Posted on Oct 6, 2014
Supreme Court rejects appeals on gay marriage, effectively legalizing it in 30 states.
11.1K
147
77
10
10
0
Although I wish they would finally just rule, it's essentially the right decision. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment makes it pretty clear that if you give rights to some, you have to give the same rights to all.
Posted in these groups: 
Don't ask Don't tell (DADT)
LGBTQ+
Don't ask Don't tell (DADT) LGBTQ+
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 27
22
22
0
There are an entire list of things that happen in our country that I don't agree with. Gay marriage is not even on my radar. There are more important things to worry about than two individuals marrying and publicly proclaiming their love for each other. Making gay marriage illegal never stopped the people from living together and acting as couples in the first place.
We need to focus on getting our veterans made whole with good jobs. We need to focus on rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. We need to focus on our education systems so people don't owe 25 years of their working life to pay off the loans. The list is long and distinguished..... let's focus on the things that help people get to work.
We need to focus on getting our veterans made whole with good jobs. We need to focus on rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. We need to focus on our education systems so people don't owe 25 years of their working life to pay off the loans. The list is long and distinguished..... let's focus on the things that help people get to work.
(22)
(0)
8
8
0
I am in an interracial marriage. Not all that long ago, my marriage wouldn't have been allowed. I support the advancement of marriage equality for committed same-sex couples because love should not be denied state sanction on account of bigotry. As long as we are talking about consenting adults, there really isn't a rational governmental reason to prohibit it.
Full disclosure: In May of this year, I officiated a marriage for a same-sex couple. Both women are currently Active-Duty Navy who only had the ability to be free and open about who they were after DADT fell. I was happy to be given the opportunity to join them together in marriage.
Full disclosure: In May of this year, I officiated a marriage for a same-sex couple. Both women are currently Active-Duty Navy who only had the ability to be free and open about who they were after DADT fell. I was happy to be given the opportunity to join them together in marriage.
(8)
(0)
6
6
0
I will just say that I'm sorry to hear the decision. And I'll add that anyone who thinks there won't be lawsuits forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages is naïve. That can't be very far off.
(6)
(0)
COL Randall C.
CW5 (Join to see) / MAJ (Join to see) - There have already been lawsuits before regarding church's and same-sex marriages. In fact, one of the opinions of an activist judge in New Jersey was that his view is that "some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals” was warranted (this was about a church that refused to rent its retreat house to a same-sex couple that wanted to conduct their ceremony there).
The above was about a property owned by the church, but there are many other cases you can easily find in the news where lawsuits (in other Western countries) are being filed against churches to force them marry same-sex couples. Denmark recently passed a law making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages. A lawsuit is currently underway against the Anglican church in England to have the court compel churches in a likewise manner.
Of course, freedom of religion is guaranteed in the United States by our Constitution and it would be unthinkable that anything that would dilute that freedom could ever happen ... just like nothing could ever happen to dilute any other freedom guaranteed in the Constitution...
I'm actually liberal in my views on same-sex marriages for many of the reasons that MAJ (Join to see) and MAJ (Join to see) stated and the above probably makes me sound like some right-wing conspiracy theorist. However, I'm not in favor of either liberal or conservative values being shoved down someone's throat, and when activist judges and PC legislators selectively attack a religious belief system, this stretches my liberalism a bit too far and the bandwagon can take the next exit on the road.
The above was about a property owned by the church, but there are many other cases you can easily find in the news where lawsuits (in other Western countries) are being filed against churches to force them marry same-sex couples. Denmark recently passed a law making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages. A lawsuit is currently underway against the Anglican church in England to have the court compel churches in a likewise manner.
Of course, freedom of religion is guaranteed in the United States by our Constitution and it would be unthinkable that anything that would dilute that freedom could ever happen ... just like nothing could ever happen to dilute any other freedom guaranteed in the Constitution...
