Minneapolis - The New Gay!

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by toplarry

I propose that adults be allowed to enter into any legal contract they wish, including marriage or whatever you want to call it, and that government have no further position. period.

Everyone would still be allowed to do what they want to and to associate with those they believe are living correctly. Yes, some guy in Utah would end up with 93 wives (some being his daughters) and maybe a couple husbands too if he swings that way. I say good luck to them.

I'm a little confused about what you want. Adults generally can enter any contract they want to (although in this context, we should be aware that contracts that could be characterized as prostitution may be invalid). Are you saying that you want private contracting to be the only means of achieving marriage-like relationships (e.g., joint ownership, call yourselves married, etc.)? Or are you saying you want government to recognize these relationships? See, marriage is not technically a contract--or at least it is legally different than other contracts (for instance, the capacity required to legally marry is lower than the capacity required to enter a binding contract).

[toplarry]

Catholics, Mormons, various shades of gays, polygamists, whoever, could produce branded, structured standard agreements or contracts aligned with their view of marriage or civil union or whatever they call it, and make them available to their members. Some people would choose the Catholic long form while others might choose the Atheist version allowing friends with benefits.

The force of government via the courts would be used only as the final backstop and only when necessary to resolve disputes. This necessarily means eliminating tax benefits and penalties as well.

Why do we need government to define marriage at all?

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

I'm a little confused about what you want. Adults generally can enter any contract they want to (although in this context, we should be aware that contracts that could be characterized as prostitution may be invalid). Are you saying that you want private contracting to be the only means of achieving marriage-like relationships (e.g., joint ownership, call yourselves married, etc.)? Or are you saying you want government to recognize these relationships? See, marriage is not technically a contract--or at least it is legally different than other contracts (for instance, the capacity required to legally marry is lower than the capacity required to enter a binding contract).

I'm only posting this for clarification.

Isn't a marriage just as binding of a contract as any other? While you're married, you have certain rights guaranteed in the contract and as long as you remain married, that joint bank account (admittedly based on another contract), unbridled rights to your children, etc. are intact. To break that contract, you must go through the divorce process, which breaks the contract by divvying up assets and such.

I'm just wondering how this is any less contactual than the other contracts you speak of.

[Voyageur]

A new Gallup poll affirms that a tipping point has recently been reached in the public opinion of same-sex marriage.
For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

This has been noted in various other recent polls.
Civil Rights

Of course, this does not mean same-sex marriage will be recognized nationwide anytime soon. There may be, and probably is, a certain difference in the opinion of the public at large and that of likely voters. And there is legislative inertia. But the question is not whether or not same-sex marriage will become legal in all jurisdictions. Rather, it is when. And that 'when' will be in the next five or ten or fifteen years. The trend is unmistakable. It is inevitable.

And it is a good thing. A very good thing.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Which is why I admitted that I was wrong. However, it remains undeniable that the primary means of advancing this agenda has been through the courts.

Right. So? That's no excuse for your false claim. Nor for your self-serving justifications for your ignorance. Don't like being mocked? Then quit making false claims and quit trying to justify your ignorance.

Come on. You can't be serious. You know that people out there want it to change. So don't give me this crap about how an argument about very realistic hypotheticals is weak. But even so, this particular argument is not really even about hypotheticals anymore.

See, this is where your argument is so lacking. So what if "people out there want it to change"? So what if courts are being petitioned to force churches to perform same-sex marriages?

As an aside, can you even point to a case where this - such a petitioning of a court - is happening? I won't hold my breath, since you've made quite a few claims you can't back up.

Anyway, you manifest a profound ignorance of how the courts function. Some people out there want everything to change in every way. This does not mean there is any chance such a thing will change. Do you know how many people want the 2008 election of our President overturned on legal -- ie, Constitutional -- grounds? Here's just a partial sampling of the litigation:
Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a clue -- such litigation has no chance of advancing. None. It will never happen. The fact that "some people want this to change" is utterly irrelevant. As with your scare-tactic false claim that churches are in danger of being forced to perform same-sex marriages. There isn't a shred of evidence for this. None. It is as completely lacking in support as is your admittedly-false claim that the only way same-sex marriage laws have been enacted is by courts.

You seem to think that if enough people file a certain petition, eventually one will win, like such petitions are a spin of the roulette wheel and the key is just swamping the courts with litigation. That's not how it works, though.

