| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was surprised not to see a thread about this already, so here goes:
Congratulations are in order, as the United States took another step today towards honouring the promise of liberty and justice for all. The Supreme Court ruled against laws that excluded same sex couples from marrying.
I'd say this is good news not just for the people who can now express their love and commitment to each other in the same way taken for granted by others, but also a victory for those who want the United States to be a great nation.
It was a pleasant surprise this morning.
As an emphasis on the surprise part, I had been watching on Mondays and Thursdays. I was pretty surprised to see the letter in my email this morning.
On the not as surprised front, I'm disappointed, but also had expected, it was a 5-4 decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was playing Fallout: New Vegas this morning while my fiance hopped on the laptop. Right as I'm charming Arcade Ganon with the Confirmed Bachelor perk (freaking love New Vegas went there), she mentions the marriage equality thing.
Thought that was rather humorous, lol.
All I gotta say about it is "FINALLY!". Not that I've got a special guy to go through this with (seems most men I meet are immature brats =\), but hey, grats to those who do. 'Murica's finally done what shoulda been done a LONG time ago. I'll forego my mini-rant on multiple partners, since today's a happy day.
On that note... Prismatic Spray all around!
.... Why don't we have avatars with rainbows in 'em? Would've been perfect today.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to be a wet blanket because this is clearly a major win for equality, but keep in mind this is the American legal system and you know there are going to be "unintended" side effects.
And please, I'm begging you, for the love of all that's good, do not use this decision as a bludgeon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Englishman, here. As a thoroughly hetero male who barely knows any LGBTQ folks, I will merely say this (because this news doesn't deserve a rant):
Congratulations on your future marriage, whoever you are, whoever your partner is. Live a life filled with love and laughter.
I don't want to be a wet blanket because this is clearly a major win for equality, but keep in mind this is the American legal system and you know there are going to be "unintended" side effects.
And please, I'm begging you, for the love of all that's good, do not use this decision as a bludgeon.
As a bludgeon to do what?
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
As a bludgeon to do what?I don't want to be a wet blanket because this is clearly a major win for equality, but keep in mind this is the American legal system and you know there are going to be "unintended" side effects.
And please, I'm begging you, for the love of all that's good, do not use this decision as a bludgeon.
I'd love an answer to this as well.
I'm a staunch Catholic who can't stand the imposition of my personal and my church's morality on those who don't share it. On sites like this, I'm a screwball theist, and on Catholic websites, I'm one of Satan's middle managers for not upholding the party line. Funny how much is relative, ain't it?
I think the decision is the only one that can be made by those who are not allowing inappropriate influences to sway them. The separation of church and state is, in my opinion, critical to the proper governance of a nation interested in protecting the minority from the will of an oppressive majority.
Well, I am an atheist and you don't sound at all like a screwball to me. you do sound like a theist though.
There is an awful lot of Catholics and there is an awful lot of variety among them.
I have been rather astonished by the new pope. In a good way, he sounds great. I am not surprised that there's a Catholic who thinks like that. But such a person being elected pope soon after the long reign of John Paul, an arch conservative who promoted other arch conservatives, seemed impossible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Benedict was the last pope, the ultra conservative, John Paul the 2nd was before him(and arguably not that conservative...for a pope).
As a bludgeon to do what?I don't want to be a wet blanket because this is clearly a major win for equality, but keep in mind this is the American legal system and you know there are going to be "unintended" side effects.
And please, I'm begging you, for the love of all that's good, do not use this decision as a bludgeon.
There are people out there who will take every opportunity to use favorable laws to put the screws to others. Homosexuals have had the screws put to them for a long time, it would be a shame to see the movement use this decision as a club against religious groups. I know the fight for full equality is still ongoing, and I do hope that we can get to a point where people are treated like people.
There are people out there who will take every opportunity to use favorable laws to put the screws to others. Homosexuals have had the screws put to them for a long time, it would be a shame to see the movement use this decision as a club against religious groups. I know the fight for full equality is still ongoing, and I do hope that we can get to a point where people are treated like people.
How can same sex marriage being legal be used as a club against religious groups?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can same sex marriage being legal be used as a club against religious groups?
There are people out there who will take every opportunity to use favorable laws to put the screws to others. Homosexuals have had the screws put to them for a long time, it would be a shame to see the movement use this decision as a club against religious groups. I know the fight for full equality is still ongoing, and I do hope that we can get to a point where people are treated like people.
