OK, the difference here would be between the examples (bearing in mind the simplification)…
Banning halal slaughter and allowing kosher slaughter would not be permitted (unless a relevant distinction could be drawn between the two) because such a law would be motivated only by religious animus - it is a naked preference for Judaism over Islam, theforefore violates the First Amendment.
With marriage, however, the motivation for allowing OSM and banning SSM isn’t to prefer one religion over another. Similarly, for example, hate crimes legislation doesn’t violate the religious clauses of the First Amendment (though it is possible to argue they violate other parts of the First) simply because the World Church of the Creator believes that black people are inferior. The motivation behind hate crimes legislation isn’t that the other religions are preferred to the WCC.
It isn’t? Sounds to me like it’s expressing a preference for religions that incorporate some spiritual difference between men and women and how they cleave together and junk (as well as maintaining that certain behaviours like homosexuality are sinful), over secular law which increasingly recognizes no legal difference between the genders (and has abandoned restrictions on homosexuality).
No - just because legislation agrees with one religion and disagrees with another does not make the motivation of that legislation aniums for the disagreed with religion. My comment isn’t a defense of the motivation here - personally I think the rationale for legislation against SSM is animus towards homosexuals (which means it falls under EP analysis, rather than First Amendment religious clause analysis).
The First Amendemnt has never said you cannot legislate on something that one religion likes and another doesn’t. It says you cannot do it because the one religion likes it and the other doesn’t. Doing it for another reason (like “we hate gays”) is nto a violation of the First Amendment.
No it doesn’t and no it doesn’t. The Bill or Rights does not include “separation of Church and State” or any synonym for that phrase. The right to hold religious views is protected by American law, liberty, and the very Constitution, not banned by them. Same for the right to vote. Any voter may vote any way for any reason that he or she chooses, including religious reasons. Moreover, even if there were some law saying that people can’t vote for religious reasons there would be no way to enforce it, short of having a mind-reader checking every person’s thoughts while they’re in the voting booth.
How on earth do you get to “that makes it OK” from what I say? Trying to explain to someone why their claim that disallowing SSM vioaltes the religious clause of the Frist Amendment is a very different thing to opposing SSM. I’ve worked pretty tirelessly for years on various SSM causes, and its pretty damn ridiculous to read what I have said in that way.
Call me crazy, but I think if you are going to be involved in legal action to support something, you should do it on the right grounds, not ones that will get thrown out of court and laughed at.
If what it takes to be pure and righteous and noble on SSM in your eyes is to support every crack-pot, legally invalid theory, then I guess I am going to have to live without that honor.
If marriage were purely a religious concept, then there would be multiple definitions of marriages, each within a certain religion, and the point would be moot. Rites and sacraments are religiously defined - I got bar mitzvahed, Christians get baptized, and the government has no role. Do you think an anti-SSM religion would try to prevent a pro-SSM religion from having marriage defined to allow it?
No matter what their motivations, the anti-SSM people in California were mostly careful to avoid religious arguments. It was all “it hurts the family” blah, blah, blah, and neither position could be religious persecution if solely secular arguments were used.
Now religious persecution was discussed, mostly by those Christians who claim that their religious rights are being violated by being forced to live in a society that allows SSM, and by their kids being taught in schools that the “gay lifestyle” is not horrible and sinful.
SSM incurs certain penalties set forth in scripture, that is unalterable. The state may impose a barrier to that which may prevent some from incurring that penalty, or may impose part of the penalty itself. Either the sin will lead where it leads and a penalty for sin will be paid either by the sinner or Jesus.
So, the OP is saying that since Religion A opposes SSM, but Religion B supports it, then a law banning SSM is forcing religious beliefs into society because of the views of Religion A.
Then is not a law approving of SSM forcing religious beliefs into society because of the views of Religion B?
Furthermore, the OP has argued that either the state should allow all marriages, or none. But virtually all religions support marriage, so the state could not ban it. Furthermore, some religions oppose SSM, so again, we could not force religious views onto those people, so we cannot permit all marriage.
Buying into the argument that a state’s view of marriage constitutes religious discrimination means that every possible state policy on marriage would infringe on some kind of religious belief. Therefore, the question cannot be settled on the basis of stopping religious discrimination, since there is no answer.
SSM or homosexuality? Show me a place where same sex marriage is defined as sinful. I’d suspect anyone wishing to be in a same sex marriage is already sinning plenty in your book.
The churches should let God sort it out.
Not quiet. The government can’t show favoritism towards a religion in it’s policy. It must be religiously neutral. What this means is group A can show their disapproval of SSM by not getting gay married, preaching against it, protesting, all that stuff, but they can’t impose their theology on group B through the government.
Group A’s right to swing their fists ends right where group B’s noses begin.
Now Voyager I think this addresses part of your post concern the “persecution” of the antiSSM crowd. The blue law style “family values” argument, while very arguably religiously motivated, is another debate, but take religion out of the picture and what’s left? The deafening silence of this forum when asked “what harm could come of gay marriage?” shows they don’t have any other leg to stand on.
By this standard of religious neutrality, the government can’t help but step on someone’s sandals.
AFAIK, there’s nothing in law prohibiting Church B from marrying two men or two women. The problem is that the marriage would only be recognized in the eyes of God, but would not by a judge (in terms of spousal benefits, next of kin, whatever). Generally when there’s a debate about SSM, it is about how marriage is received by the state, not whether a particular church may or may not perform it.
Which is why the swinging fists standard is useful in resolving this. It’s the same reason public schools can’t have prayer as part of morning class. The rights of students not to have religion forced on them over rule any religious rights the school, or it’s personal have. The school’s right to fist swinging ends where the student’s nose begins.
Exactly! My point is whenever someone argues “gay marriage is a sin and shouldn’t be allowed” they’re making an argument that marriage is a religious issue which means the government recognizing only hetro-marriage is religious discrimination, just as prayer in the schools would be, if no convincing secular argument against gay marriage can be made.
And the church’s argument seems to be that group B is so offensive standing in range that not swing a fist to get rid of them is a violation of group A’s rights. I’m not making this up, you know.
Absolutely. I’m just reporting the specious arguments I have heard. I think maybe the shortage of secular reasons here shows that the secular reasons are pretty feeble.
(I ain’t him, but) Yes and No. You can get a church to call you married, or call yourself married, if you like, and that’s fine. But the government will still treat you as unmarried if you don’t get a civil marriage, which could impact various issues like, well, all the ones that impact gay couples now.
If you want a marriage that the government won’t allow, you can make arguments that the law should be changed. That’s what the gays are doing; you can do it too.
Depends on the religion. For ones that don’t require state recognition then sure. The important question is do some religious definitions impact the state one? Is it one man one women because it’s good policy or because religious group A says so?
If so the question becomes why should followers of group A’s religious definition be given tax and other benefits, but same sex followers of group B’s definition punitively denied these benefits? Why should the government favor one religion over the other in it’s definition of marriage?
My grandfather is very uh Religious Fundamentalist so I know, but American rights are based on freedom of the individual having greater weight then the group. This is to prevent abuse of minority by tyranny of the majority. They can complain all they want, as is their right, though.
