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

[Sheilbh]

There's no analogy whatsoever that matches homosexuality/homophobia.  There is no other minority group that has such an intimate relationship with the majority.  Most black people do not have white parents.  Most Jews do not have a gentile family.  I think that makes it very different and it's those personal, human, intimate, familial relationships that's the key to the gays.  It also means that gays have easier access to understanding straight culture than, say, a black kid in Brixton does white culture - and, arguably vice-versa.  This makes ghettoisation very, very difficult.

That's why I think gay rights generally speaking moves very quickly.  Though there's been some horrible attacks recently the UK has, generally moved from a situation even in the 90s when gays were quite ostracised and legally discriminated against to a point now, where the Sun ('The Voice of the Working Class') can have 'Elton Takes David Up The Aisle' as a celebratory headline and a situation in which the Daily Mail publishes a nasty insidious homophobic article becomes the most complained about article ever (23 000 complaints).  I think once you reach a critical mass of gays who are out to family and friends it becomes more difficult to discriminate because the question ceases to be 'should homosexuals be able to marry/adopt' - while imagining a leather daddy creche - and becomes 'should they be able to marry/adopt'.  When it's about your friend, your brother, your son you suddenly become a gay rights radical.

I think this also explains why certain cultures will take a longer time.  In the UK gay rights and gay equality are entrenched, if you're middle/upper middle/upper class.  I'm fine, but it'd be a lot more difficult in Tottenham or somewhere like Macclesfield

[Martinus]

It's a very good point, Sheilbh. And yeah, that's why visibility matters.

[Faeelin]

It's a very good point, Sheilbh. And yeah, that's why visibility matters.

So are you out at work yet?

[Martinus]

It's a very good point, Sheilbh. And yeah, that's why visibility matters.

So are you out at work yet?

To some people, yes. I never pretend I'm straight to others, either. I don't have a boyfriend at the moment so the question never arises.

[Scipio]

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.

I can think of even more where the Court has invalidated legislation on the basis of due process, privileges and immunities, and substantive due process.  RFRA comes to mind.

[dps]

Any way, you still haven't actually rebutted freedom of religion. The government has decided the marriages of some faiths are acceptable, and the marriages of other faiths are not.

Say what?!?

it's pretty clear a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage is religious in nature and is therefore troubling.

You could say the same about oppostion to racial segregation, or opposition to the death penalty.  Strangely, a lot of people who find religious oopostion to gay marriage "troubling" seem to have no problem with a preacher denouncing racism, or calling the death penalty un-Christian. 

[11B4V]

You guys got another one.

http://www.newser.com/story/167854/minnesota-senate-approves-gay-marriage.html

[garbon]

Odd that you picked to post this in a thread from '09.

[Valmy]

Odd that you picked to post this in a thread from '09.

I thought Buddha had come back to us for a second there.

[AnchorClanker]

[11B4V]

Odd that you picked to post this in a thread from '09.

Came up with the search