I'm actually liberal in my views on same-sex marriages for many of the reasons that MAJ (Join to see) and MAJ (Join to see) stated and the above probably makes me sound like some right-wing conspiracy theorist. However, I'm not in favor of either liberal or conservative values being shoved down someone's throat, and when activist judges and PC legislators selectively attack a religious belief system, this stretches my liberalism a bit too far and the bandwagon can take the next exit on the road.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Cudworth, there is much more to that story, and it neither favors the church nor paints the judge as "activist" (which almost always simply means "I don't like the ruling").
The land (a beach-front property) was owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, not the United Methodist Church. The OGCMA is not a church. Granted, they have some affiliation with the UMC, however the controversy was the result of the non-church status of the OGCMA. That organization, because it is not a church, applied for a “Green Acres” tax exemption via the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The tax exemption required that the OCGMA allow use of its facilities to the public “on an equal basis” and thus under the full-extent of New Jersey's anti-discrimination statute (which includes sexual orientation as a covered class).
Because the OGCMA allowed the public to use the pavilion for weddings, and because the OGCMA voluntarily agreed to make its facilities open to the public “on an equal basis” in exchange for a tax break, the court ruled that the OCGMA could not exclude same-sex weddings from its pavilion.
What we're still waiting for is a church being forced to conduct and/or render official church grounds for something that goes against their religious beliefs, whether it be same-sex or interracial marriages, or something else entirely. It hasn't happened. Under the Constitution, the RFRA, the RLUIPA, and many other federal and state laws, it would be nearly inconceivable.
In fact, given last term's decision by the Supreme Court, extending RFRA far beyond its original intent (and then extending it further in an addendum the very next day), it is significantly *less* likely today than it was when the New Jersey case happened in 2007.
The land (a beach-front property) was owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, not the United Methodist Church. The OGCMA is not a church. Granted, they have some affiliation with the UMC, however the controversy was the result of the non-church status of the OGCMA. That organization, because it is not a church, applied for a “Green Acres” tax exemption via the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The tax exemption required that the OCGMA allow use of its facilities to the public “on an equal basis” and thus under the full-extent of New Jersey's anti-discrimination statute (which includes sexual orientation as a covered class).
Because the OGCMA allowed the public to use the pavilion for weddings, and because the OGCMA voluntarily agreed to make its facilities open to the public “on an equal basis” in exchange for a tax break, the court ruled that the OCGMA could not exclude same-sex weddings from its pavilion.
What we're still waiting for is a church being forced to conduct and/or render official church grounds for something that goes against their religious beliefs, whether it be same-sex or interracial marriages, or something else entirely. It hasn't happened. Under the Constitution, the RFRA, the RLUIPA, and many other federal and state laws, it would be nearly inconceivable.
In fact, given last term's decision by the Supreme Court, extending RFRA far beyond its original intent (and then extending it further in an addendum the very next day), it is significantly *less* likely today than it was when the New Jersey case happened in 2007.
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
MAJ (Join to see), as I stated, it dealt with the retreat house (I never said it was a church). I refer to him as an activist judge not because, as you said, "I don't like the ruling", but because it is based "based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law". The judge's own comments about intrusions into religious liberty being justified as long as they balance societal goals bears this out. Not a comment about the extent of one Constitutional freedom being balanced against another, but rather the limitations on that freedom for a societal goal (in other words, political considerations).
You are incorrect that the controversy was over the non-religious (you said 'non-church') status of the property. The controversy was over if the property was considered public or not (specifically, 'if the pavilion was open to all persons on an equal basis').
This case has the some of the same elements of the case that went to SCOTUS regarding the Boy Scouts in New Jersey removing a homosexual leader. In the case, the exact same arguments were made that the BSA was a public accommodation with the difference being that the BSA violated a state statue prohibiting discrimination instead of a tax status which allowed equal access (different, although spiritually the same). While first it was found that the BSA wasn't a public accommodation, the NJ appellate court held that they were and rejected the BSA's claims of religious freedom (note, the BSA has never claimed that they are a religious organization, but rather that they have closely held religious beliefs). The case went to SCOTUS in which they found (in a 5-4 decision) that the religious freedoms trumped the state law about public accommodation.
