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

[Faeelin]

That argument would work if the government deferred to churches on who can get married.  For example, if churches were allowed to perform publicly recognized marriages of 10 year olds, or first cousins, or multiple spouses.  But they aren't.

Here's the difference, though. I can think of plenty of reasons to not allow people to refuse to let you marry children. I have yet to hear a reasonable articulation of why gays shouldn't be able to marry.

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.

They're total opposites. To take the marriage example.

Let's not, for a moment. How is the fight to serve openly in the military significantly different than the effort to end segregation in the armed forces? Or the right to not be discriminated against in employment and housing?

Inter-racial marriage: Something which has traditionally never been much of a issue. Inter-racial marriage has historically usually been totally fine, no one really cared about race too much. The development of institutionalised racism in the US was a product of the modern world.

This statement is to me a bit iffy. First, when was interracial marriage not a problem? Sure, it wasn't in 14th century England, but they didn't have that many Africans lying around...

I suspect there are other people who would be willing to discuss Medieval, Roman, and arab ideas on race, but I agree it wasn't as much of an issue as it was in america.

Gay marriage: Something which has traditionally never been accepted. Even the Greeks for all their encouragment of man-love still expected that to be just a bit of fun on the side of your proper marriage. Just having homosexual relationships out in the open and accepted is a product of the modern world.

I would disagree that "open" homosexuality is a new phenomenom; there are plenty of situations in world history where it happened. (Oddly real big in Late Ming China among the literati).

Now I would agree with you that the idea of two guys or girls marrying each other is a recent development. My problem is, so what? So's the idea of a universal vote, or that women should be the equal of men. Just because an idea is new does not make it somehow real or right.

(Or wrong, admittedly).

Secondly, I would suggest your statement about how "gay marriage" is a new development is true, but also ignores one of the main reasons for marriage in premodern societies, which was in a large part economic and for purposes of inter-community ties.

In any case, sure, gay rights isn't a carbon copy of the Black Civil rights movement. Nor were black civil rights carbon copies of the feminist movement, or abolitionism. The unifying goal is a struggle by its members for greater freedom and equality in a society which has consistently taken its founding principles further than the first Americans would have thought.

[Admiral Yi]

Here's the difference, though. I can think of plenty of reasons to not allow people to refuse to let you marry children. I have yet to hear a reasonable articulation of why gays shouldn't be able to marry.

There are undoubtedly others.  But not related to the freedom of religion argument that we were specifically discussing.

[Faeelin]

Here's the difference, though. I can think of plenty of reasons to not allow people to refuse to let you marry children. I have yet to hear a reasonable articulation of why gays shouldn't be able to marry.

There are undoubtedly others.  But not related to the freedom of religion argument that we were specifically discussing.

What others, pray tell? Let's hear it.

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. This by itself might not be problematic, if it had a valid reason to do so. But it's certainly sending a sign as to which faiths are and are not "proper."

[MadImmortalMan]

Probably for the over-arching genre of gay rights, I'd say it doesn't work.



For certain things, the most obvious being gay marriage, it could I think.

I mean, the government recognizes the marriages performed by the religions who refuse to marry gays. But if a religion decided it was fine with performing gay marriages, then the government won't recognize those. They can't have it one way and not the other, so maybe there's a freedom of religion argument there.


Edit: Maybe freedom of association would be the closest fit for gay rights as a whole?

That argument would work if the government deferred to churches on who can get married.  For example, if churches were allowed to perform publicly recognized marriages of 10 year olds, or first cousins, or multiple spouses.  But they aren't.

True. But the government doesn't perform the marriages. The churches do. So if a church that is certified to perform marriages, and has performed many legal marriages in the past, one day decides that they will perform a gay marriage---then the government which recognized all the other marriages they had performed will suddenly not recognize this one. Up until that point, the government had not interfered with the church's religious rite of marriage, but now that the marriage is a gay one, they do.

Yes, I suppose the same would be true if they tried to marry an underage person or whatever, but it's there nonetheless.

[Faeelin]

True. But the government doesn't perform the marriages. The churches do. So if a church that is certified to perform marriages, and has performed many legal marriages in the past, one day decides that they will perform a gay marriage---then the government which recognized all the other marriages they had performed will suddenly not recognize this one. Up until that point, the government had not interfered with the church's religious rite of marriage, but now that the marriage is a gay one, they do.

Yes, I suppose the same would be true if they tried to marry an underage person or whatever, but it's there nonetheless.

Of course, the government merely licenses the power to churches to perform marriages. But it is an interesting question. Suppose tomorrow the state of Texas decided that no more Jews could get married by rabbis, and henceforth they wouldn't be given marriage licenses.

Jews can still get married, of course. They just have to go to a Baptist minister. Religious freedom issue, or not?

[Admiral Yi]

What others, pray tell? Let's hear it.

It was a throwaway line.  I don't even know what you were comparing when you said here's the difference.

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. This by itself might not be problematic, if it had a valid reason to do so. But it's certainly sending a sign as to which faiths are and are not "proper."

The government did not decide the marriages of some faiths were acceptable because it bowed to the preferences of those faiths.  The institution of (heterosexual) marriage predates American independence and the creation of the Christian church.

[Faeelin]

The government did not decide the marriages of some faiths were acceptable because it bowed to the preferences of those faiths.  The institution of (heterosexual) marriage predates American independence and the creation of the Christian church.

Since when does age matter? So does slavery and keeping women as inferior to men, but that doesn't mean they were good, no?

[Faeelin]

What others, pray tell? Let's hear it.

It was a throwaway line.  I don't even know what you were comparing when you said here's the difference.

Oh, and I was comparing the comparison between letting peopel marry ten year olds and two consenting adults.

[Admiral Yi]

True. But the government doesn't perform the marriages. The churches do. So if a church that is certified to perform marriages, and has performed many legal marriages in the past, one day decides that they will perform a gay marriage---then the government which recognized all the other marriages they had performed will suddenly not recognize this one. Up until that point, the government had not interfered with the church's religious rite of marriage, but now that the marriage is a gay one, they do.

Yes, I suppose the same would be true if they tried to marry an underage person or whatever, but it's there nonetheless.

The government doesn't interfere with any church's right to perform religious rites.  Churches can and have performed ceremonies under a variety of titles for gay couples. 

[Faeelin]

The government doesn't interfere with any church's right to perform religious rites.  Churches can and have performed ceremonies under a variety of titles for gay couples.

I don't think you understand enough constitution law to understand why choosing to give out benefits based on religious preferences of the majority is a disquieting issue.

[Admiral Yi]

Since when does age matter? So does slavery and keeping women as inferior to men, but that doesn't mean they were good, no?

The age matters because the US's decision to continue to uphold the institution of hetereosexual marriage at the time of independence was not a deferral to the wishes of one faith over another.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think you understand enough constitution law to understand why choosing to give out benefits based on religious preferences of the majority is a disquieting issue.

OK.

[Eddie Teach]

Fae, right now you sound kind of like Queequeg. You're so enamored with this idea(freedom of religion requires legal gay marriage!) that you don't care how ridiculous it is. 

[Faeelin]

The age matters because the US's decision to continue to uphold the institution of hetereosexual marriage at the time of independence was not a deferral to the wishes of one faith over another.

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.

[Faeelin]

Fae, right now you sound kind of like Queequeg. You're so enamored with this idea(freedom of religion requires legal gay marriage!) that you don't care how ridiculous it is. 

Eh. Maybe, maybe not. I was against it as Marti proposed it. I am merely saying it's pretty clear a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage is religious in nature and is therefore troubling.