Yuugasa,
There is a meme in some circles that the next step is to try to force churches to perform marriages for same sex couples. Once that's been forced through (there's no question in their minds that it will be), any preacher who says no will go to jail.It's daft given Loving vs Virginia did not force churches to perform interracial weddings, but there's a lot of paranoia and projection of their worst tendencies on their opponents going on at the moment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can same sex marriage being legal be used as a club against religious groups?
There are people out there who will take every opportunity to use favorable laws to put the screws to others. Homosexuals have had the screws put to them for a long time, it would be a shame to see the movement use this decision as a club against religious groups. I know the fight for full equality is still ongoing, and I do hope that we can get to a point where people are treated like people.
It opens up bigots to discrimination claims. For example, a number of states have blanket nondiscrimination policies. A homophobic landlord, for example, could insist that he only rents to married couples (and thereby avoid having any gay tenants); that's no longer viable.
Longer term, there is likely to be a lot of new antidiscrimination policies created; I don't think the gay rights movement stops here. There was a rather famous case, for example, where Bob Jones University was discriminating against interracial dating and couples (indeed, they only allowed black students under court order), and the IRS opted to remove their tax-exempt status, a move that the courts upheld. I could easily see Brigham Young University refusing to support students in gay marriages, and this could result in them similarly being deprived of their tax-exempt status.
... and you know what? I'm okay with that. The First Amendment is not a license to have your bigotry subsidized. And SCOTUS agrees with that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was wondering where the post was yesterday, because my Facebook turned rainbow colored and I spent the evening with my wife and friends in West Hollywood to celebrate (where else)? Two of said friends can now get married...anywhere in the USA. That's frickin' awesome.
I'm super happy, and wanted to post with this character, just because he has a Wand of Color Spray. Rainbows for everyone!
I'm a staunch Catholic who can't stand the imposition of my personal and my church's morality on those who don't share it. On sites like this, I'm a screwball theist, and on Catholic websites, I'm one of Satan's middle managers for not upholding the party line. Funny how much is relative, ain't it?
I think the decision is the only one that can be made by those who are not allowing inappropriate influences to sway them. The separation of church and state is, in my opinion, critical to the proper governance of a nation interested in protecting the minority from the will of an oppressive majority.
I'm really very happy to see there is someone here who holds the same ideas I've had! I thought I was alone here.
Yay for the U.S good to hear good news. You guys need a break from all the bad stuff.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can same sex marriage being legal be used as a club against religious groups?
I was going to talk improvised weapons, but the Constitution isn't really that heavy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to talk improvised weapons, but the Constitution isn't really that heavy.How can same sex marriage being legal be used as a club against religious groups?
I don't care what that archetype can do, I'm just going to imagine him swatting people ineffectually with a scroll. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a goblin archetype. He's the goblin equivalent of a diabolist, harnessing dangerous and unpredictable powers of evil to destroy his foes.
Well, I am an atheist and you don't sound at all like a screwball to me. You do sound like a theist though.And you are an atheist that doesn't think "screwball" and "theist" are functional synonyms. Thank you for that.
I have been rather astonished by the new pope. In a good way, he sounds great. I am not surprised that there's a Catholic who thinks like that. But such a person being elected pope soon after the long reign of John Paul, an arch conservative who promoted other arch conservatives, seemed impossible.His Boss tends to specialize in the impossible.
Touche. :)
There are a lot of very reasonable intelligent people who are theists. I am an Australian and we have our share of aggressive, conservative Christians, but there are not that many and they don't have that much influence. In the US, they are far more numerous, extreme and influential. And they have the opposite view to you about forcing others to conform to their morals. "Screwball" is one of the more polite terms that fit. That is maybe why you encounter the attitudes you do.
Well, I am an atheist and you don't sound at all like a screwball to me. You do sound like a theist though.And you are an atheist that doesn't think "screwball" and "theist" are functional synonyms. Thank you for that.
I have been rather astonished by the new pope. In a good way, he sounds great. I am not surprised that there's a Catholic who thinks like that. But such a person being elected pope soon after the long reign of John Paul, an arch conservative who promoted other arch conservatives, seemed impossible.His Boss tends to specialize in the impossible.Touche. :)
There are a lot of very reasonable intelligent people who are theists. I am an Australian and we have our share of aggressive, conservative Christians, but there are not that many and they don't have that much influence. In the US, they are far more numerous, extreme and influential. And they have the opposite view to you about forcing others to conform to their morals. "Screwball" is one of the more polite terms that fit. That is maybe why you encounter the attitudes you do.
