happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 26, 2015 12:14:53 GMT -5
Justice Roberts predicted cases on the horizon. The example he used was a religious college only offering married housing to opposite sex couples. Given the propensity for the SCOTUS to be "activist judges" instead of actually upholding the law, I wouldn't put it past them to start ruling against religious instituatiins in cases like that. Pretty sure religious colleges have always been allowed to set their own standards regarding student behavior and dress. There are some around here that kick you out if you hold hands in public with a member of the opposite sex, and no one has ever questioned that rule.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 26, 2015 12:18:20 GMT -5
Justice Roberts predicted cases on the horizon. The example he used was a religious college only offering married housing to opposite sex couples. Given the propensity for the SCOTUS to be "activist judges" instead of actually upholding the law, I wouldn't put it past them to start ruling against religious instituatiins in cases like that. Pretty sure religious colleges have always been allowed to set their own standards regarding student behavior and dress. There are some around here that kick you out if you hold hands in public with a member of the opposite sex, and no one has ever questioned that rule. Hence why I said "slow but sure." Meaning while that might not be the case now, who can say 5 to 10 years down the line?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 17:40:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 12:20:44 GMT -5
Justice Roberts predicted cases on the horizon. The example he used was a religious college only offering married housing to opposite sex couples. Given the propensity for the SCOTUS to be "activist judges" instead of actually upholding the law, I wouldn't put it past them to start ruling against religious instituatiins in cases like that. Can you explain to me whose and which religious liberty is being eroded in your example? Thanks.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 12:25:45 GMT -5
Pretty sure religious colleges have always been allowed to set their own standards regarding student behavior and dress. There are some around here that kick you out if you hold hands in public with a member of the opposite sex, and no one has ever questioned that rule. Hence why I said "slow but sure." Meaning while that might not be the case now, who can say 5 to 10 years down the line? We've had legal SSM up here for longer than that, and it hasn't happened. Nobody can force a reluctant priest to marry a SSM couple, even though it's been legal for a very long time.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 12:26:37 GMT -5
Gay marriage may be legal now, but how about gay adoption? Is that still outlawed?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 12:28:42 GMT -5
Justice Roberts predicted cases on the horizon. The example he used was a religious college only offering married housing to opposite sex couples. Given the propensity for the SCOTUS to be "activist judges" instead of actually upholding the law, I wouldn't put it past them to start ruling against religious instituatiins in cases like that. Would said religious college even admit gay students to begin with? While I fully support a churches right to discriminate based on its religious principals, the water does become murkier as you start tacking on "religiously affiliated" institutions. For me the metric would be more a matter of if they receive federal funding in the form of Title IV. If you don't accept federal loan money, then discriminate away. However once you accept federal funds, you need to comply with all anti-discrimination statues. Also, that same sex couple? Could have happily shacked up BEFORE the ruling, since most schools require housing be assigned by gender. Typically married couples seek special housing, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to share a bed otherwise. Not really an issue when you are gay.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 12:30:38 GMT -5
Gay marriage may be legal now, but how about gay adoption? Is that still outlawed? Depends on the state, and I think this will be the next big issue. It is further complicated by the fact that a lot of the adoption agencies are run through religious groups. But again, federal money? Comply with federal rules. If you want to claim religious exception and the right to discriminate based on your personal beliefs, you best be doing it without any federal tax dollars.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 26, 2015 12:31:41 GMT -5
Gay marriage may be legal now, but how about gay adoption? Is that still outlawed? Most likely. This is one of those state-by-state issues. To be fought in state and federal courts. Gay marriage was just one challenge. Other issues needing to be addressed is a federal non-discrimination law in housing and employment. Thirty states have no law preventing discrimination against the LGBT community in matters of housing and employment. Then comes the non-discrimination problem in public accommodations such as the bakery issue.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 12:32:35 GMT -5
Hence why I said "slow but sure." Meaning while that might not be the case now, who can say 5 to 10 years down the line? We've had legal SSM up here for longer than that, and it hasn't happened. Nobody can force a reluctant priest to marry a SSM couple, even though it's been legal for a very long time. These guys apparently didn't get the memo: www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.nhBX3p57a
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jun 26, 2015 12:34:16 GMT -5
That's awesome.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jun 26, 2015 12:42:20 GMT -5
We're slowly crawling our way out of 1950's ideals!
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,270
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 26, 2015 12:45:54 GMT -5
People said that interracial marriage would lead to the erosion of religious liberty (there were lots of Bible quotes about the races not mixing and stuff) and people would be able to have multiple wives and marry their cars.
I don't see any of that happening (if you have please provide examples) in 2015. I doubt it's going to happen b/c gay people are now allowed to marry.
Eventually like inter-racial marriage, with the exception of a few hold outs, we'll be wondering why gay people were ever denied the right to marry.
Churches have their own protections and rights. They don't have to marry ANYONE they do not wish to be it gay or straight. I doubt they will be suddenly forced to perform gay marriages.
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,353
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Jun 26, 2015 12:50:29 GMT -5
And speaking of marriages...I live in one of the three states that allows notaries to perform marriage ceremonies. Boo-yah! I expect to be rich performing a bazillion wedding ceremonies! (OK, the state does mandate we can only charge $15 per ceremony, which means it may take awhile to get rich).
