Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “put rights up for vote”. We allow the legislatures to vote on rights per the amendment process. That’s not a direct vote by the people, but it is a voting process. Although I think it’s unlikely to happen at this point, I could easily have seen a Constitutional amendment banning SSM a few years ago if the SCOTUS had ruled it constitutional.
I’m wondering if some Congresscritter can put forth a bill which would force an affirmative vote. That is, put forth a bill which would nullify the legislation in question.ds
It’s not, in my mind, an ideal answer to the problem.
It’s not completely unjustified, mind you – the city is forcing the church to choose between observing its principles with respect to sinful behavior and helping those most in need. In a sense, it’s a cynical ploy on the part of the city, and a cynical response on the part of the church.
The difference is, in my mind, that the city is entitled to be cynical. They are not claiming (or should not be claiming) any reasons to do otherwise. The church, ont he other hand, has plenty of guidance on NOT being cynical, on not answering a blow to the cheek with a return blow. And they have chosen to disregard that.
It’s not for me to say what the hierarchy should do, of course, but if the Pope were to appoint me Archbishop of Washington, it’s safe to imagine that this response would be drastically altered.
And plenty of states permit constitutional amendment by direct vote.
ALL rights, every piece of law we have, derives its enforcement power from the government, which in turn derives its “just power from the consent of the governed.”
Yeah, I was going to note that, but I think it’s pretty clear we were talking about the Federal Constitution.
It’s astonishing how often we need to remind people of that. The constitution wasn’t written on tablets handed from Mt Sinai. It was voted on by Congress and the legislatures of the several states.
But on an all-or-none basis, not a selective one, as in “Marriage laws apply only to same-race couples”. That’s the point, that we can’t override equal protection, or anything else in the Constitution, on the basis of a vote of popularity only. That’s why it’s there. The Constitution exists largely to protect ourselves from ourselves, to guarantee our better nature against our worse nature. But there are certainly those, such as our learned friend Bricker, who are willing to dismiss or rationalize around such niceties, such as by claiming that “consent of the governed” is all that matters.
Yes, it can be amended, but only with serious thought and determination, something that our worse nature cannot usually achieve against our better nature. And meanwhile, defending the rights it guarantees is indeed the courts’ province.
How is the city being cynical? Would you call it “cynical” if it was interracial marriage that was the issue? As for the Church; “cynical” is too kind a word.
As for me; this is a demonstration as to why religious organizations should never be used for charity work. The city should cut them off and give its money to a more civilized, secular organization. A charity organization that is actually motivated by charity instead of the desire to push their faith regardless of the harm they cause.
How is the city being cynical? It seems like the cynical thing for the city to do would be to say, “Even though we have this law, we’re not going to enforce it in cases like Catholic Charities, when enforcing it would negatively affect us.”
Is Catholic Charities OK with providing spousal benefits to other couples whose marriages aren’t recognized by the Church? If they don’t have a problem with providing twice-divorced Bob’s wife Linda, who got married by a guy dressed as Elvis in a quickie Vegas ceremony, with spousal benefits, why must they deny Gary’s husband Steve?
The Catholic Church can take its ball and go home. I’m pretty sure that letting them dictate policy by threatening to withhold charity is a bigger violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
As I understand the case in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities didn’t object to the policy until the Archbishop ordered them to. I’ll see if I can dig up some links.
Do you really not get that the church thinks homosexuality is a sin? If you do, then surely you can understand how they’d not want to condone it—directly or indirectly. Agree with them or not, they see the genders of the two people as vitally important. The church’s stance on this really isn’t that difficult.
Bricker, you say the Church is being cynical. Couldn’t you just as easily claim they’re taking a longer view and what will benefit society?
Under what precedent is requiring spousal benefits for same-sex couples a violation of the First Amendment? Hell, I’d argue that granting a religious exemption is in and of itself a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, but I’ll at least admit the Court, in its eternal wisdom, has failed to accept my memoranda on the same as controlling.
And to be clear, as far as I can see, the law does not require the Catholic Church to grant same sex partners spousal benefits. It requires them to treat same sex partners equally as opposite sex partners. The Church has an option of not paying such benefits, if it does not pay these benefits to heterosexual couples.
On what other basis should they be allowed to refuse spousal benefits to legal spouses? If they are like Glen Hoddle, for example, and believe that disabilities are punishments from God for prior sins, should they be allowed to refuse you the right to insure your wife if she is in a wheelchair? If they think God frowns on miscegination, should they be allowed to refuse to let you insure your wife if she is of a different race to you? Or is it just hating homos that is protected if you claim it has a religious basis?