I realized that I had made a typographical error, and I corrected it. You claimed that churches could refuse to perform gay marriages.

This issue has not been taken up by the Court. In case you're struggling with reading comprehension today, that means nothing more than "we don't know what the Court will do." It does not mean that your unsupported assertion is true.

Wait a minute. Your first response to me was here:

Me (Voyageur):

This isn't an 'issue' - it's a red-herring.

Churches are not forced to conduct interracial marriages. Churches are not forced to perform interfaith marriages. The same is true of same-sex marriages.

Specifically, it is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which prohibits the state from compelling a church to perform a marriage against its will.

Which is why no one can point to single church in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont or New Hampshire (all states where same-sex marriage is legal) that has ever been forced to conduct a same-sex marriage.

You (southernsmoke):

I can't tell if you actually believe this or not.

I stated that churches are not forced to perform same-sex marriages, and you snidely insinuated that this was not so. Now you're claiming courts have never actually considered the issue. So which is it? On one hand, you're sneering at my claim that no church is compelled to perform same-sex marriages, on the other hand you're claiming that courts have never considered the issue. So, you admit that no one has ever petitioned a court on this issue?

Why don't you clarify what you mean, because what you assert changes with each of your posts.

I offered a reason why I think that the Court could come out the other way--obviously depending largely on the composition of the Court. You have offered nothing to support your position except that, "well, the Court hasn't said otherwise" (even though this has only been an issue for less than a decade--and if you insist on parsing the difference between "marriage" and "civil union," then it hasn't even been going on for five years).

It's true that Bob Jones dealt with a religious university, not a "church," per se. But usually your liberal brethren want to say that any religious organization falls under the constitutional definition of "church." So which is it? (This argument also applies to the Methodist organization below.) I'll go ahead and answer the question for you--it is nothing but pure silliness for you to argue that church congregations have more religious freedoms than other non-profit religious organizations.

It is also true that Bob Jones was not about performing interracial marriages. In case you missed it, that's why I have been straightforward about the fact that the Court has not addressed this issue. But the Bob Jones case is analogous in many ways--primarily that the Court allowed the IRS to strip the university of its tax-exempt status for prohibiting students from interracial dating because such a private policy was against public policy. If the case was before the Court, the challengers would be trying to say these cases were oh-so-similar, and the defenders would be trying to distinguish them. All I am saying is that some judges would be likely to say the cases were so similar that the principle should apply in the interracial marriage context as well.

Again with this "a regular old religious organization that doesn't call itself a 'church' doesn't have the same religious liberties that an actual 'church' has" stuff... This is gold--where do you get this?

And now, having just claimed that "courts have never considered the issue", you're back to claiming that indeed, courts have forced churches to perform marriages (though you cite non-churches not being forced to do anything, only losing tax-exempt status, and in neither case do you cite marriages)...

You need a clue. A Methodist-affiliated business is not exempt from commercial laws. Such an entity that, say, rents housing units must comply with non-discrimination laws. If that entity really thinks that discrimination is that important to it, it can get out of the for-profit business and discriminate to its heart content.

A church is a very specific thing. A university is not a church, not matter how badly you need one to be in order to fit your argument, since you can't actually find a real church being forced to do what you baselessly insist they might someday be forced to do. An organization affiliated with a church in New Jersey is not a church. If I rent out a boardwalk, I can't use some affiliation with a church to justify commercial discrimination against gays. If I actually start a church, I can discriminate against gays -- but not commercially. Because then business laws apply to me.

And I guess if you are referring to the officiant of the wedding, then that is not the issue in this case. But it is about allowing the ceremony on church property. Are you really going to parse down every single issue like this? (I can see it now: "well I know they wanted this pastor to be there and talk during the ceremony, but they actually had a justice of the peace to 'perform' the ceremony by signing the certificate...") Or can you just admit that this is not a red herring?

Sorry, when you claim that a church is being forced to perform a same-sex marriage, then -- yes -- whether or not the officiant is a church and whether or not it is being forced to be an officiant or not is completely relevant. Not to mention whether or not it is a marriage.

It was a civil union, not a marriage. There is no church involved. And the entity you insist on calling a church was not forced to perform the ceremony, which was not a marriage.

