California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[maximdewinter]

I did some more "worrying" today. Now Ispskins1 we are back to the subject of the workplace. This post has little to do with the rest of the thread which touched on the workplace and then went beyond the workplace. I'm going in a new direction here an thought I would give you a heads up that the following is strictly about gays in the workplace. And for blessed relief this has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment or Religious Liberty at all. I don't know if the subject rates a separate thread but I didn't make it a separate thread. Anybody want to come with?:

Gay men die 20 years younger

ABC News: Lying About Smoking: Grounds for Firing?

Check it out. Even though I am not gay I am "worried" that basic gay rights may be stripped by end runs through the back door. Does or will a person now or in the future need to include their sexual orientation on their corporate sponsored health insurance? I have no idea what each state requires.

But would it not be within the purview of a corporation to fire a gay person--or even a gay married couple who met at work over the Xerox machine--because of health risks associated with the gay lifestyle just as smokers may be given the boot at ABC?

[lsbskins1]

Max -

Let me start out by saying no one forced the Catholic church to do anything. They chose to quit the adoption business. The question you should be asking yourself is "What is wrong with an institution that would rather let thousands of children suffer than place a small percentage of them with gay couples?"

Second of all, unless YOU clarify it, I can only conclude that your point is that because some bad behavior is based on opinion, and we all "have the right to our opinions", that citizens should not expect legal protection from the government when a bad actor can claim that his actions sprang from said opinion that he has a "right" to hold. If that is the case, the only rights any individual has are the ones he is powerful enough to enforce on his own. Hardly the formula for a just society.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Max - Let me start out by saying no one forced the Catholic church to do anything. They chose to quit the adoption business. The question you should be asking yourself is "What is wrong with an institution that would rather let thousands of children suffer than place a small percentage of them with gay couples?" Second of all, unless YOU clarify it, I can only conclude that your point is that because some bad behavior is based on opinion, and we all "have the right to our opinions", that citizens should not expect legal protection from the government when a bad actor can claim that his actions sprang from said opinion that he has a "right" to hold. If that is the case, the only rights any individual has are the ones he is powerful enough to enforce on his own. Hardly the formula for a just society.

And here you have given the nut of it. An opinion is a personal view or judgment based on some sort of grounds. A religious belief is beyond human reason handed down from a higher authority. There is no reasoning or rationality to a religious belief. For Christians it is not an opinion that Christ is their savior --it is a foundation which they know to be true. Also many religious believers see punishment in the after life as a consequence of going against the belief that they know to be true if the offense is a mortal sin. Asking the Catholic Charity to go against what they believe to be a mortal sin is asking them to negate all acceptance of the higher authority and to pay for the trespass in the after life. This adherence to scripture is a sine qua non for remaining a devout Catholic.

The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The Boston case shows that government did prohibit the free exercise of religion by boxing them into a corner with anti-discrimination laws on two counts. The first being the "orientation discrimation" law and the second the requirement of Mass. adoption agencies to swear to uphold all state anti-discrimination laws.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter And here you have given the nut of it. An opinion is a personal view or judgment based on some sort of grounds. A religious belief is beyond human reason handed down from a higher authority. There is no reasoning or rationality to a religious belief. For Christians it is not an opinion that Christ is their savior --it is a foundation which they know to be true. Also many religious believers see punishment in the after life as a consequence of going against the belief that they know to be true if the offense is a mortal sin. Asking the Catholic Charity to go against what they believe to be a mortal sin is asking them to negate all acceptance of the higher authority and to pay for the trespass in the after life. This adherence to scripture is a sine qua non for remaining a devout Catholic. The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The Boston case shows that government did prohibit the free exercise of religion by boxing them into a corner with anti-discrimination laws on two counts. The first being the "orientation discrimation" law and the second the requirement of Mass. adoption agencies to swear to uphold all state anti-discrimination laws.

