Rabbis said to use torture to secure divorces for women

[Malthus]

In short, the only way for this legislation to be objectively "wrong" is where it is shown that it violates rights. Otherwise, it is perfectly legitimate for society to determine that (say) the "rights" of religious women to freely remarry are something that exist and are worth protecting.

People have the legal rights to get married and to practice the religion of their choice. However, they don't have the right to force their religion to recognize their marriage. Don't like it? Pick a different religion.

The legislation is not forcing a religion to recognize a marriage.

[Admiral Yi]

The legislation is not forcing a religion to recognize a marriage.

The legislation is forcing an individual to remove an impediment to a religion's recognition of a marriage.

As things stand the get-less woman could remarry and everyone would consider her married except members of her religion.

One relevant fact that hasn't come up yet: in New York state and Ontario (Canada?) can one party obtain a divorce without the others consent?

[crazy canuck]

One relevant fact that hasn't come up yet: in New York state and Ontario (Canada?) can one party obtain a divorce without the others consent?

In Canada one party can obtain a divorce without consent.  It used to be that the only ground upon which one could do that was infidelity  (providing a boon to PIs) but the law was changed in the 70s iirc to allow one party to sue for divorce on a wide range of grounds. 

[The Minsky Moment]

One relevant fact that hasn't come up yet: in New York state and Ontario (Canada?) can one party obtain a divorce without the others consent?

NYS finally implemented no fault about a year ago.

[DontSayBanana]

Yeah, like the obligation to come to the court with "clean hands" if you want an equitable remedy from them is "blackmail". 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clean+hands+doctrine

Umm, per the definition you provided, it covers the plaintiff, not the defense.  If the woman's initiating the divorce proceedings, according to that definition, the man's obstruction of the get is irrelevant.

[grumbler]

I wont speak for Sheilbh, but the way I would put it is that the nature of the religious belief is a question of fact which the court must decide based on the evidence put before it.

Not to speak for Sheilbh either, but if the man argues that he cannot, on religious grounds, grant a Get (despite the assertion of others that he must do so under any circumstances), how can the court possibly rule that his religious beliefs are not "facts" but others' religious beliefs are "facts."  What evidence can the court consider regarding such beliefs (or facts, if you are Sheilbh)?  This is precisely the reason why the US has a separation of church and state - so that some religious beliefs don't get enshrined as government-approved "facts" and others get dismissed as legally irrelevant.

[Malthus]

Yeah, like the obligation to come to the court with "clean hands" if you want an equitable remedy from them is "blackmail". 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clean+hands+doctrine

Umm, per the definition you provided, it covers the plaintiff, not the defense.  If the woman's initiating the divorce proceedings, according to that definition, the man's obstruction of the get is irrelevant.

The point I was making was that this matter was not "blackmail" any more than the clean hands doctrine was "blackmail".

[crazy canuck]

I wont speak for Sheilbh, but the way I would put it is that the nature of the religious belief is a question of fact which the court must decide based on the evidence put before it.

Not to speak for Sheilbh either, but if the man argues that he cannot, on religious grounds, grant a Get (despite the assertion of others that he must do so under any circumstances), how can the court possibly rule that his religious beliefs are not "facts" but others' religious beliefs are "facts."  What evidence can the court consider regarding such beliefs (or facts, if you are Sheilbh)?  This is precisely the reason why the US has a separation of church and state - so that some religious beliefs don't get enshrined as government-approved "facts" and others get dismissed as legally irrelevant.

You are missing the point I am trying to make.  The court will need to consider the man's evidence that he cannot grant the Get for religious reasons and weigh that against any evidence presented to the court that his position ought not be accepted.  This is the sort of weighing of evidence courts routinely do.  People cannot simple assert a position as true and expect the court to accept that position if the evidence before the court does not support it.

This has nothing to do with enshrining a religious belief as a fact.  It is simply the court considering the evidence before it in the application of a statute or in the case of a constitutional challege attempting to strike down the statute.

[derspiess]

I'm still unclear as to why a court would want to weight in on a religious matter like this.

[crazy canuck]

I'm still unclear as to why a court would want to weight in on a religious matter like this.

Go back and read the statute.

[Malthus]

I'm still unclear as to why a court would want to weight in on a religious matter like this.

The nub of the matter is that the lawmakers evidently saw that being prevented from remarrying in one's faith by a religious barrier imposed by someone else at their sole discretion was a "harm" that ought to be discouraged.

Primarially one assumes for its own sake, but also, as evidenced by the OP, because it creates string incentives to violence and feuding, which is socally harmful. Indeed, in traditional Orthodox Jewish society, which is often insular, violence against those who would wrongully refuse a "get" was in some cases considered an accepted "solution". Clearly, those who commit violence ought to be punished by the criminal law, but prevention is generally preferable to punishment after the fact.

Discouraging those who would impose a religious barrier to remarriage seems to me to serve legitimate social purposes - social purposes which have to be weighed against any harms the legislation employed for that purpose imposes on religious freedoms. As discussed extensively above, the legislation in question doesn't really impair religious freedoms.

[The Brain]

I'm still unclear as to why a court would want to weight in on a religious matter like this.

The nub of the matter is that the lawmakers evidently saw that being prevented from remarrying in one's faith by a religious barrier imposed by someone else at their sole discretion was a "harm" that ought to be discouraged.

Which makes the lawmakers completely retarded. I don't give a flying fuck if some woman can't remarry within her faith. Nor does any sane person. This Caesar doesn't want purely religious garbage rendered unto him.

[Malthus]

I'm still unclear as to why a court would want to weight in on a religious matter like this.

The nub of the matter is that the lawmakers evidently saw that being prevented from remarrying in one's faith by a religious barrier imposed by someone else at their sole discretion was a "harm" that ought to be discouraged.

Which makes the lawmakers completely retarded. I don't give a flying fuck if some woman can't remarry within her faith. Nor does any sane person. This Caesar doesn't want purely religious garbage rendered unto him.

Yes, but then I don't imagine much about marriage between humans concerns you. 

[The Brain]

I'm still unclear as to why a court would want to weight in on a religious matter like this.

The nub of the matter is that the lawmakers evidently saw that being prevented from remarrying in one's faith by a religious barrier imposed by someone else at their sole discretion was a "harm" that ought to be discouraged.

Which makes the lawmakers completely retarded. I don't give a flying fuck if some woman can't remarry within her faith. Nor does any sane person. This Caesar doesn't want purely religious garbage rendered unto him.

Yes, but then I don't imagine much about marriage between humans concerns you. 

I don't feel like marrying a homo. Sue me.

[The Minsky Moment]

The nub of the matter is that the lawmakers evidently saw that being prevented from remarrying in one's faith by a religious barrier imposed by someone else at their sole discretion was a "harm" that ought to be discouraged . . . Discouraging those who would impose a religious barrier to remarriage seems to me to serve legitimate social purposes

Agreed.
But the question in the US context is whether the First Amendment permits the government to use its power to remedy that harm and serve that social purpose.
It's not enough to say that the impairment of religious freedom is not that weighty compared to the harm being remedied.  The harm in question is one that stems entirely from one's membership in a particular religious community and from the relgious beliefs and commitments in the heads of the persons affected. The question is whether in that context the government can use its coercive powers to try to cause a particular religious ritual to be performed.