in favor of religious dictation and imposition of social constructs that don't apply to everyone. Since you've already indicated in other threads that your country has laws that already commit this offense against its citizens, it's not hard to understand why this concept might be familiar and even ideal to you.

You're arguing for an ideal of "religious freedom" that doesn't exist in any known modern, western, democratized culture that professes to maintain a right to such a concept. Freedom of religion has restrictions, just like any other promised right. Any religious imposition on the personal freedoms of others is invalid and not protected. It is not a right to impose upon another human being with harmful results.

You might ask, "What about the religious persons' right not to be imposed upon to recognize something that they consider sinful?"

Sinful is a loaded word with any number of definitions, and there is no standard. Harm can be measured and has an objective basis. Yes, maybe it will do some harm in the sense that it will raise the indignation of those who believe homosexuality is a sin, and that recognizing those marriages in any sense is both in some way wrong and offering their validation. It also probably did some harm when civilizations ultimately decided that human sacrifice, or animal sacrifice, or even crop sacrifice for the sake of appeasing their deity was ultimately disadvantageous, as there were probably those who believed that stopping the sacrifices would bring their gods' wrath upon them. But society progressed, and such things are seen as absurd now, because many realize that those practices were archaic, useless, and wasteful (some cultures, of course, still practice such things).

Consider that drawing such lines makes for a more ideal path than others. It's certainly true that in this country, and most of the world, there is definitely an ideal path: the straight, white male. The difference between this ideal path and the one that granting a religious exemption to allow discrimination against same-sex-married couples is that one would be enshrined in the text of the law, and the other is a cultural... ideal? Trope? Not sure of the best word for it... that is ridiculously hard to eradicate. Put such things into the text of a law, and you undermine religious freedom, not uphold it. You make the ideals of one particular religion the legally binding way to have the best life. The best way to pursue happiness.

At the expense of liberty.

Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. If the number of affected people is small, then it seems worthwhile to uphold the principles of separation of Church and State and freedom of religion just for precedent and statement. It is extremely damaging, IMO, to propagate the idea that the only way to be able to express your beliefs freely is to have it legislated into law.

If you think that allowing an employer to skirt/ignore Federal Law because the action is based on religion is "separation of church and state", I think one of us seriously misunderstands what that phrase means.

Actually, no. There are certain things that are central to religious practice. For instance, if the state, for some reason, does not protect Sunni Muslims while they are praying their usual 5 times a day, or otherwise makes it impossible, that would be the State interfering with religious expression, regardless of the reasons behind State actions.

Like I said, it's not just anything. It's a very particular something. Marriage happens to be one of the foundational sacraments of the Catholic Church, and is otherwise also extremely important to the religious lives of many churches. It's not just anything. Eroding the church's ability to recognize or not recognize relationships of this nature is a straight challenge of a central religious practice.

I like how you pointedly but subtly keep trying to shell-game from people citing businesses to you talking about churches. The church is allowed to do whatever it likes, Larry, no one is really refuting that. If they want to run businesses, they get to play by the same rules as everyone. That's all there is to it, no matter how many "but actually..." odd pretzel twists of logic you want to try.

I am not doing pretzel twisting. I am not shell-gaming. See replies to Blondish83.

NSMike:

I would counter that your way is the way of tyranny - of imposing cultural mores and traditions that you want on people that don't want it. In what way does it make a church "the best life" if you don't get to have marriage benefits within it? Clearly, you will only work there until a better offer comes along, probably one that recognizes your secular marriage.

I see only the arrogance of the West in attendance here - that you know your way is the best and you'll use the sword to get it done.

LarryC wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. If the number of affected people is small, then it seems worthwhile to uphold the principles of separation of Church and State and freedom of religion just for precedent and statement. It is extremely damaging, IMO, to propagate the idea that the only way to be able to express your beliefs freely is to have it legislated into law.

If you think that allowing an employer to skirt/ignore Federal Law because the action is based on religion is "separation of church and state", I think one of us seriously misunderstands what that phrase means.

Actually, no. There are certain things that are central to religious practice. For instance, if the state, for some reason, does not protect Sunni Muslims while they are praying their usual 5 times a day, or otherwise makes it impossible, that would be the State interfering with religious expression, regardless of the reasons behind State actions.