Then the Catholic Church made a decision that was dictated by their faith and not by the law. In backing out of the adoption business they made a faith based judgement that it was a greater sin to adopt children to gay couples than to let the thosands of others suffer the consequences of leaving the field. This choice was a result of their own belief system and not a result of the laws in question. If the government had forced them to remain in the adoption business and continue adopting to gays against the dictates of their faith, it would be a "prohibition against the free exercise of religion". The law does not do that.

There is no Constitutional protection against facing the consequences in the secular world of obeying the dictates of your religion. So, if I believe that it is a sin to live in a country that allows women to wear pants, I don't get to force all women to wear dresses so that I can "freely exercise" my religion. Even Jesus tells his followers to expect that the way will be hard, that the narrow gate is the gate to salvation. In a free and open society, we can not allow these type of faith based quandries to dictate our public policy. If you think we have a mess in negotiating a path where individual religions have to deal with where their faith butts up against public policy, imagine if public policy had to negotiate a path where no public action caused conflict between hundreds of ideals of what "free exercise" meant. If one religion required that you "make a joyful noise" in praise of God, and another required quiet contemplation and considered "joyful noises" sinful, requiring government to satisfy both would be impossible. The standard you seem to be advocating can not be met.

So, we are back to where we started. It is the governments job to protect individual rights, not to secure a world where your or anybodies' religion never has to deal with the conflicting demands of "The City of Man" and "The City of God". Sorry.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter The Boston case shows that government did prohibit the free exercise of religion by boxing them into a corner with anti-discrimination laws on two counts. The first being the "orientation discrimation" law and the second the requirement of Mass. adoption agencies to swear to uphold all state anti-discrimination laws.

If that's the case, then people should be equally free to practice polygamy, female circumcision, psychodelic drug use and blood sacrifices, based on their religious belief.

Right?

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,..."

The U.S. Supreme Court has held since the late 19th century that laws which were neutral in nature, meaning their intent was to resolve issues other than religion -- for example, the treatment of animals or use of controlled substances -- were not considered restrictions on the free exercise of religion, even if a circumstantial result was to affect some practices based on religious belief.

The last time this was challenged was in the late '80s regarding the use of peyote in native American religions. Congress even passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 to circumvent the Court precedent, but the law was promptly challenged and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997.

Thus it is here. The Court ruling that gay marriage is a matter of equal protection under the law is religiously neutral... it is never the intent of the law to deny religious freedom but rather to extend legal equality. Thus, the Catholic Church must "render unto Ceasar" what religiously neutral secular law dictates.

.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . If that's the case, then people should be equally free to practice polygamy, female circumcision, psychodelic drug use and blood sacrifices, based on their religious belief. Right? “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,..." The U.S. Supreme Court has held since the late 19th century that laws which were neutral in nature, meaning their intent was to resolve issues other than religion -- for example, the treatment of animals or use of controlled substances -- were not considered restrictions on the free exercise of religion, even if a circumstantial result was to affect some practices based on religious belief. The last time this was challenged was in the late '80s regarding the use of peyote in native American religions. Congress even passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 to circumvent the Court precedent, but the law was promptly challenged and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997. Thus it is here. The Court ruling that gay marriage is a matter of equal protection under the law is religiously neutral... it is never the intent of the law to deny religious freedom but rather to extend legal equality. Thus, the Catholic Church must "render unto Ceasar" what religiously neutral secular law dictates. .

We have veered off gay marriage vs. religious liberty and that's fine with me. I think I have made my points and you and Ispskins1 have made yours. Now you have brought us to "what is the jurisdiction of the state to control certain acts." There is a move afoot to craft a constitutional amendment stating that marriage can only be defined by the union of a man and woman. But the opposition to that proposed amendment says that the State (capital S) has no business telling two people of whatever sex whom they can marry. These opponents says that it is a natural right to marry whomever they choose.

The authority, the basis, of the "only man and woman" marriage comes from the Bible, the Q'uran,etc. and therefore is not indisputable on the part of those with religious considerations. . The counter position of "man marries man" or "woman marries women" comes from a rational foundation of marriage with its own underpinnings ( love, companionship, job benefits, the legal restructuring of assets to be passed on in death, etc). Which means that it is now the human being's domain to decide what is or isn't rational in human unions and that there is some implied right or freedom contained therein to do what the individuals involved deem fit.