In 1983, SCOTUS ruled on a case and upheld that legislative prayers were allowed and they were "part of the fabric of our society" and "simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." Compare that to a 1992 case where SCOTUS ruled that schools couldn't have clergy offer a benediction at the beginning of graduation ceremonies because the Establishment Clause "guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or other act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."
As I've stated in many different topics, there are individuals that will go out of their way to be offended. I don't support any views/beliefs being forced on an individual except those that if not adhered to will have a fundamental disruption to society (i.e., "No, you cannot kill someone just because you don't agree with them, no matter if your views/beliefs allow it"). However, as a cursory look of the courts cases involving conflicts with a religious connection, there are numerous shifts from 'no establishment or prohibiting the exercise of religion' to 'freedom from religion'.
Back to your and CW5 (Join to see)'s discussion. I agree with MAJ (Join to see) in that there would have to be a lot of changes that would have to occur before you would see ministers opposed to same-sex marriages being forced to officiate at the weddings or risk criminal/civil penalties. I do not agree with your premise that it could never happen though. I'm sure that's the exact view the Danes had 20+ years ago as well. Yes, we have a Constitution that spells out guaranteed freedoms, but those freedoms are not as sacrosanct as we would like to believe as we also have a history of those freedoms being curtailed for the public good. Is there any wonder why there is concern about the slippery slope of the eroding of religious freedoms? As Chief stated, his and many other churches are rewriting policies and public statements to ensure things that were 'common sense' before are specifically stated in proactive self-defense measures stemming from the view that "intrusions into religious liberty are justified as long as they balance societal goals"
You are incorrect that the controversy was over the non-religious (you said 'non-church') status of the property. The controversy was over if the property was considered public or not (specifically, 'if the pavilion was open to all persons on an equal basis').
This case has the some of the same elements of the case that went to SCOTUS regarding the Boy Scouts in New Jersey removing a homosexual leader. In the case, the exact same arguments were made that the BSA was a public accommodation with the difference being that the BSA violated a state statue prohibiting discrimination instead of a tax status which allowed equal access (different, although spiritually the same). While first it was found that the BSA wasn't a public accommodation, the NJ appellate court held that they were and rejected the BSA's claims of religious freedom (note, the BSA has never claimed that they are a religious organization, but rather that they have closely held religious beliefs). The case went to SCOTUS in which they found (in a 5-4 decision) that the religious freedoms trumped the state law about public accommodation.
In 1983, SCOTUS ruled on a case and upheld that legislative prayers were allowed and they were "part of the fabric of our society" and "simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." Compare that to a 1992 case where SCOTUS ruled that schools couldn't have clergy offer a benediction at the beginning of graduation ceremonies because the Establishment Clause "guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or other act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."
As I've stated in many different topics, there are individuals that will go out of their way to be offended. I don't support any views/beliefs being forced on an individual except those that if not adhered to will have a fundamental disruption to society (i.e., "No, you cannot kill someone just because you don't agree with them, no matter if your views/beliefs allow it"). However, as a cursory look of the courts cases involving conflicts with a religious connection, there are numerous shifts from 'no establishment or prohibiting the exercise of religion' to 'freedom from religion'.
Back to your and CW5 (Join to see)'s discussion. I agree with MAJ (Join to see) in that there would have to be a lot of changes that would have to occur before you would see ministers opposed to same-sex marriages being forced to officiate at the weddings or risk criminal/civil penalties. I do not agree with your premise that it could never happen though. I'm sure that's the exact view the Danes had 20+ years ago as well. Yes, we have a Constitution that spells out guaranteed freedoms, but those freedoms are not as sacrosanct as we would like to believe as we also have a history of those freedoms being curtailed for the public good. Is there any wonder why there is concern about the slippery slope of the eroding of religious freedoms? As Chief stated, his and many other churches are rewriting policies and public statements to ensure things that were 'common sense' before are specifically stated in proactive self-defense measures stemming from the view that "intrusions into religious liberty are justified as long as they balance societal goals"
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
My only concern is the forcing of churches to do what is totally against their grain and those who are going to push it because they can. Furthering deepening the rift between those who tolerate it and those who generally accept it.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google