Our PM is an aggressive conservative Christian - he was training to be a Jesuit priest before he decided on politics. That's why he is blocking marriage equality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that churches that do not want to officiate over such marriages will not be asked to. You don't ask a random stranger to marry you. My wife and I were married by one of the sergeants of my platoon.
As the youth say, "This".
The ruling is about the legal form of marriage, not any particular religious ceremony. Churches can accept or deny as they please, the ruling is about the government.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, churches refuse to marry opposite-sex couples all the time, normally because the couple aren't members of that church. No one reasonable is expecting non-accepting churches to have to marry same-sex couples anymore than a Roman Catholic priest would be expected or legally required to marry a Baptist or Mormon or Muslim or Jewish couple. And RC priests won't marry RC couples if one has received a non-annulled divorce. It's a non-issue.
But Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Muslims, conservative Jewish, etc. aren't having their religious freedoms abridged if a same-sex couple is married in a Unitarian church or liberal Jewish synagogue or by justice of the peace/notary.
Where are you from 8th Dwarf?
We in Australia have an aggressive conservative Christian as PM. But he feels the need to disguise what he is to make himself more acceptable to the public and his own party.
The PM is opposed to marriage equality, but we may get it as the government has other problems, and they may not fight on that. One can hope.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can same sex marriage being legal be used as a club against religious groups?
There are people out there who will take every opportunity to use favorable laws to put the screws to others. Homosexuals have had the screws put to them for a long time, it would be a shame to see the movement use this decision as a club against religious groups. I know the fight for full equality is still ongoing, and I do hope that we can get to a point where people are treated like people.
It opens up bigots to discrimination claims. For example, a number of states have blanket nondiscrimination policies. A homophobic landlord, for example, could insist that he only rents to married couples (and thereby avoid having any gay tenants); that's no longer viable.
Longer term, there is likely to be a lot of new antidiscrimination policies created; I don't think the gay rights movement stops here. There was a rather famous case, for example, where Bob Jones University was discriminating against interracial dating and couples (indeed, they only allowed black students under court order), and the IRS opted to remove their tax-exempt status, a move that the courts upheld. I could easily see Brigham Young University refusing to support students in gay marriages, and this could result in them similarly being deprived of their tax-exempt status.
... and you know what? I'm okay with that. The First Amendment is not a license to have your bigotry subsidized. And SCOTUS agrees with that.
Perhaps, so you are anti-religion and discriminatory against Religious organizations?
AS that's how you just made it sound.
BYU is a religious university and as such is part of a religious organization.
Of course, who cares that the founding fathers were pretty blunt on their views in that regard. (then again, separation of church and state was really never meant to have religions as tax exempt at first either, it was supposed to keep the nation from having an official religion that would be imposed or official. The tax exempt was made from people wanting to go a little further in separating the church and state to the point that churches would not financially be obligated to support the state.
Of interesting NOTE though...and this is ironic considering how much Federal power there is today...though the Constitution bars the Federal government from having an endorsed religion, STATES at the time were allowed to have a state religion (and in fact several did) and the Federal government was barred from interfering from the religion of the state DUE to the separation of church and state).
I'm pretty sure that churches that do not want to officiate over such marriages will not be asked to. You don't ask a random stranger to marry you. My wife and I were married by one of the sergeants of my platoon.
However, you already have people advocating to discriminate against religions in this VERY thread already!
I think part of the problem is that there are many that would NOT have any problems with Gay Marriage (as one puts it), what their problem deals with are the militant actions of those who wish to force religions and religious institutions to accept them counter to the freedom of religion.
That's where the problems and the fears come from (IN MY OPINION).
IF people STOPPED suing a florist for not giving flowers or a baker and simply used common sense and went to another (which I have had happen to me and which I HAVE gone to another because I'm normally not a twit to pick fights and make the rest of the community hate me because I put a popular store out of business like some people tried to do to a florist that actually CATERED to the Homosexual community but got put out of business because of ONE single Homosexual couple that thought they had a point but really ONLY HURT everyone else, inclusive of the gay community and the LONE florist that had sold to them FOR YEARS)...
Basically, there's a LOT of options in most places these days and many of these cases only serve to make people fear that their religious freedom is being targeted.
I think the cause of freedom is to be celebrated, but the more militant among those pushing for some of these things only serve to anger me. It's ironic because I am probably more helped by many of these recent advances against discrimination in the past few years than most...but even I can't help but feel anger at those who militantly push to punish religions, religious organizations and discriminate against anyone they feel so much talks differently then they do.
It's another form of discrimination, and I see it becoming more and more prevalent.