Like I said, it's not just anything. It's a very particular something. Marriage happens to be one of the foundational sacraments of the Catholic Church, and is otherwise also extremely important to the religious lives of many churches. It's not just anything. Eroding the church's ability to recognize or not recognize relationships of this nature is a straight challenge of a central religious practice.

So if human sacrifice of an unwilling person is central to a religion, the state should be unable to interfere, right?

What you seem to be incapable of understanding it's that it's not the church itself that's forced to recognize the marriage, it's the side-business the church is running. The Catholic Church will never have to recognize my marriage as neither my wife nor myself are Catholic, but the hospital they run does have to recognize it, whether we're there as patients or employees.

Stengah:

See responses to Blondish83. My apologies for being incapable of comprehension. I must have some sort of learning disability.

Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. If the number of affected people is small, then it seems worthwhile to uphold the principles of separation of Church and State and freedom of religion just for precedent and statement. It is extremely damaging, IMO, to propagate the idea that the only way to be able to express your beliefs freely is to have it legislated into law.

If you think that allowing an employer to skirt/ignore Federal Law because the action is based on religion is "separation of church and state", I think one of us seriously misunderstands what that phrase means.

So, you feel that there should not be a law passed outlawing abortion then? I don't know your stance on the pro-choice/anti-choice issue but this is a dangerous place to step when you talk about these same groups claiming that laws are standing on their ability to practice their religion freely when these same groups are fighting for laws that stand on people's right to not be bound by the religion that feels this is 'sinful'.

I personally have had to deal with much of the ire that results from organizations claiming their 'religious freedom' in their daily practicing of business. I have had to change my primary care doctor twice in the past 7 years because the practice was bought out by a Catholic owned hospital/care system. They did not 'officially' kick me out but let's just say it was made clear to me that I was no longer welcome and would not receive the same level of care under the new ownership. My current doctor recently was bought out so I am looking for another primary care physician again.

I feel Mike has hit on another issue I have that you have a Constitutional right to practice your religion but not a right to discriminate. We have already seen what happens when you have systemic bigotry allowed to be practiced in a legally protected way in the deep south under the power of Jim Crow. Yes, in most cases they were not violently assaulting people but they were preventing people from coming in with signs like, "Colored need not apply." I shutter at the idea of "Gays need not apply" or "Traditional Family Only" signs showing up in places of business if we allow this kind of behavior under the guise of religion which was also used as justification for Jim Crow laws.

Luckily I work in a place that does offer same-sex benefits to all employees even if they cannot be married due to state law. However, that also puts me in a difficult situation that it severely limits where I can be employed. Sure, I could go 'in the closet' and work at a company and drop my partner from my benefits, but that is a financial hardship that I and many other simply may not be able to afford. Sorry to be anecdotal about my life in regards to this but I am one of the 'small group' affected already.

I see only the arrogance of the West in attendance here - that you know your way is the best and you'll use the sword to get it done.

Funny, because I was thinking the exact same thing... except I was seeing the arrogance of the CHURCH.

The church believes it should be able to ignore laws put in place for the equality of all people. The church is FIGHTING EQUALITY... and the people legislating equality for all people are tyrannical?

Yup, chalking this up to a cultural difference that I just don't get.

LarryC wrote:

NSMike:

I would counter that your way is the way of tyranny - of imposing cultural mores and traditions that you want on people that don't want it. In what way does it make a church "the best life" if you don't get to have marriage benefits within it? Clearly, you will only work there until a better offer comes along, probably one that recognizes your secular marriage.

I see only the arrogance of the West in attendance here - that you know your way is the best and you'll use the sword to get it done.

Well, I'm not about to invade countries over it, but yes, preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is the best.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

See responses to Blondish83. My apologies for being incapable of comprehension. I must have some sort of learning disability.

I'd say it's more of a massive blind spot.

LarryC wrote:

I see only the arrogance of the West in attendance here - that you know your way is the best and you'll use the sword to get it done.

...what?

Sure, if feeling that We the People know how best to govern our own nation is "arrogance of the West" and using legislation to ensure equal rights is "using the sword".

If so, I have a sneaking feeling that every nation is guilty of the same thing. Not so much a Western thing anymore, is it?

Come on, LarryC, don't run to the "Empirical West" attack just because the perspective our culture has on its own governance doesn't line up with the perspective your culture has on its own governance. We're not telling the Phillipines how to run their nation in this thread, but someone from the Phillipines is rhetorically stepping in and telling the US how they should run their nation.

