DOMA decision cited to block Michigan law

[Monkey1976]

The school in your example is participating in the public sector, and should be required to follow the law. I’m very tired of religious organizations thinking that they somehow deserve a different set of laws… They don’t.

Then why should the rest of society knuckle under to your community’s definition of “marriage”?

As for you argument that all religions agree on a definition of marriage this is simply not true. There are many religions that allow same sex marriage. There are religions that support polygamy… Lets be honest, there has never been an agreement about the definition of marriage.

I wasn’t talking about religions, but cultures. However, since you see fit to raise the point, can you give an example of a religion that practiced same-sex “marriage” prior to AD1960?

And yes, kids will learn that gay people can get married, it’s a fact in many places, and the number of places will do nothing but grow. If I don’t want my kids to watch tv, I’m not going to deny that TV exists… If I don’t want them smoking, I won’t tell them that smoking doesn’t exist. I want them to be raised in one religion, but I’m going to teach them that other religions exist, and sometimes people don’t believe in God, and that they have that right.

You’re misunderstanding my point. It’s not that they will be taught about its existence, but that same-sex marriage is good - something directly at odds with the Faith.

I’m sorry, but civil marriage is the government conferring a set of benefits, and the constitution requires that they be equally and justly applied.

Perhaps you can explain exactly how two men or two women benefit society in a way exactly equal to a man and a woman.

 

[Borealis]

The school in your example is participating in the public sector, and should be required to follow the law. I’m very tired of religious organizations thinking that they somehow deserve a different set of laws… They don’t.

Then quit trying to impose them. Private schools are exactly that: private. The government has no business interfering with private citizens’ choices in education, ESPECIALLY when the government doesn’t like what they’re teaching.
{QUOTE]As for you argument that all religions agree on a definition of marriage this is simply not true. There are many religions that allow same sex marriage. There are religions that support polygamy… Lets be honest, there has never been an agreement about the definition of marriage.
Polygamy, yes. Please cite an example of a religion acknowledging same-sex marriage. Note that this religion must have more than ten members to qualify.

And yes, kids will learn that gay people can get married, it’s a fact in many places, and the number of places will do nothing but grow. If I don’t want my kids to watch tv, I’m not going to deny that TV exists… If I don’t want them smoking, I won’t tell them that smoking doesn’t exist. I want them to be raised in one religion, but I’m going to teach them that other religions exist, and sometimes people don’t believe in God, and that they have that right.

Funny, but as a Catholic, I’m going to teach my children that the Church’s teachings supersede society’s whims. Gay people can, legally in some places, marry other gay people. That doesn’t make it right, moral, or even sane. Do people have the right to not believe in God? Absolutely. They have the right not to believe in gravity, too.

I’m sorry, but civil marriage is the government conferring a set of benefits, and the constitution requires that they be equally and justly applied.

The government doesn’t get to confer benefits; it exists to protect rights, not make them up. And please explain how the constitutional requirement that they be equally applied is not being fulfilled. For that matter, please point out where in the Constitution this requirement exists. I just read through the whole thing, and nowhere does the term ‘equally and justly applied’ appear, nor does any similar statement of intent occur anywhere near the word ‘right.’

 

[SeannyM]

Then quit trying to impose them. Private schools are exactly that: private. The government has no business interfering with private citizens’ choices in education, ESPECIALLY when the government doesn’t like what they’re teaching.
{QUOTE]As for you argument that all religions agree on a definition of marriage this is simply not true. There are many religions that allow same sex marriage. There are religions that support polygamy… Lets be honest, there has never been an agreement about the definition of marriage.

My religion (Old Catholic Church) has allowed gay marriage since 1925. But that doesn’t matter for two reasons. First, and most importantly, religion plays no part in our legislative process, and secondly, we have to address the CURRENT situation, not the past. Currently, there are several religions that allow same sex marriage.

Now, to answer your question about where equal protection is sin the constitution, it’s found in the 14th amendment. Here is the text: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”

 

[SeannyM]

Then why should the rest of society knuckle under to your community’s definition of “marriage”?

I wasn’t talking about religions, but cultures. However, since you see fit to raise the point, can you give an example of a religion that practiced same-sex “marriage” prior to AD1960?

You’re misunderstanding my point. It’s not that they will be taught about its existence, but that same-sex marriage is good - something directly at odds with the Faith.

Perhaps you can explain exactly how two men or two women benefit society in a way exactly equal to a man and a woman.

Nobody is asking the rest of society to “knuckle under to” any definition of marriage. We are simply asking that we receive equal protection. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. But, if you want to talk about the majority, most people in the US agree that marriage equality should be granted to gay people as well, so your opinion is actually in the minority.

As for what we teach our children in school, I think it’s important that they should be taught tollerance at least. How would you feel if a public school taught that religion was not acceptable? In a pluralistic society, we must respect each person’s right to hold their own beliefs. If we want children to be successful in a pluralistic society, they should understand that while someone’s way of life may be contrary to their beliefs, they should still be respected. I would think you would want them to learn that in order to be successful in a society where gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted. I garantee you that if one of my Sailors felt the need to degrade me for my orientation, he would suffer from that choice, just as I would if I degraded him for his religion. I think our children should be prepared to take part in a society where it is no longer acceptable to denigrate people for being gay.