IN MY OPINION, THIS IS THE PRIMARY reason groups have feared this Gay Marriage decision and why many religions are speaking out against it. NOT because they have anything to fear from the decision itself, but because of the very few more militant people out there that won't settle for equality, and instead want to punish religion and those in it for perceived wrongs against them.
Going against something like a religious institution or religious university for practicing their religion...or shouting down some person who was in charge of Mozilla for 1000 dollar donation and wanting them to lose their job and deny them the very freedoms that Homosexuals have been seeking (the freedom to be employed without discrimination or losing one's job because of associations, donations, statements or actions) is the very hypocrisy that to me...runs counter to everything the movement should stand for.
Sorry, just the statements that we should now go after religions and religious institutions hits me in a VERY wrong way.
People have accused me of defending Mormonism on these forums and other items in association to Mormons...and they are right that I do defend them. ONE thing that I cannot accept however, is the current popular Mormon take on polygamists. Utah is one of the foremost states at prosecuting polygamy. Now I don't have any special spot for Polygamists so to say, but I think it's a very hypocritical thing for Mormons to be involved with the prosecution of Polygamists. The reason I say this is because Mormons originally fled the US, and had a LOT of difficulties in part due to their polygamy practice in the 19th century. To prosecute those who practice this currently, shows a great deal of hypocrisy to me. They are doing the same thing to people now, that was done to their ancestors previously.
In that same light, when I see the LGBT movement trying to treat others in ways that they were treated previously...it strikes me as wrong.
Furthermore, I think it does exactly the opposite of what people want...in that it is THIS that creates the fear against the LGBT. LGBT speak of forcing others to do things...but isn't that exactly what the LGBT movement is trying to get away from themselves...to have the freedom to act as they wish and do as they please.
I can understand some of wishing florists to not be discriminatory...but in a city where you literally have DOZENS of florists...to target one specifically...that boggles my mind. IF you have eleven others to do something and who would do it...why target the single one that does not. That's going out of one's way simply to try to force yourself on someone else.
Maybe it's because in that way, IRL, when faced with things like that, I am not confrontational in that manner. I'll speak to defend anyone...but to try to force your way on someone else when you have so many other options...I don't get it. All I can see is causing a great deal of fear, anguish, and hatred.
I have to deal with a great deal of discrimination in part due to my own marriage and the community I live in. Even my parents have some not so happy things and some rather rude comments at times. I probably have to walk a LOT lighter than others. Maybe that colors my perceptions, as going out of my way to antagonize others would turn out very badly for me eventually. But at the same time, I think I'd like to deal with others how I'd want them to deal with me...and going after their religion (Which is probably one reason I do defend Mormons, scientologist, and other religions on forums when people unfairly attack them) doesn't seem kosher.
I think also, that this fear that the LGBT movement will go after religious ideology and people's freedom of religion is what is driving a LOT of the opposition. IF they did not have that fear, I think (PERSONAL OPINION AGAIN) a LOT of the discrimination in that regards would go away.
Talk about going after and forcing religious institutions...that's EXACTLY what the religions have been predicting. That's what is driving a LOT Of their fear (seen the SBC's talk recently, it follows exactly what people are stating they will do towards religious colleges, institutions, and other places, and they are using things like previous lawsuits as their driving force to show how it will and can happen).
I say, stop the aggression and stop the fear and treat others as you would have them treat you. Not that what I would like to happen WILL happen, but I don't think aggressively attacking someone's religion is really the right way to win people over. I think it's only going to create more antagonism and perhaps (hopefully not) ramp up the violence that may be a coming storm if we are not careful (if the SBC comments are anything to be believed and if one thinks they are serious enough to act upon them...they are waiting for that trigger of a religious institution to have that lawsuit...I say...LET's NOT GIVE THEM THAT reasoning or purpose).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Discriminating against discrimination is not, in itself, discrimination in the same sense.
You can't have it both ways.
"I want the right to act like an a&*%#%! to anyone who doesn't conform to my narrow view of what is right" and "You don't get to call me out on being an a~+!%*@" is an infuriatingly hypocritical viewpoint.
Either everyone has the right to be an a%~&++!, or nobody does. Your (in general, not you specifically GWL) particular brand of dickery doesn't deserve to be protected under the law if the other doesn't.
Say what you want, but don't complain if someone says something back.
Do what you like...but don't be surprised if someone pushes back.
Religious organizations have pushed, and pushed, and PUSHED for years. They don't get to complain now that the group they've been shoving around can push back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I missed the point where the government started to force people to run businesses catering to the general public, in conflict with the owners belief.Have you seen the news stories where people with particular religious views are forced by the government to provide non necessary services to people they don't agree with? That is just as wrong as the government denying specific services to gays.