Blondish83:

So, you feel that there should not be a law passed outlawing abortion then? I don't know your stance on the pro-choice/anti-choice issue but this is a dangerous place to step when you talk about these same groups claiming that laws are standing on their ability to practice their religion freely when these same groups are fighting for laws that stand on people's right to not be bound by the religion that feels this is 'sinful'.

Abortion is actually not a central issue in many churches. Even in the Catholic church, it is not a foundational point of practice. This does make a difference. Moreover, outlawing abortion applies it universally to every church; it does not allow churches who disagree to make their own choices. That is about as diametrically opposed to what I'm saying as anything can be. It is important to distinguish between these things.

It appears to me that most of you do not or cannot.

I understand the irony, Farscry. It's not lost on me. However, I'm not using law or the point of a gun to tell you to agree. This is a very important difference. I'm just making suggestions, and voicing disagreement.

Moreover, outlawing abortion applies it universally to every church; it does not allow churches who disagree to make their own choices.

Soooooo... you're not ok with legislating abortions then... as it removes people choices based upon their religious beliefs?

Demosthenes wrote:
Moreover, outlawing abortion applies it universally to every church; it does not allow churches who disagree to make their own choices.

Soooooo... you're not ok with legislating abortions then... as it removes people choices based upon their religious beliefs?

Yes. I would be against legislating which people ought to have abortions, and then forcing it on them without their consent. I'm not sure there's a movement like that anywhere.

However, legalizing abortions as an option is an entirely different thing. Having a thing be available obligates no one to have it.

You guys really trash threads when you all feel this overriding need to cure LarryC of his silly ideas. Haven't you guys realized the futility of such a pointless exercise? This has been going on for years.

I missed a page, so if it's mentioned there, I'm sorry. Reading back now (filthy skimmer that I am). But:

Can't a homophobic church just fire any homosexual employees they find? That seems like a valid way to avoid providing benefits to or acknowledging the validity of same sex couples.

LarryC wrote:

Like I said, it's not just anything. It's a very particular something. Marriage happens to be one of the foundational sacraments of the Catholic Church, and is otherwise also extremely important to the religious lives of many churches. It's not just anything. Eroding the church's ability to recognize or not recognize relationships of this nature is a straight challenge of a central religious practice.

The legal rights and benefits of being married flow entirely from the state's recognition of the marriage. The state honestly doesn't care what the Catholic Church thinks is or isn't a marriage because the Catholic Church's opinion on the subject doesn't matter.

If the state says a couple is married then they get all the rights and benefits of being married. Period. There's no caveat that they only get those rights and benefits if a particular church says it's OK.

The Catholic Church is entirely free to deny a gay married couple holy sacraments. That's entirely a religious thing. The Catholic Church is not free to deny benefits to its employees because they don't like who they're married to. Again, their opinion on the matter is moot.

It's just a difference in philosophies Larry, the US was founded not as a vehicle for religions to establish their own fiefs and constituents, but for legislators, duly elected by the people elected by the people, to write the laws.

Once those democratically elected officials write the laws, everyone follows them. You are thinking of "supremacy of religion" where religious law and belief trumps secular law when there is a conflict. In this country the law is the law of the land.

"Freedom of religion" is not "supremacy of religion", if a religious law contradicts a secular law, the secular law wins, always. We find that it really cuts down on the stonings.

I'm not sure there's a movement like that anywhere.

You should check out the American Pro-Life movement... which the US church pretty heavily supports! Totally OK with legislating people's choices away when it serves them... not so OK with legislation taking away their choices though.

To summarize...

The US church when they agree with laws limiting other people's freedoms: YAY!
The US church when they disagree with laws limiting their own freedoms: BOO!

If the US church wasn't so mind-numbingly hypocritical about this, I would see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, they have no problem being as discriminatory as possible... and the idea that they are being legally told they can't discriminate... is perfectly fine as I'm concerned. They can say it as much as they want to (though they'd best watch out, as this really is inviting a hostile workplace lawsuit). But they shouldn't be allowed to legally treat employees differently on the basis of something that in no way affects their ability to do their job.

Yonder:

I think what you're finding is that it encourages churches to legislate stonings into law. Right now, it's not stonings, but that effort is there all the same. And I now strongly think that they're very well justified in doing that, everything mentioned here being what it is so far.