 

[_Abyssinia]

That doesn’t link anywhere… I don’t think. But the court hasn’t ruled on whether the full faith and credit clause would mandate that states recognize gay marriages. It was only ruled on by a lower court in Wilson, which does not set precedent. I am confident that the question will be brought before the SCOTUS sooner, rather than later, and I believe that the court will rule that section 2 of DOMA violates the full faith and credit clause. I honestly can’t think of any class of marriage that is not recognized by other states. I believe that any law that bans equality is motivated by religious or social animus, because I have yet to hear a logical and coherent argument that was not based on specific religious beliefs.

As the article I linked in my previous post in response to you says:

Patrick Joseph Borchers of the Creighton University School of Law wrote a 12-page analysis which was published in the Creighton Law Review. Here is the abstract:

“Although the Full Faith and Credit Clause is often assumed by the popular press and some legal commentators to impose a mandatory duty on states to recognize same-sex marriages validly celebrated in another state, this common assumption is clearly false. States have always retained the power to refuse to recognize some out-of-state marriages that violate their expressions of public policy. This has happened with, for example, marriages involving underage spouses or marriages that violate a state’s consanguinity rules. Marriages do not stand on the same constitutional footing as litigated judgments. As a result, whether a state chooses to recognize a same-sex marriage celebrated in another state is a function of the recognizing state’s law and its conflict-of-laws principles and not a matter of constitutional compulsion.” (Emphasis mine.)

In a piece published on the website of Yale Law School, Lea Brilmayer and Howard Holtzman write the following:

“Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The “public policy doctrine,” almost as old as this country’s legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.”

Said Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University, ‘‘No state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn’t want to.’’

renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/130531

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

What is Marriage?

Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization

Dr. Morse’s testimony to MN Senate Judiciary

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?

Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?

77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage

“Same Sex Marriage: Why Not?” - Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (full lecture)

Gay marriage debate: a secular case against same-sex marriage

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)

Which Parent Don’t I Need, My Mom or My Dad?

Historical Observations of Marriage: Dr. Gregory Popcak

 

[SeannyM]

As the article I linked in my previous post in response to you says:

renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/130531

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

What is Marriage?

Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization

Dr. Morse’s testimony to MN Senate Judiciary

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?

Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?

77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage

“Same Sex Marriage: Why Not?” - Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (full lecture)

Gay marriage debate: a secular case against same-sex marriage

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)

Which Parent Don’t I Need, My Mom or My Dad?

Historical Observations of Marriage: Dr. Gregory Popcak

Well, as for now, yes states can undermine legal marriages. Thankfully, we have the Supreme Court to address the issue. I don’t see how section two of DOMA can possibly stand, even if one law professor says it can. I look forward to the court answering these questions for us.

 

[SMGS127]

And yes, kids will learn that gay people can get married, it’s a fact in many places, and the number of places will do nothing but grow. If I don’t want my kids to watch tv, I’m not going to deny that TV exists… If I don’t want them smoking, I won’t tell them that smoking doesn’t exist. I want them to be raised in one religion, but I’m going to teach them that other religions exist, and sometimes people don’t believe in God, and that they have that right.

And I’m sure we all teach our kids that gay people exist too. That has nothing to do with gay ‘marriage.’ If same-sex ‘marriage’ is illegalized, that does not somehow make our kids completely unaware of the existence of those with SSA. We do the exact same thing that you do. We don’t want them doing something harmful to themselves by committing homosexual behavior (something much harmful than TV or smoking, I might add), and so we inform them why they shouldn’t do it, not that it doesn’t exist at all.

 

[Monkey1976]

Nobody is asking the rest of society to “knuckle under to” any definition of marriage. We are simply asking that we receive equal protection. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. But, if you want to talk about the majority, most people in the US agree that marriage equality should be granted to gay people as well, so your opinion is actually in the minority.

Really? Justice Kennedy stated that the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage is bigotry and hatred. And you say that we aren’t being forced to accept it against reason, our consciences, and our Faith? If you want “equal protection”, then show that your relationship is in fact equal by generating a new human life.

As for what we teach our children in school, I think it’s important that they should be taught tollerance at least. How would you feel if a public school taught that religion was not acceptable?

This is exactly what is happening now.

In a pluralistic society, we must respect each person’s right to hold their own beliefs. If we want children to be successful in a pluralistic society, they should understand that while someone’s way of life may be contrary to their beliefs, they should still be respected. I would think you would want them to learn that in order to be successful in a society where gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted. I garantee you that if one of my Sailors felt the need to degrade me for my orientation, he would suffer from that choice, just as I would if I degraded him for his religion. I think our children should be prepared to take part in a society where it is no longer acceptable to denigrate people for being gay.

I’m a fat smoker with no scuba training - is it “denigrating” to point out that - no matter how much I want the title and benefits - I’m incapable of being a Navy SEAL? I have an aversion to blood and no desire to attend medical school - is it “denigrating” to point out that - no matter how much I want the title and benefits - I’m incapable of being a surgeon? Same-sex couples are missing either male or female individuals - how is it “denigrating” to point out that they are not the same, and therefore should not receive the same benefits?