Yes, there are distinctions to be made. I'm not talking about things like hospitals, I'm talking about things like bakeries and flower shops.
A florist in Washington (state) was recently fined $1,000 for failure to provide flowers for a wedding, in violation of the state anti-discrimination law that explicitly prohibits the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and explicitly grants "the right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists" as well as the "right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination."
It was pretty much an open and shut case as far as the court system was concerned. But it has horrified millions(*) of people that they might have to allow that kind of person to ride in the front of the bus or to sit at the lunch counter.
I strongly support the right of people not to run such businesses if doing so conflicts with their beliefs.Agreed. You don't have to be a florist if you don't want to provide flowers in accordance with state law.
(*) or possibly very vocal thousands.
There have been two cases actually from what I understand. The second one which struck me as the most odd was a shop. It had served the Gay community for years. However, they came out with a stance that they did not support Gay Marriage. They still sold flowers to the block and supported all the endeavors...however...they were sued for their statements and lost. I believe they had to close up shop. The Gay community NO LONGER HAS a florist on their block. Who knows what that Gay Couple that sued feels...but I think a majority of the block is actually rather upset at them.
I think it depends on the situation and the context of who is doing the suing and who is pushing certain things.
I think it's a tricky situation and a tricky thing in regards to how to approach it and how to deal with it. Do I think public entities should not practice discrimination...absolutely.
Do I think a baker who has a religion that tells them they can't support a Gay Wedding should be forced to do so...actually, I think I'd rather have another baker (plus, I wouldn't want to have my own cake poisoned...true story...I got food poisoned on my wedding day...and I actually DO suspect it was the cake...I always have cautionary fears when I see vanilla cake with strawberry jam inside to this day!).
I think it's a tricky street, and I can't say I'm positively certain how to progress. I think there should be a way that people can actually PRACTICE their religion...and not be sued because of it.
For example, a Jewish individual who does not wish to sell things or stay open on their Sabbath should not be forced to stay open on their Sabbath (Which I think is Saturdays). I think they should be open to the natural ramifications of their choice (for example, losing a TON of weekend sales), but I think they should be allowed to follow their religious dictates.
The same goes for Muslims. They have many restrictions placed on them due to their religion. I feel they should be allowed to follow those dictates without fear of being forced to break them due to state laws.
Of course, normally these don't deal with discrimination...which is where the difference comes in.
HOWEVER...and this is the kicker, once you are outside your own little community, I find almost no one can tell if you are LGB (though they may be able to with the T or other items in some cases) if you don't make it openly obvious.
I suppose for Gay Marriages with a photographer is one thing, but to tell the truth, with a florist...unless you have them spelling something out and have it picked up...how in the Heck do they know what it is for or a Baker (I suppose they might if you say you want two women on the cake or otherwise...) unless you make a majorly big deal about it.
And hence, most of the time I don't think it should be that much of a problem to begin with unless someone is out to pick a fight in the first place...OR...makes an even bigger deal about it than a majority of the weddings out there (most of the time a florist is going to provide flowers and has no idea if it is a traditional, gay, or other type of marriage from what I've seen...and the same would go with most bakeries and other establishments that are not actually AT the wedding itself).
Plus, that's why you have maids of honor, best men, parents, and others to handle these types of things so you can actually focus on your wedding day.
I've gotten long winded here...nothing new.
Still, I find that most of these instances seem to come about because SOMEONE is itching for a fight for some reason rather than going about it like a normal person would...and THAT is far more bothersome to me than some shop among millions having discrimination. Discrimination bothers me, don't get me wrong...and I think a business should not discriminate, but in many cases, the ONLY way they WOULD know to discriminate is if someone goes looking for a fight to begin with.
Unlike someone with a different colored skin...most of the time LGB (T is a different matter in some instances) is not something that is actually right up front and center...most people will NOT know the difference simply by looking at you. IT takes something extra to trigger it, and except in a few instances (apartments and housing for example, or a photographer at a wedding, or a hospital with treatments and next of kin) unless one makes a major point to try to make it obvious, they will NEVER know if they served someone in that minority or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where are you from 8th Dwarf?
We in Australia have an aggressive conservative Christian as PM. But he feels the need to disguise what he is to make himself more acceptable to the public and his own party.
The PM is opposed to marriage equality, but we may get it as the government has other problems, and they may not fight on that. One can hope.
Sydney.... I'm your typical lefty inner west Chardonnay socialist.