Gay Marriage Phobia

[WillieWonka]

You mean it depends on who is currently interpreting the document. Despite the hype things get changed, invented, reversed, reinterpreted and people keep saying that religion plays no role. Kinda like saying judges are unbiased.

No. That’s not what I mean.

I mean we have a written constitution and a history of decisions that form our precedent. A very few people rule on constitutional matters, and their decisions are based on current interpretation plus precedent. There are several levels of appeals if one think precedent has been ignored or the decision is contrary to the Constitution.

There is neither current interpretation nor precedent that allows non-conformance with religion as grounds for outlawing bahavior.

I am saying nothing about bias of judges.

 

[Drawmack]

I’m sorry if I’ve shown any disrespect to your Darwinian religion.

As I do not subscribe to a Darwinian religion that would be impossible. I’ll let other read your words and determine if you should be taken seriously.

 

[miguel]

Remembrer, religion has been handicapped by the First Amendment.

So much for “free exercise” then. What was handicapped by the the 1st Amendment was Congressional ability to favor a specific denomination and outlaw others.

 

[WillieWonka]

So much for “free exercise” then. What was handicapped by the the 1st Amendment was Congressional ability to favor a specific denomination and outlaw others.

No. What was prohibited was an establishment of religion, or prohibition of free exercise. It says nothing about favoring one denomination over others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So much for “free exercise” then. What was handicapped by the the 1st Amendment was Congressional ability to favor a specific denomination and outlaw others.

No. What was prohibited was an establishment of religion, or prohibition of free exercise. It says nothing about favoring one denomination over others.

You are both being overly vague and, hence, not really saying anything substantive.

 

[miguel]

Inconsistency with religious belief is not grounds to outlaw behavior. Religion doesn’t matter.

So when an individual votes to outlaw or allow behavior, he can’t use inconsistency or consistency with his religious beliefs as the grounds? That’s absurd. The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from favoring one religious denomination and outlawing others That’s what no establishment means. It doesn’t mean “Religion doesn’t matter.” Because Congress is also prohibited from restricting the free exercise of religion. So voters certainly can use inconsistency or consistency with religion as the grounds to outlaw or allow behavior. Otherwise “free exercise” is meaningless. And anything that applies to the voters applies their representatives. Otherwise “free exercise” would be meaningless for them as well.

 

[WillieWonka]

So when an individual votes to outlaw or allow behavior, he can’t use inconsistency or consistency with his religious beliefs as the grounds? That’s absurd. The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from favoring one religious denomination and outlawing others That’s what no establishment means. It doesn’t mean “Religion doesn’t matter.” Because Congress is also prohibited from restricting the free exercise of religion. So voters certainly can use inconsistency or consistency with religion as the grounds to outlaw or allow behavior. Otherwise “free exercise” is meaningless. And anything that applies to the voters applies their representatives. Otherwise “free exercise” would be meaningless for them as well.

The individual can use any grounds he wants for his vote. The First Amendment doesn’t restrict him in any way. It restricts government. Government can’t use non-compliance with religion as grounds for outlawing behavior.

 

[miguel]

No. What was prohibited was an establishment of religion, or prohibition of free exercise. It says nothing about favoring one denomination over others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In light of the history of European religious conflict resulting from established denominations (i.e., state-favored) and persecution of non-established denominations, the framers were well aware of that and chose to avoid similar conflict here by prohibiting it.

 

[miguel]

The individual can use any grounds he wants for his vote. The First Amendment doesn’t restrict him in any way. It restricts government. Government can’t use non-compliance with religion as grounds for outlawing behavior.

The individual legislator in Congress is no more restricted than the people he represents from using religious beliefs as grounds for the votes he casts. Free exercise applies to him as well. He just can’t vote to create an established denomination like the Church of England with subsidies, and other perks enjoyed by established denominations including persecution of non-established denominations.

 

[WillieWonka]

In light of the history of European religious conflict resulting from established denominations (i.e., state-favored) and persecution of non-established denominations, the framers were well aware of that and chose to avoid similar conflict here by prohibiting it.

Correct. The behavior of religion is why it was handicapped. However, the First says nothing about comparative advantage in government treatment of religion. It’s incorrect to say government is only limited from taking sides. It would be prohibited from establishing religion even if there was only one religion. Likewise, it would be prohibited from giving equal establishment treatment to all existing religions.

 

[WillieWonka]

The individual legislator in Congress is no more restricted than the people he represents from using religious beliefs as grounds for the votes he casts. Free exercise applies to him as well. He just can’t vote to create an established denomination like the Church of England with subsidies, and other perks enjoyed by established denominations including persecution of non-established denominations.

The legislator can vote any way he chooses. However, subsequent courts will throw the legislation out if it is demonstarted the state has no compelling reason to outlaw behavior. Non-compliance with religion is not grounds for demonstrating a compelling state interest.

 

[miguel]

The legislator can vote any way he chooses. However, subsequent courts will throw the legislation out if it is demonstarted the state has no compelling reason to outlaw behavior.

…or even if compelling reasons are demonstrated like providing 14th Amendment equal protection to unborn babies. They’ll call them non-persons and throw the laws out anyway. We know how it works.

Non-compliance with religion is not grounds for demonstrating a compelling state interest.

Understood. A law could be compliant with one denomination and non-compliant with another. The 1st Amendment is seeking neutrality. Although in practice that’s easier said than done.

 

[miguel]

Correct. The behavior of religion is why it was handicapped.

It was the behavior of the state. The framers were trying to prevent ruthless state suppression of non-established religions. It’s not religion that is being restrained by the 1st Amendment. It’s Congress.

However, the First says nothing about comparative advantage in government treatment of religion.

