Freedom of religion (rather than civil rights) as a "template" for gay rights?

[Admiral Yi]

I'm sorry, I don't see your point. I don't think anyone would dispute that same-sex marriage was not an issue at the time of independence.

Answer me this question: at what point in history did the US government defer to any faith in recognizing the institution of monogomous heterosexual marriage?  That seems to be the foundation of your argument.  Since the government deferred on that, it's only fair to defer on homosexual marriage.  But as you already said, it was not an issue. 

[Faeelin]

Answer me this question: at what point in history did the US government defer to any faith in recognizing the institution of monogomous heterosexual marriage?  That seems to be the foundation of your argument.  Since the government deferred on that, it's only fair to defer on homosexual marriage.  But as you already said, it was not an issue.

Up until the 1780s; it was one of the major issues in the disestablishment of churches in the early American south, where only Anglicans were allowed to do so. Twas also, in Virginia, the last bit to die.

[England kept the practice going a bit later, until the 1830s].

[Admiral Yi]

Up until the 1780s; it was one of the major issues in the disestablishment of churches in the early American south, where only Anglicans were allowed to do so. Twas also, in Virginia, the last bit to die.

[England kept the practice going a bit later, until the 1830s].

Without knowing the details, I'm assuming that doesn't answer the question.

[Faeelin]

Up until the 1780s; it was one of the major issues in the disestablishment of churches in the early American south, where only Anglicans were allowed to do so. Twas also, in Virginia, the last bit to die.

[England kept the practice going a bit later, until the 1830s].

Without knowing the details, I'm assuming that doesn't answer the question.

What do you mean defer? You're asking at what point in American history did the United States not recognize heterosexual monogamous marries of other faiths, right?

[Admiral Yi]

What do you mean defer? You're asking at what point in American history did the United States not recognize heterosexual monogamous marries of other faiths, right?

No.  I'm asking when did the US bow to the wishes of any faith in recognizaing the entire institution of heterosexual monogomous marriage.

[Faeelin]

No.  I'm asking when did the US bow to the wishes of any faith in recognizaing the entire institution of heterosexual monogomous marriage.

I'm guessing you hate the way the Constitution and society have changed since 1787, then. I freely acknowledge that same-sex marriage wasn't on the table in the 1780s. But neither were plenty of other aspects of equality and freedom we have today. What makes the gays different?

[Admiral Yi]

I'm guessing you hate the way the Constitution and society have changed since 1787, then. I freely acknowledge that same-sex marriage wasn't on the table in the 1780s. But neither were plenty of other aspects of equality and freedom we have today. What makes the gays different?

The advocates of other aspects of equality and freedom weren't trying to construct freedom of religion arguments.

[Martinus]

There is no point debating with Yi - he is an obstinate homophobe and has always been. It's really useless.

[The Minsky Moment]

Moreover, it is pretty clear that there is a strong 1st amendment issue at play in the same-sex marriage cases. I don't know if it's as strong as equal protection, but let me give you an example of the reasons for the Defense of Marriage Act, quoting from the House Committee Report:

"For many Americans, there is to this issue of marriage an overtly moral or religious aspect... the fact that there are distinct religious and civil components of marriage does not mean that the two do not intersect." Noting that civil law entailed a moral judgment about homosexuality, the House Report noted the "moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality."   

The Judaeo-christian line is not mine and is in the report by the United States Congress. And tis indeed a weird world where Episcopalians, many Jews, Quakers, and IMO Presbyterians within 10 years are not part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Now I will grant you this was only one of the reasons DOMA was justified. The other reason in the House Report was that it preserves scarce government resources, which is questionable on many, many grounds that, being a bright chap, should be obvious to you.

The problem with the First Amendment argument is that even though the Bible and religious traditions may be cited as justification, what one is really dealing with is bias and prejudice that has non-religious as well as religious roots.  And from an Establishment Clause POV, it is OK for a piece of legislation to be motivated by bigotry.  I don't see any way around bringing the 14th amendment into play.

[Faeelin]

The problem with the First Amendment argument is that even though the Bible and religious traditions may be cited as justification, what one is really dealing with is bias and prejudice that has non-religious as well as religious roots.  And from an Establishment Clause POV, it is OK for a piece of legislation to be motivated by bigotry.  I don't see any way around bringing the 14th amendment into play.

Is it? I can think of quite a few cases where the court looked into a bill's legislative history to find it a violation of the Establishment clause.

[Eddie Teach]

There is no point debating with Yi - he is an obstinate homophobe and has always been. It's really useless.

Nah, it's mainly that you're stretching a lot in some of these arguments. There are plenty of reasons to support gay marriage, but freedom of religion and gays being in denial aren't among them.

[Martinus]

There is no point debating with Yi - he is an obstinate homophobe and has always been. It's really useless.

Nah, it's mainly that you're stretching a lot in some of these arguments. There are plenty of reasons to support gay marriage, but freedom of religion and gays being in denial aren't among them.

I never said that gay rights movement is a freedom of religion issue. This is nonsense. I just said that the template is similar. Show me where I am "stretching this" like you describe.

[garbon]

re: entire thread

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem with the First Amendment argument is that even though the Bible and religious traditions may be cited as justification, what one is really dealing with is bias and prejudice that has non-religious as well as religious roots.  And from an Establishment Clause POV, it is OK for a piece of legislation to be motivated by bigotry.  I don't see any way around bringing the 14th amendment into play.

Is it? I can think of quite a few cases where the court looked into a bill's legislative history to find it a violation of the Establishment clause.

What would this Court do on these facts is the relevant question.  Based on the language you have cited, I don't think it is a close question.  DOMA may fall, but not on the Establishment Clause.

[Neil]

The Judaeo-christian line is not mine and is in the report by the United States Congress. And tis indeed a weird world where Episcopalians, many Jews, Quakers, and IMO Presbyterians within 10 years are not part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Many of them aren't.  Left-wing politics has annihilated their religion impulse.