New Indiana law and is marriage a "civil right"?

[AlexanderC]

1st: I suppose this two questions but anyway… With the recent religious liberties bill passed in Indiana, there has been extensive backlash of people claiming that it is discriminatory towards gays (even though it extends to multiple situations). My question(s) are, is the new law discriminatory (it allows refusal of service to anyone if the service goes against their conscience) and should we as Catholics support it?

2nd: This question eventually comes up with this discussion so: Is marriage (including gay “marriage”) a “civil right”?

Thanks!

 

[josephback]

1st: I suppose this two questions but anyway… With the recent religious liberties bill passed in Indiana, there has been extensive backlash of people claiming that it is discriminatory towards gays (even though it extends to multiple situations). My question(s) are, is the new law discriminatory (it allows refusal of service to anyone if the service goes against their conscience) and should we as Catholics support it?

2nd: This question eventually comes up with this discussion so: Is marriage (including gay “marriage”) a “civil right”?

Thanks!

The reason for the law is understandable, in that activist groups will happily sue into bankruptcy any dissent from the new prevailing orthodoxy, but to me the idea of refusing service on conscious grounds just opens the door to someone practicing racism or similar things and then claiming “conscientious objection” on religious grounds. To win the battle against homosexual marriage, we must show that it’s not about hate, and live like it too. I’ve been coming to terms in my own life with this matter and difference between rhetoric and action. The decline of marriage and the family didn’t start with the push toward so-called “gay marriage”, but the fact that it’s being seriously considered is both a symptom and a sign of how far society has strayed from the true sacramental understanding regarding marriage. We have to repair that damage first, not build walls and adopt an “us vs. them” mentality. Down that road lies self-righteousness and hypocrisy.

 

[katy]

Here is the main part of the text:

Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

IOW, the government may not force,say, a baker to cater a ceremony for same-sex people if his or her religious beliefs are to the contrary. Presumably it would protect that same baker from having to cater a KKK meeting. The wording is almost exactly the same as the federal statute. The same law has been enacted in numerous other states, and the supposed horrible things that would happen have not. I believe the uproar is because the opponents want to be able to ram mandatory participation down the throats of people who demur. That is what has happened in other states. People have lost their businesses and their livelihoods because they could not in conscience use their talents or property to further something inimical to their beliefs.

 

[AyJSimon]

2nd: This question eventually comes up with this discussion so: Is marriage (including gay “marriage”) a “civil right”?

Thanks!

Even if it’s not a civil right - it is still something offered to straight couples and denied to gay couples, without a good reason.

 

[DaveBj]

snip

2nd: This question eventually comes up with this discussion so: Is marriage (including gay “marriage”) a “civil right”?

Thanks!

My preliminary opinion is that perhaps civil unions (for the purposes inheritance, insurance coverage, survivors’ rights, etc.) may be a “civil right”, but marriage (in the sacramental meaning) is not

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Even if it’s not a civil right - it is still something offered to straight couples and denied to gay couples, without a good reason.

Not true. Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people. They just don’t want to. They want to do something else instead - something which is denied to gays and straight alike. Remember, couples do not have rights. Only people have rights.

 

[Havard]

RFRA is fine. It has existed at the federal level, and in many states, for over 20 years, and the alarmists can’t point to a single case where RFRA has been used to justify broad discrimination.

As far as marriage is concerned, the Bill of Rights already allows freedom of association and free exercise of religion. “Marriage laws” don’t grant people any extra rights, they just give people additional incentives to stay together.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

1st: I suppose this two questions but anyway… With the recent religious liberties bill passed in Indiana, there has been extensive backlash…

Or so the meda informs us.

2nd: This question eventually comes up with this discussion so: Is marriage (including gay “marriage”) a “civil right”?

Marriage may indeed be a civil right but that does not answer the question: what is marrige.

Claiming that marriage is a civil right and that, therefore, it must be redefined is a logical non-sequitor.

 

[drankovich]

Marriage (within the sacramental/church connotation): not a civil right
Marriage (within the serves-the-same-purpose-as-the-sacramental-version-but-only-in-law/society connotation): don’t see why not.

Government’s not supposed to follow one particular religion’s set of morals and rules, and the Constitution never said anything about marriage, so it follows. Nobody’s asking churches to marry people outside of their boundaries, as opposed to what a lot of alarmists are saying,

The issue arises not specifically with the discrimination of gays: legally, you could make a case for discriminating against any demographic. Maybe not a good case, but you have a foothold nonetheless.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The issue arises not specifically with the discrimination of gays: legally, you could make a case for discriminating against any demographic. Maybe not a good case, but you have a foothold nonetheless.

Indeed, marriage is inherently discriminatory! It creates a legal discrimination between the married and unmarried.

 

[Havard]

Marriage (within the sacramental/church connotation): not a civil right
Marriage (within the serves-the-same-purpose-as-the-sacramental-version-but-only-in-law/society connotation): don’t see why not.

Government’s not supposed to follow one particular religion’s set of morals and rules, and the Constitution never said anything about marriage, so it follows. Nobody’s asking churches to marry people outside of their boundaries, as opposed to what a lot of alarmists are saying,

The issue arises not specifically with the discrimination of gays: legally, you could make a case for discriminating against any demographic. Maybe not a good case, but you have a foothold nonetheless.

Oh, but the government does discriminate based on demographics all the time. And it’s 100% Constitutional.