Nothing? That’s precisely what the word establishment means.

It’s incorrect to say government is only limited from taking sides. It would be prohibited from establishing religion even if there was only one religion.

If there was only one religion, it couldn’t be given preferred status over others. No establishment is possible in that case.

Likewise, it would be prohibited from giving equal establishment treatment to all existing religions.

Again, since establishment means giving preferred status to one denomination over others, giving the same treatment to all denominations is not establishment. Congress does this by giving them all tax-free status.

 

[WillieWonka]

It was the behavior of the state. The framers were trying to prevent ruthless state suppression of non-established religions. It’s not religion that is being restrained by the 1st Amendment. It’s Congress.
Nothing? That’s precisely what the word establishment means.
If there was only one religion, it couldn’t be given preferred status over others. No establishment is possible in that case.
Again, since establishment means giving preferred status to one denomination over others, giving the same treatment to all denominations is not establishment. Congress does this by giving them all tax-free status.

1. The First does restrain government. That restraint also prevents religion from taking a seat at the table of government. Government can’t establish religion, hence religion can’t get government support for its establishment.
2. Establishment means establishment. Comparative advantage means favoring one religion over another. You earlier told us it was unequal treatment of religion - establishing one at the cost of another - that was prohibited. It is any act of establishment.
3. If there is only one religion I agree it cannot be given better treatment than any other religion. But the First is not limited to prohibiting comparative advantage. Congress can’t do anything to establish it.
4. Establish does not mean giving prefered treatment. It means any act of establishment.
5. Congress gives tax free status to non-profits. Organizations with religious conections meet all the requirements of a non-profit, just like the Red Cross or Planned Parenthood do. It is their non-profit status, not their religious nature, that qualifies them as not taxable.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The legislator can vote any way he chooses. However, subsequent courts will throw the legislation out if it is demonstarted the state has no compelling reason to outlaw behavior. Non-compliance with religion is not grounds for demonstrating a compelling state interest.

This is false, as we previously discussed.

I hope nobody here is taken in by Willie’s emtpy generalizations. He has a penchant for making up case law.

Courts only require “compelling reason” when rights are involved. Courts do not make a regular policy of reviwing legislation merely because people feel inconvenienced by it.

See previous discussion.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

1. The First does restrain government. That restraint also prevents religion from taking a seat at the table of government.

Of course, in actuallity, Catholics (for example) do have a “set at the table of government”. Catholics vote. And Catholics sit in the judiciary right up to the Supreme Court.

The 1A does not prevent Catholics from “from taking a seat at the table of government”.

Yet.

 

[WillieWonka]

This is false, as we previously discussed.

I hope nobody here is taken in by Willie’s emtpy generalizations. He has a penchant for making up case law.

Courts only require “compelling reason” when rights are involved. Courts do not make a regular policy of reviwing legislation merely because people feel inconvenienced by it.

See previous discussion.

1. Courts do indeed require a compelling reason. But it must be a compelling state reason. It cannot be a religious reason. Religion does not qualify as a state reason.
2. Courts review legislation when someone with standing brings an appeal. Someone with standing us usually one convicted of an offense. (There are other ways to do it, but I’m speaking in general.)
3. For example, Lawrence v Texas is the US Supreme Court case that threw out all laws against private homosexual behavior between consenting adults. Lawrence was arrested and convicted in Texas of having homosexual relations in his own bedroom. So, he had standing and he brought an appeal. Note religious opposition to homosxuality was not an issue even brought before the court. Attorneys for all parties knew it was not grounds for anything.

 

[WillieWonka]

Of course, in actuallity, Catholics (for example) do have a “set at the table of government”. Catholics vote. And Catholics sit in the judiciary right up to the Supreme Court.

The 1A does not prevent Catholics from “from taking a seat at the table of government”.

Yet.

Catholics are not excluded from government. That would be a violation of the First guarantee of free exercise and the Article VI religious test prohibition. But, those Catholic judges never say behavior should be outlawed because it is inconsistent with Catholicism.

Does anyone think they do? If so, can you show where a Catholic justice cited non-compliance with Catholicism as grounds for outlawing behavior? Just once?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

1. Courts do indeed require a compelling reason. But it must be a compelling state reason. It cannot be a religious reason. Religion does not qualify as a state reason. 2. Courts review legislation when someone with standing brings an appeal. Someone with standing us usually one convicted of an offense. (There are other ways to do it, but I’m speaking in general.) 3. For example, Lawrence v Texas is the US Supreme Court case that threw out all laws against private homosexual behavior between consenting adults. Lawrence was arrested and convicted in Texas of having homosexual relations in his own bedroom. So, he had standing and he brought an appeal. Note religious opposition to homosxuality was not an issue even brought before the court. Attorneys for all parties knew it was not grounds for anything.

In Lawrence v Texas the first step was to establish a “right to privacy” only after which a “compelling state reason” was required.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Catholics are not excluded from government. That would be a violation of the First guarantee of free exercise and the Article VI religious test prohibition. But, those Catholic judges never say behavior should be outlawed because it is inconsistent with Catholicism. Does anyone think they do? If so, can you show where a Catholic justice cited non-compliance with Catholicism as grounds for outlawing behavior? Just once?

Catholic judges may give any reason they please. If the reason is found wanting it will be appealed until it reaches the SC (and the Catholics sitting there). There is no 1A prohibtion on Catholic judges ruling according to their religion. No judge has ever been impeached merely for ruling according to his religious conscience.

Catholic judges may exercise prudence to broaden the acceptance of their rulings, and insure support for promoton to the next level, but this is not a 1A requirement.

And voters need not even exercise that prudence.

Religion does, indeed, “have a seat at the table of government”.