So then what is not rational about polygamy and why is it illegal? On what basis or authority does the State keep three people in love from tying the knot if this human right to marry whomever they choose trumps all? Two women and a man married last year in Holland. On what authority does the State have here to prohibit the same thing here and if the State can't force the definition of what marriage is, then from where did they get the number of two ?

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Then the Catholic Church made a decision that was dictated by their faith and not by the law. In backing out of the adoption business they made a faith based judgement that it was a greater sin to adopt children to gay couples than to let the thosands of others suffer the consequences of leaving the field. This choice was a result of their own belief system and not a result of the laws in question. If the government had forced them to remain in the adoption business and continue adopting to gays against the dictates of their faith, it would be a "prohibition against the free exercise of religion". The law does not do that. There is no Constitutional protection against facing the consequences in the secular world of obeying the dictates of your religion. So, if I believe that it is a sin to live in a country that allows women to wear pants, I don't get to force all women to wear dresses so that I can "freely exercise" my religion. Even Jesus tells his followers to expect that the way will be hard, that the narrow gate is the gate to salvation. In a free and open society, we can not allow these type of faith based quandries to dictate our public policy. If you think we have a mess in negotiating a path where individual religions have to deal with where their faith butts up against public policy, imagine if public policy had to negotiate a path where no public action caused conflict between hundreds of ideals of what "free exercise" meant. If one religion required that you "make a joyful noise" in praise of God, and another required quiet contemplation and considered "joyful noises" sinful, requiring government to satisfy both would be impossible. The standard you seem to be advocating can not be met. So, we are back to where we started. It is the governments job to protect individual rights, not to secure a world where your or anybodies' religion never has to deal with the conflicting demands of "The City of Man" and "The City of God". Sorry.

When I started in this thread I said that gay marriage, if universal, will cause a sea change in the way we do things here in the USA and we should think about the possible outcomes before they happen. The continual process of "boxing in" religious institutions with dictates of the State will have many consequences some unforeseen other not so. The continual process of boxing in individual religious rights will also go places not so clear.

Not on the subject of gay marriage but more on the anti-harassment/ anti-discrimination side of things, IMO there will be no traditional religious adoption agencies should this process continue. There will be no Catholic hospitals in the future due to the abortion, morning after pill, and sex change conundrum. There also might not be any Catholic schools because of the problem of hiring openly gay teachers. Religious Colleges will also run into big problems with dorm arrangements. If that happens who will have won? Nobody. And why? I want to tackle that in another thread about the origin of our rights.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: maximdewinter So then what is not rational about polygamy and why is it illegal? On what basis or authority does the State keep three people in love from tying the knot if this human right to marry whomever they choose trumps all? Two women and a man married last year in Holland. On what authority does the State have here to prohibit the same thing here and if the State can't force the definition of what marriage is, then from where did they get the number of two ?

Who knows? Merely because the State is incorrect in one area of law does not support the correctness or incorrectness of other areas of law.

I personally believe polygamy should be legal.

Or, to put it another way: Anyone over the age of consent should be allowed to define their personal relationships and hold themselves out to other entities (including the government) as anything they choose.

I can't think of anything that should be more OUT of the government's reach than one's personal, noneconomic relationships.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter The authority, the basis, of the "only man and woman" marriage comes from the Bible, the Q'uran,etc. and therefore is not indisputable on the part of those with religious considerations. . The counter position of "man marries man" or "woman marries women" comes from a rational foundation of marriage with its own underpinnings ( love, companionship, job benefits, the legal restructuring of assets to be passed on in death, etc). Which means that it is now the human being's domain to decide what is or isn't rational in human unions and that there is some implied right or freedom contained therein to do what the individuals involved deem fit.

If opponents of gay marriage can muster enough state support for a constitutional amendment, then that's another kettle of fish. And while attitudes towards gays are inexorably moving towards acceptance, the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage.

As I mentioned, two summers ago I was arguing the opposite, although for political purposes.