Look, you need to take a deep breath. It is clear that someone told you that we are all in dire peril of churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Let me guess -- this was the same person who told you the lie that all same-sex marriage laws were put in place by judicial fiat. Who was that person? A coworker? A relative? Maybe you heard Michelle Bachmann make the claim, or perhaps Sean Hannity told you? Whoever it was, they lied. I would think that would give you pause and encourage you to rethink what you're being told, since you're obviously being fed bogus information. You've even conceded that some of it is bogus. But on the rest, you just double-down, insisting (and probably hoping) that it isn't as false as the rest of the information you've been given. You insist that universities are churches and you insist that civil unions performed by third-parties are marriages performed by churches against their will.

You desperately need a clue or two.

[southernsmoke]

I can't believe I am responding to this, but alas I can't stand the smugness of your post... I'm going to start with this gem from the end of your post because I think it is appropriate to address that before going through the rest of your post:

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Look, you need to take a deep breath. It is clear that someone told you that we are all in dire peril of churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Let me guess -- this was the same person who told you the lie that all same-sex marriage laws were put in place by judicial fiat. Who was that person? A coworker? A relative? Maybe you heard Michelle Bachmann make the claim, or perhaps Sean Hannity told you? Whoever it was, they lied. I would think that would give you pause and encourage you to rethink what you're being told, since you're obviously being fed bogus information. You've even conceded that some of it is bogus. But on the rest, you just double-down, insisting (and probably hoping) that it isn't as false as the rest of the information you've been given. You insist that universities are churches and you insist that civil unions performed by third-parties are marriages performed by churches against their will.

You desperately need a clue or two.

Here's the deal. Nobody scared me with a bunch of lies. I am not an idiot--no, really, I'm not. Contrary to your apparent belief, I know all too well how the courts work (and I'll get to that part of your post later). You're not going to intimidate me out of this dialogue by name-calling and saying Sean Hannity fed me lies, etc., just because I wasn't aware that Vermont recognized gay marriage legislatively. (Here's a clue: I didn't know that because I don't usually spend my time caring about Vermont--or about gay marriage, honestly.)

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Right. So? That's no excuse for your false claim. Nor for your self-serving justifications for your ignorance. Don't like being mocked? Then quit making false claims and quit trying to justify your ignorance.

See above. I don't generally spend my time worrying about gay marriage. I got sucked into this discussion (and have generally enjoyed it), but I'm sorry for not being totally up to date with my 50-state survey. The point is still that the gay rights people try to advance their agenda through the courts. As an example (and they are plentiful), see the legal fight over DOMA. There is an obvious legislative remedy if you don't like DOMA. The problem is that there is not enough popular support to repeal DOMA, so the gays go to court. This is typical. Stop trying to jump on me about Vermont in an effort to obfuscate the obvious.

Originally Posted by Voyageur

See, this is where your argument is so lacking. So what if "people out there want it to change"? So what if courts are being petitioned to force churches to perform same-sex marriages?

As an aside, can you even point to a case where this - such a petitioning of a court - is happening? I won't hold my breath, since you've made quite a few claims you can't back up.

Anyway, you manifest a profound ignorance of how the courts function. Some people out there want everything to change in every way. This does not mean there is any chance such a thing will change. Do you know how many people want the 2008 election of our President overturned on legal -- ie, Constitutional -- grounds? Here's just a partial sampling of the litigation:
Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a clue -- such litigation has no chance of advancing. None. It will never happen. The fact that "some people want this to change" is utterly irrelevant. As with your scare-tactic false claim that churches are in danger of being forced to perform same-sex marriages. There isn't a shred of evidence for this. None. It is as completely lacking in support as is your admittedly-false claim that the only way same-sex marriage laws have been enacted is by courts.

You seem to think that if enough people file a certain petition, eventually one will win, like such petitions are a spin of the roulette wheel and the key is just swamping the courts with litigation. That's not how it works, though.

I'm going to ignore (rightly) your assertion that I "manifest a profound ignorance of how the courts function." I promise you that I do not.

Yes, people want all kinds of stuff to change and file all kinds of lawsuits. No, that does not mean that they will be successful. You happy?

That being said, you were trying to say that the danger of courts favoring gay "rights" over religious ones (to simplify) was a red herring. I was saying it is not a red herring. It is actually happening (see the NPR link I have posted on more than one occasion in this thread), and to the extent that some particular religious liberty has not yet been truncated, there is nothing stopping a liberal judge from going further in the future.