A simple example is affirmative action. For matters pertaining to race or national origin, the laws need to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government purpose, but if that standard (called strict scrutiny) is met, the law is kosher. For matters pertaining to sex and sexual orientation, the bar is easier to meet (intermediate scrutiny).

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

1st: I suppose this two questions but anyway… With the recent religious liberties bill passed in Indiana, there has been extensive backlash of people claiming that it is discriminatory towards gays (even though it extends to multiple situations). My question(s) are, is the new law discriminatory (it allows refusal of service to anyone if the service goes against their conscience) and should we as Catholics support it?

It is not discriminatory towards gays. The law protects the rights of business owners to discriminate (actually discern) against harmful conduct. That discernment is not only rational, in many cases, (SSM) it is necessary.

2nd: This question eventually comes up with this discussion so: Is marriage (including gay “marriage”) a “civil right”?

Thanks!

The Constitution of the United States makes no mention of marriage (gay or straight)at all. Now if a state wants to CREATE a new “right”…they have the legislative machinery to do such a thing.

 

[AyJSimon]

Not true. Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people. They just don’t want to. They want to do something else instead - something which is denied to gays and straight alike. Remember, couples do not have rights. Only people have rights.

And only straight people have the right to marry someone of the gender they want.

Even if you consider the current situation an example of “equal rights,” consider that if/when SSM is legalized, people will still have them. Assuming that you’re for equal rights, I don’t expect you’ll have an issue with this.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

And only straight people have the right to marry someone of the gender they want.

People (period) can marry. It just depends on the definition of marriage

 

[AyJSimon]

People (period) can marry. It just depends on the definition of marriage

Sure - and the government is going about the business of changing its definition, while reaffirming the right of religions to maintain their own definition.

 

[katy]

Sure - and the government is going about the business of changing its definition, while reaffirming the right of religions to maintain their own definition.

As long as they don’t actually try to act on it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And only straight people have the right to marry someone of the gender they want.

You are striving mightily to cast this privilege in some language that makes it appear that gays are being denied something that straight people have. But your latest attempt quoted above only makes sense as a statement if you first establish that marrying someone of the same gender is in fact “marrying”. I claim it is not. And until you prove otherwise, I will not concede the point. For example, suppose I said that restrictive marriage laws only allow me to marry someone of the same species. If I said that, you could rightly complain, “But marrying a goose is not really marrying, so this ‘restriction’ in law is not really a legal restriction. It is a tautology.”

Even if you consider the current situation an example of “equal rights,” consider that if/when SSM is legalized, people will still have them. Assuming that you’re for equal rights, I don’t expect you’ll have an issue with this.

I am for equal rights, and until you prove that “marrying” someone of the same gender is the same right as marrying someone of the opposite gender, this restriction does not thwart equal rights for gays.

 

[AyJSimon]

You are striving mightily to cast this privilege in some language that makes it appear that gays are being denied something that straight people have. But your latest attempt quoted above only makes sense as a statement if you first establish that marrying someone of the same gender is in fact “marrying”. I claim it is not. And until you prove otherwise, I will not concede the point. For example, suppose I said that restrictive marriage laws only allow me to marry someone of the same species. If I said that, you could rightly complain, “But marrying a goose is not really marrying, so this ‘restriction’ in law is not really a legal restriction. It is a tautology.”

I am for equal rights, and until you prove that “marrying” someone of the same gender is the same right as marrying someone of the opposite gender, this restriction does not thwart equal rights for gays.

Your basis for asserting that SSM is fundamentally different than OSM is a religion that has no relevancy to the topic under discussion - which is whether the government can expand its definition of marriage to include gay couples. The government, in principle, assumes they are the same until a compelling case is brought forward to prove that they aren’t. So the burden is on you, not me.

 

[vsedriver]

Your basis for asserting that SSM is fundamentally different than OSM is a religion that has no relevancy to the topic under discussion - which is whether the government can expand its definition of marriage to include gay couples. The government, in principle, assumes they are the same until a compelling case is brought forward to prove that they aren’t. So the burden is on you, not me.

they are not the same and I can prove it. The only reason the state regulates marriage is for the benefit of children. Having parents united to raise children is a benefit for the state. Only a man and a woman can become a father and a mother. Two men or two women can never be a mother or a father. If gender is not part of the definition of marriage then there is no reason to rule out incestuous relationships or limit the number of individuals to only two.

SSM creates discrimination against other naturally sterile unions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your basis for asserting that SSM is fundamentally different than OSM is a religion that has no relevancy to the topic under discussion - which is whether the government can expand its definition of marriage to include gay couples. The government, in principle, assumes they are the same until a compelling case is brought forward to prove that they aren’t. So the burden is on you, not me.

My personal motivations are of no importance in this discussion. What I say is either true or it is not. As for the burden being on me to prove they are different, would you say the same thing if I claimed that marrying a goose is the same thing as marrying a girl? How would you go about proving they were different if I asserted they were the same?

But if it a proof you want, it is quite easy. In places where marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, that is the definition for that place. And it is not such a far-fetched definition. Until a few years ago, most people did hold that definition of the word. In places where marriage is defined more broadly, the equal rights you talk about have already been achieved, so it is a non-issue for those places. But for places where, either explicitly or by custom, the definition is a man and a woman, same-sex marriage is clearly not a marriage of any kind. You can lobby to have the definition broadened in those places, but you cannot use the equal rights argument in those places because the understanding of the word marriage clearly does not yet cover the broadened definition.