I personally suspect that this issue is less about religious belief than about a deep human instinct that most humans feel, although the deeply religious will obviously see issues they see as dealing with deep, underlying morality as being God's law. By this I mean that I believe marriage is a human construct that formalizes a natural instinct towards pair bonding for the purpose of procreation and child rearing.

Unlike most animals, human offspring are completely helpless for years and, even if they survive to an age (7, 8, whatever) at which they conceivably could care for themselves, optimally they need to remain in a family environment well into their teens before they can be expected to take on the tribal role of an adult. Because of this, the optimal, and therefore instinctively sought child rearing situation is a mother for nurturing, and a father for providing. It's even been suggested that the source of the infamous "Seven Year Itch" is that once a child reaches an age where they can pitch in and help mom care for things, the father is free to go off an 'sow other furrows'.

This I believe is the source of the underlying misgivings even many otherwise liberal folks have with gay marriage... not that gays are bad or shouldn't have the right, but that something deep inside us tells us that marriage without at least the symbolic goal of procreation is just, somehow, not right.

Needless to say, I also believe that civilization has evolved to a point that no longer requires us to be slaves to tribal, anthropolocial priorities, and that, while I do believe that the optimal child raising environment is a two-parent household, it's not longer necessary that those parents also conceive and bear those children. And equally, that as long as it's a loving environment, children are in no danger whatsoever of inheriting 'Gay Cooties' from gay parents.

Quote by: maximdewinter There will be no Catholic hospitals in the future due to the abortion, morning after pill, and sex change conundrum.

This is a strawman, that has already proven to be a non-issue. Medical professionals are perfectly free to choose not to perform abortions or proscribe contraception. The fact is, it's the pro-life lobby's greatest victory, in that, while they haven't been able to change the law, they have been able to dramatically reduce to number of doctors and healthcare facilities willing to perform the procedures.

Quote by: maximdewinter So then what is not rational about polygamy and why is it illegal?

I used to be opposed to polygamy, but methinks that was more about jealosy than reasoning. These days, I have no problem with polygamy. If a man has the means to care for multiple wives and their children, good for him. It's not something that hasn't been common throughout history, and in many cultures.

.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: maximdewinter There will be no Catholic hospitals in the future due to the abortion, morning after pill, and sex change conundrum.

Quote by: Sonart . This is a strawman, that has already proven to be a non-issue. Medical professionals are perfectly free to choose not to perform abortions or proscribe contraception. .

It may not be an issue in 2008. But the legal system is chipping away at it:
Catholic hospital sued for refusing breast implants to “transgendered”

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter When I started in this thread I said that gay marriage, if universal, will cause a sea change in the way we do things here in the USA and we should think about the possible outcomes before they happen. The continual process of "boxing in" religious institutions with dictates of the State will have many consequences some unforeseen other not so. The continual process of boxing in individual religious rights will also go places not so clear. Not on the subject of gay marriage but more on the anti-harassment/ anti-discrimination side of things, IMO there will be no traditional religious adoption agencies should this process continue. There will be no Catholic hospitals in the future due to the abortion, morning after pill, and sex change conundrum. There also might not be any Catholic schools because of the problem of hiring openly gay teachers. Religious Colleges will also run into big problems with dorm arrangements. If that happens who will have won? Nobody. And why? I want to tackle that in another thread about the origin of our rights.

As I said before, if the Catholic Church choses to leave these fields, it will not be because they were forced to do so by the law, it will because they are following the dictates of their religious tenents as they see them. The First Amendment does exist to make sure Catholics never have deal with any issue that conflicts with their faith. I have every right to the same protections of the law that everyone else has. What you are suggesting is that the Catholic Church's rights are more important than mine. Whether you like it or not, this - Donate to the Legal Information Institute - is as much a part of the Constitution as this - Donate to the Legal Information Institute - and based on this:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."

... I can demand my government open the civil institution of marriage, and all of it's legal rights and responsibilities, to me as an equal citizen. Thinking about the possible outcomes does not take away my right to equal protection under the law.