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Wait a minute. Your first response to me was here:
I stated that churches are not forced to perform same-sex marriages, and you snidely insinuated that this was not so. Now you're claiming courts have never actually considered the issue. So which is it? On one hand, you're sneering at my claim that no church is compelled to perform same-sex marriages, on the other hand you're claiming that courts have never considered the issue. So, you admit that no one has ever petitioned a court on this issue?

Why don't you clarify what you mean, because what you assert changes with each of your posts.

Come on, man. If you're going to be as condescending as you were in this post, you have to do better than this. (By the way, the "I can't tell if you believe this or not" was referring to your broader point about this whole issue being a red herring.)

We were talking about interracial marriage when I said that "[t]his issue has not been taken up by the Court." [I made a couple of typographical errors in that sequence that may have confused things.] You claimed that churches could refuse to perform interracial marriages under the Establishment Clause. I said it's a Free Exercise Clause question, and we don't know whether churches can refuse to perform interracial marriages because the Court (which you would understand to specifically refer to the Supreme Court of the United States if you are as familiar with the courts as you imply that you are) has not addressed that question. Then I cited Bob Jones as the case that could be relied upon to hold that churches cannot refuse to perform interracial marriages. That holding (it it happened) would probably take the form of punishing the church by taking away its tax-exempt status, taking away its authority to officiate weddings, and/or possibly ordering it to pay damages.

Originally Posted by Voyageur

And now, having just claimed that "courts have never considered the issue", you're back to claiming that indeed, courts have forced churches to perform marriages (though you cite non-churches not being forced to do anything, only losing tax-exempt status, and in neither case do you cite marriages)...

Again, I was claiming that the Court (not "courts"--I don't know if courts have) had not considered the issue of whether churches could refuse to perform interracial marriage.

And, no, the Court would not try to literally force a church to perform a ceremony--that would raise all kinds of issues. But I think we should be able to agree that imposing heavy financial penalties (and possibly taking away the authority to perform any legal marriages) is tantamount to forcing the church to perform the ceremony. That is how all of our laws work. The state can't literally force McDonald's to serve blacks, but the state can take away its ability to serve only whites.

And again, it is possible that the Court would allow churches to refuse to perform interracial marriages, but we just don't know.

Originally Posted by Voyageur

You need a clue. A Methodist-affiliated business is not exempt from commercial laws. Such an entity that, say, rents housing units must comply with non-discrimination laws. If that entity really thinks that discrimination is that important to it, it can get out of the for-profit business and discriminate to its heart content.

A church is a very specific thing. A university is not a church, not matter how badly you need one to be in order to fit your argument, since you can't actually find a real church being forced to do what you baselessly insist they might someday be forced to do. An organization affiliated with a church in New Jersey is not a church. If I rent out a boardwalk, I can't use some affiliation with a church to justify commercial discrimination against gays. If I actually start a church, I can discriminate against gays -- but not commercially. Because then business laws apply to me.

You need a clue. Your idea that a Methodist non-profit with a boardwalk would have less Free Exercise rights than a Methodist non-profit with a steeple is laughable.

I tell you what, why don't you give me a good working definition of "a church" (bonus points if you can provide any kind of legal citation)?

I'll give you some starting points for your research:

(1) The U.S. Code defines "church" in several places as "a church or a convention or association of churches." E.g., 26 U.S.C. Section 7702(j)(3)(A); see also 26 U.S.C. Section 170(b)(1)(A)(i). In one place, Congress has specifically defined "church" as "a church, a convention or association of churches, or an elementary or secondary school which is controlled, operated, or principally supported by a church or by a convention or association of churches." 26 U.S.C. Section 3121(w)(3)(A).

(2) In this letter [ http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=..._UERHky1LJgVKQ ], the IRS recognizes Young Life [ http://www.younglife.org/us ] (a non-denominational "Christian ministry that reaches out to middle school, high school and college-aged kids") as a "church."

(Also, notwithstanding the above, query generally the constitutionality of telling an organization that it is not a "church." Query especially the constitutionality of telling such organization that it has a reduced level of religious liberty because the government decided that it was not a "church.")

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Sorry, when you claim that a church is being forced to perform a same-sex marriage, then -- yes -- whether or not the officiant is a church and whether or not it is being forced to be an officiant or not is completely relevant. Not to mention whether or not it is a marriage.

It was a civil union, not a marriage. There is no church involved. And the entity you insist on calling a church was not forced to perform the ceremony, which was not a marriage.

Already covered this. See above.