Legalizing same-sex marriage: Domino effect?

that's too bad... I was really hoping to start some shit

 

Advocates Examine Mormon Church's Stance On LGBT Rights : NPR

thought this was worth adding to the conversation.

 

Some among the self-proclaimed party of "defenders of the Constitution" are going full anti-Constitution with recent suggestions on how to respond, the latest from Ben Carson, one of the many potential (and long , long, long shot) Republican candidate for '16.

If Congress does not like a Supreme Court decision, simply "fire" the Justices involved.....so mich for separation of powers and an independent judiciary. Mike Huckabee had some advice as well.

 

I thought this was kind of funny.
After having to listen to her colleagues make pro-family statements the only gay legislator in Alabama kind of lost it after the one man one woman law was struck down.
She threatened to point out which members had been having affairs as an example of being less than honoring marriage.
She didn't go through with it but I can understand her frustration.

Gay Alabama legislator threatens to expose colleagues’ infidelities if they preach “family values” - Salon.com

 

for the record, I am strongly in support of same-sex marriage. But I do try to be sensitive to the arguments made by the other side. Some of those tend toward the ridiculous, hypocritical, or bigoted. But I think some of the most compelling arguments involve issues of religious liberty.

One of the most interesting proposals to how to address this situation was offered years ago in an interview I heard given by Allen Derschowitz:

He discussed at length the idea that the term "marriage" really exists in tow completely separate contexts in our society. First there is the religious context: a sacred union, sanctioned by god, adam and eve... let no man put asunder... and all that. The second is completely civil, practical, and legalistic in nature: protection under the law, joint tax filing, parental and custodial rights, inheritance, hospital visitation, et al...

Most of the arguments in favor of gay marriage tend to run along the second, more secular definition. While much of the opposition tends to focus on the religious one. But when you examine it as a legal or constitutional issue, to the extent to which God or the Bible might have anything to say on the matter falls completely outside the bounds of "separation of church and state" and thus beyond the the bounds of what a court or legislature has any jurisdiction over.

Derschositz's solution was to simply separate the two marriage entities and call each what it is:

1. Civil Unions: everybody gets s civil union, same-sex, opposite sex, whoever. If you go to your county courthouse and stand before a judge, this is what you get. It entitles you to all the legal benefits, and entitlements that traditionally accompany the institution of marriage.

2. Marriage as a religious union: Take this one outside of the legal system altogether. This is simply a religious sanctioning of said union by whatever church or religion performs the ceremony. It is up to church, religion, denomination to decide for themselves there own stance on this issue. If you're unitarian, same-sex marriage is probably in the cards, if you're southern baptist might be waiting a while. But you would still have the opportunity to enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage. And if you wanted to seek a religious blessing, you are welcome to seek out a church willing to perform the ceremony.

I don't know if this is the perfect solution. I'm sure it has its own drawbacks and complication. But I thought it was an interesting point for conversation.

 

I have never thought a church that didn't believe in marriage equality should be forced to marry a couple.
If they want to be backwards bigots more power to them.
I do think the government should get out of the marriage equation altogether but that's me.
If it's called a civil union for a government marriage for everybody than I don't really have an issue with the idea but you know that won't fly.
People want their marriage to be called that because of years of training.
We'd have to go through some major revamping of our perspectives before that would happen.

Give me Heinlein's method: you told the computer (government) you were getting married, didn't matter your gender, it was for a five year contract, at the end of which you could dissolve amicably or recommit, anybody could perform the ceremony, you got drunk with your friends, then back to the cabin to screw your brains out.

 

Well it's about fucking time. That's a big step toward freedom, and an even bigger reaffirmation of the right to pursue happiness.

 

Amen

Now, can we stop legislating morality and work on some real issues?

 

What a fantastic day it is. This took way too long but I'm very happy for everyone who is longer marginalized.

 

The White House was awash in rainbow lights tonight.

 

Well done, America.

You see? Sometimes you can remember what it was like to do the right thing.

 

To celebrate the occasion, and the countless citizens who've worked so hard to make it happen, we're honorarily renaming our Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream I DOugh, I DOugh for the summer, at participating Ben & Jerry's Scoop Shops nationwide.

I Dough, I Dough | Ben & Jerry’s

 

You wear sanctimonious very well.

 

Grow a sense of humour.

 

Learn to spell humor.

 

But no medal for the US. We came in 20th in the race to marriage equality.
International | Freedom to Marry