The last part of your post is more of the same. Anti-discrimination laws exist because of the equal protection clause. You can not deny someone employement or housing based on discriminatory principles, I don't care what the root source of the ideal may be. If the Catholic church wants to do "public business", it has to adhere to Constitutional principles.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: lsbskins1 As I said before, if the Catholic Church choses to leave these fields, it will not be because they were forced to do so by the law, it will because they are following the dictates of their religious tenents as they see them. The First Amendment does exist to make sure Catholics never have deal with any issue that conflicts with their faith. I have every right to the same protections of the law that everyone else has. What you are suggesting is that the Catholic Church's rights are more important than mine. Whether you like it or not, this - Donate to the Legal Information Institute - is as much a part of the Constitution as this - Donate to the Legal Information Institute - and based on this: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." ... I can demand my government open the civil institution of marriage, and all of it's legal rights and responsibilities, to me as an equal citizen. Thinking about the possible outcomes does not take away my right to equal protection under the law. The last part of your post is more of the same. Anti-discrimination laws exist because of the equal protection clause. You can not deny someone employement or housing based on discriminatory principles, I don't care what the root source of the ideal may be. If the Catholic church wants to do "public business", it has to adhere to Constitutional principles.

I have written something on rights in the"Society & Rights" forum since we are stuck on "who's right trumps who." I'm guessing you're not going to like it.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 It is the Supreme Courts job to hear cases that Federal Question (constitutional and unconstitutional) and cases of diversity.

Where the hell does Article III say even one damned word about "diversity"?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor Where the hell does Article III say even one damned word about "diversity"?

Are you kidding?

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Diversity jurisdiction is bold and underlined.

Diversity jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In United States law, diversity jurisdiction is a concept used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a U.S. (federal) district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the parties are "diverse" in citizenship, which generally indicates that they are citizens of different states (corporate parties, and non-U.S. citizens can also be included). Diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdiction over issues arising under federal law) constitute the two primary sources of subject matter jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts.

Really... Why do people argue something that is so obviously incorrect and easily verifiable?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Are you kidding? The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Diversity jurisdiction is bold and underlined.

The person I responded to didn't say "diversity jurisdiction," he said "diversity." Besides, the bolded portion has nothing to do with diversity. It is quite specific.

Diversity jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, how about a real source instead of Wikipedia.

In United States law, diversity jurisdiction is a concept used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a U.S. (federal) district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the parties are "diverse" in citizenship, which generally indicates that they are citizens of different states (corporate parties, and non-U.S. citizens can also be included). Diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdiction over issues arising under federal law) constitute the two primary sources of subject matter jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts.

But it still has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this diversity crap.

Really... Why do people argue something that is so obviously incorrect and easily verifiable?

So, show me where Article III specifically says even one damned thing about diversity!

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor The person I responded to didn't say "diversity jurisdiction," he said "diversity." Besides, the bolded portion has nothing to do with diversity. It is quite specific. Now, how about a real source instead of Wikipedia. But it still has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this diversity crap. So, show me where Article III specifically says even one damned thing about diversity!

Now you're just intentionally being obtuse. He used "diversity" as a shorthand for "diversity jurisdiction". It's a common shortening and everyone familiar with the federal courts uses it. It means cases in which the parties are from different jurisdictions, such as two different states, and the federal courts are clearly granted jurisdiction over that type of case by Article III. "Diversity" ("diversity jurisdiction", "diversity of citizenship") is just the term used for that type of jurisdiction.

Give me a break.

How about from the courts themselves:

The Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts - Understanding the Federal Courts

A case also may be filed in federal court based on the "diversity of citizenship" of the litigants, such as between citizens of different states, or between United States citizens and those of another country. To ensure fairness to the out-of-state litigant, the Constitution provides that such cases may be heard in a federal court. An important limit to diversity jurisdiction is that only cases involving more than $75,000 in potential damages may be filed in a federal court. Claims below that amount may only be pursued in state court. Moreover, any diversity jurisdiction case regardless of the amount of money involved may be brought in a state court rather than a federal court.

Can't you just admit you didn't read the thread and hyperventilated over a word you took out of context?