OG_Slinger:

My apologies. I've tackled that already over several pages, and you're just repeating a lot of the thing other posters have already said. And Quintin Stone's right. If there's nothing new, I think I'll go back to lurking for a bit.

gore wrote:

I missed a page, so if it's mentioned there, I'm sorry. Reading back now (filthy skimmer that I am). But:

Can't a homophobic church just fire any homosexual employees they find? That seems like a valid way to avoid providing benefits to or acknowledging the validity of same sex couples.

That's a good point! But unfortunately for the homophobes a handful of states have started making sexual orientation a protected status in that state. I am guessing the overlap between those states and gay marriage states is pretty strong.

So there will be a handful of places where not only will the company have to let them sign up for the family plan, they won't even be able to summarily fire them in retaliation.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

You guys really trash threads when you all feel this overriding need to cure LarryC of his silly ideas. Haven't you guys realized the futility of such a pointless exercise? This has been going on for years.

Bored at work. Internet arguing helps the time pass.

gore wrote:

I missed a page, so if it's mentioned there, I'm sorry. Reading back now (filthy skimmer that I am). But:

Can't a homophobic church just fire any homosexual employees they find? That seems like a valid way to avoid providing benefits to or acknowledging the validity of same sex couples.

I think they could if they were employed to work for the church directly (i.e. the priest/pastor/bishop/whatever, maintenance staff, etc), but if they run/own a side business (hospital, school, etc) they have to adhere to the same federal and state laws that every other business in the state has to. So if the state has a law against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, they can't just fire any homosexual employees that work at the hospital they run/own.

LarryC wrote:

Yonder:

I think what you're finding is that it encourages churches to legislate stonings into law.

That's fine! If they can get a majority of legislators in a state to write in that stoning is a valid methods off execution than they are welcome to it!

Of course that sounds a lot like a cruel and unusual punishment... Secular law wins again! So they have to get 3/5ths of the national legislators, and the President, and some other hoops, then they can change the constitution.

They are welcome to try, just like any organization or citizen. The perfect balance of your freedom to try to legalize stoning people to death, and my freedom to not be stoned to death.

Yonder, I would like to see you saying that same sentiment when any one on the boards wonders why churches lobby very hard to ensconce their beliefs into law. Seems to me that you guys like it like that.

LarryC wrote:

Yonder, I would like to see that same justification when any one on the boards wonders why churches lobby very hard to ensconce their beliefs into law. Seems to me that you guys like it like that.

Well, yes, you got me there, I was skipping over that for space constraints, the individuals within the church that believe in stoning people to death are free to try to remedy the flaws they see in their society. The church itself has some limits with what it can do with its own money, because they are classified as nonprofit entities which are also supposed to be apolitical.

I'm sorry, did anyone on this board ever, ever wonder why churches try to get their ideas codified into law?

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm sorry, did anyone on this board ever, ever wonder why churches try to get their ideas codified into law?

I think Yonder is the first I've seen to characterize this activity as "Fine," and "That's working like it's supposed to."

LarryC wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm sorry, did anyone on this board ever, ever wonder why churches try to get their ideas codified into law?

I think Yonder is the first I've seen to characterize this activity as "Fine," and "That's working like it's supposed to."

That's either selective memory at work or you just missed it. No one has ever wondered that actively, several people have commented that it's within bounds of the accepted system, and - at worst - people have just not commented on it either way. Which is not the same as pushing against it. But I think you've demonstrated quite amply your need to see persecution against the church/religion in this and other threads, so I'm not surprised that you want to equate "people have not gone out of their way to say it's okay, even though we also don't comment on other foregone conclusions" as "they must obviously think it's a problem".

I do not have a need to see persecution of any church, and I find the insinuation extremely offensive.

gore wrote:

I missed a page, so if it's mentioned there, I'm sorry. Reading back now (filthy skimmer that I am). But:

Can't a homophobic church just fire any homosexual employees they find? That seems like a valid way to avoid providing benefits to or acknowledging the validity of same sex couples.

Yes; that is why we also need to support actions like ENDA to ensure that sexual orientation and identity are included in the protected groups in federal anti-discrimination policy. In 29 states in the US, you can be fired i f you are gay or even suspected of being gay. Wonderful confluence of the right-to-work laws and the exclusion of the LGBT community from protected status under Civil Rights Act.

I know likely won't change LarryC's opinion in this thread. But, I do enjoy being able to provide counterpoint and debate on issues like this as it helps codify my own experience and knowledge on these issues.