 

[SeannyM]

And I’m sure we all teach our kids that gay people exist too. That has nothing to do with gay ‘marriage.’ If same-sex ‘marriage’ is illegalized, that does not somehow make our kids completely unaware of the existence of those with SSA. We do the exact same thing that you do. We don’t want them doing something harmful to themselves by committing homosexual behavior (something much harmful than TV or smoking, I might add), and so we inform them why they shouldn’t do it, not that it doesn’t exist at all.

I reject the idea that homosexual behavior is harmful. But surely you aren’t suggesting gay marriage should be banned because you don’t want to teach your children about it… That would be ludicrous.

I’m not suggesting your children should be taught to ignore their faith… They should be taught to respect others. In states where marriage equality exists, they should learn gay people have the right to marry, and that everyone has the right to their own beliefs, but that we must respect our fellow Americans even when we disagree with them.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Really? Justice Kennedy stated that the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage is bigotry and hatred. And you say that we aren’t being forced to accept it against reason, our consciences, and our Faith? If you want “equal protection”, then show that your relationship is in fact equal by generating a new human life.

The Supreme Court is not forcing you to accept same-sex marriage; it is forcing the State to accept same-sex marriage. Civil marriage has nothing to do with bearing children.

 

[SMGS127]

The Supreme Court is not forcing you to accept same-sex marriage; it is forcing the State to accept same-sex marriage. Civil marriage has nothing to do with bearing children.

It is forcing everyone in society to recognize this as a valid marriage, when it in fact is not. Employers must provide benefits as if their employees were actually married when they aren’t. If your religion wants to put forth that somehow homosexual behavior can be sacramental, that is completely wrong but you are free to do so within the context of your religion. As far as the country goes, we must respect that there has to be one firm moral code, and the current moral code is the lowercase ‘o’ orthodox Christian one.

 

[oldcelt]

It is forcing everyone in society to recognize this as a valid marriage, when it in fact is not. Employers must provide benefits as if their employees were actually married when they aren’t. If your religion wants to put forth that somehow homosexual behavior can be sacramental, that is completely wrong but you are free to do so within the context of your religion. As far as the country goes, we must respect that there has to be one firm moral code, and the current moral code is the lowercase ‘o’ orthodox Christian one.

Who determined that?

 

[SMGS127]

Who determined that?

A majority of the country. There HAS to be a stable moral code. When you start dismantling one part, the whole thing comes down. I guarantee you 100% that when gay ‘marriages’ are legalized nationwide, polygamist communities will flood the courts with lawsuits that an unstable definition of marriage should mean that marriage should be defined solely by love and nothing else. After all, consenting adults and all that.

Believe me, you’ll like the country as it was 15 years ago much better than it will be 15 years from now.

 

[oldcelt]

A majority of the country. There HAS to be a stable moral code. When you start dismantling one part, the whole thing comes down. I guarantee you 100% that when gay ‘marriages’ are legalized nationwide, polygamist communities will flood the courts with lawsuits that an unstable definition of marriage should mean that marriage should be defined solely by love and nothing else. After all, consenting adults and all that.

Believe me, you’ll like the country as it was 15 years ago much better than it will be 15 years from now.

You are guessing in all cases, and no one moral code holds sway in the United States…it is, and has been a combination of many philosophies.

 

[torch621]

Just more reason the Church should run the country. I’m tired of secularism and I’m starting to think the secular Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

 

[SMGS127]

You are guessing in all cases, and no one moral code holds sway in the United States…it is, and has been a combination of many philosophies.

Regardless of the actual truth of the last part of that statement, you can’t deny that the stability of the moral code of the United States still needs to remain intact. Nor can you deny that if it is broken for one group, it will be broken for many others in the future.

 

[oldcelt]

Just more reason the Church should run the country. I’m tired of secularism and I’m starting to think the secular Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Although that will never happen, I seriously doubt that you would like the outcome. Remember, it might not be your choice of church that takes over.

 

[SMGS127]

Although that will never happen, I seriously doubt that you would like the outcome. Remember, it might not be your choice of church that takes over.

Unfortunately, I agree with him. It would probably be some Protestant mix of religions headed by the Southern Baptists, with a puritanical focus. I’d love to live in a Vatican-run country like there used to be, but it’s not very realistic in this day and age unfortunately

 

[torch621]

Unfortunately, I agree with him. It would probably be some Protestant mix of religions headed by the Southern Baptists, with a puritanical focus. I’d love to live in a Vatican-run country like there used to be, but it’s not very realistic in this day and age unfortunately

Still sounds better than the cesspool we have today.

 

[SMGS127]

Still sounds better than the cesspool we have today.

Sounds great, until you realize that the Puritans tried about sixty billion times to completely eradicate Catholic parochial schools in the early 20th century, desperately tried to slander Catholic politicians for most of the past century, etc., etc.

We actually have more religious rights under this cesspool than under the Puritans, believe it or not.