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,893
|
Post by haapai on Jun 26, 2015 12:54:14 GMT -5
It is indeed an awesome ruling. I can exhale now.
But I do have to admit that Robert's example was a good example of the issues ahead of us. Nobody's ever going to be forced to perform a marriage that is against their religious beliefs but religious persons and religious institutions are going to have to sharpen up their understanding of the separation of church and state now that the law is less in alignment with their own beliefs. Those who are unable to compromise their own beliefs may feel like they have been suddenly shoved out of the public sphere.
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,828
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Jun 26, 2015 13:06:04 GMT -5
Great News!!! It's about time.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jun 26, 2015 13:08:14 GMT -5
I don't really care about gay marriage one way or another, but I don't like that states are loosing more and more rights.
Federal Govt is inserting itself in every.single.aspect of people's lives and nothing good will ever come out of it. And there is usually no going back
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 13:10:02 GMT -5
For Phoenix84 and everyone else who is worried about the "erosion" of "religious rights," have a gander at this excellent article:
www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2015/06/26/upon-the-legalization-of-gay-marriage/
"Fifty years from now evangelicals will claim they helped bring marriage equality to pass. You read it here first. I would bet my life savings on it (okay, so maybe that’s not saying much). Just as the same conservative Christian traditions that opposed the abolition of slavery now claim credit for making it happen, I’m going on record in predicting that 50 years from now evangelical churches—whatever they have evolved into by that time—will be claiming today’s victory as their own. As soon as the memory of all the bitter opposition to this development has gone to the grave with this generation, revisionist historians will look back on people like Brandan Robertson and Matthew Vines in order to argue that the evangelical church was out in front of social progress, calling for the equal inclusion of their LGBT brothers and sisters in the name of Jesus. They will have completely forgotten that in our day it was the evangelical churches that issued all the ultimatums and spoke in dire apocalyptic terms about this change in public opinion.
Take a deep breath, folks. It’s going to be alright. You say you believe that God is in control, right? Do you really believe that? Or are you worried that you have to somehow make that mean anything at all through your own actions? If his power over the world is entirely dependent upon yours, maybe you need to find a bigger God. Or better yet….well, you know, maybe reconsider if you really believe what you say you believe."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 17:40:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 13:18:23 GMT -5
I don't really care about gay marriage one way or another, but I don't like that states are loosing more and more rights. Federal Govt is inserting itself in every.single.aspect of people's lives and nothing good will ever come out of it. And there is usually no going back The fed is not taking away any state right unless it's the 'right' to discriminate. The fed is saying States Do Not Have the Ability To Restrict Individual Rights. They are protecting Individual Rights.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 26, 2015 13:20:19 GMT -5
I guess we'll see. Lets reconvene in 50 years and see how things stand.
Considering abortion has been a contentious issue for almost 40 years, I'm a bit skeptical.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 13:21:03 GMT -5
We've had legal SSM up here for longer than that, and it hasn't happened. Nobody can force a reluctant priest to marry a SSM couple, even though it's been legal for a very long time. These guys apparently didn't get the memo: www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.nhBX3p57aOMG, that's absolutely hysterical! Thanks for that! It's kind of like folks threatening to move to Canada to "escape Obama's socialism." Lol!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 17:40:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 13:22:54 GMT -5
I guess we'll see. Lets reconvene in 50 years and see how things stand. Considering abortion has been a contentious issue for almost 40 years, I'm a bit skeptical. So you can't explain which religious liberty of whom is being restricted in your example?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 26, 2015 13:23:36 GMT -5
I don't really care about gay marriage one way or another, but I don't like that states are loosing more and more rights. Federal Govt is inserting itself in every.single.aspect of people's lives and nothing good will ever come out of it. And there is usually no going back What about the rights of people who want to marry loved ones?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 13:25:12 GMT -5
State rights should never trump individual rights. If it takes an act of SCOTUS to force the issue, I am okay with that.
|
|
jarma
New Member
Joined: Nov 29, 2013 23:03:21 GMT -5
Posts: 19
|
Post by jarma on Jun 26, 2015 13:26:00 GMT -5
Justice Roberts predicted cases on the horizon. The example he used was a religious college only offering married housing to opposite sex couples. Given the propensity for the SCOTUS to be "activist judges" instead of actually upholding the law, I wouldn't put it past them to start ruling against religious instituatiins in cases like that. The inference being religious colleges would be forced to accommodate students providing same sex housing? There are colleges that still "discriminate" on gender - all male or female institutions. There are colleges that currently have various rules regarding student housing. Duke, I believe, requires undergrads live on campus until they are in their senior year. One could view this as a type of discrimination that continues and suggests that religious institutions will be allowed to maintain their policies regarding housing. Not sure what you mean by "activist judges." Would these cases: Brown vs. the Board of Education, Virginia vs. Loving, Abington School District v. Schempp, and Roe vs Wade be regarded as decided by "activist judges?"
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 13:27:02 GMT -5
I don't really care about gay marriage one way or another, but I don't like that states are loosing more and more rights. Federal Govt is inserting itself in every.single.aspect of people's lives and nothing good will ever come out of it. And there is usually no going back The fed is not taking away any state right unless it's the 'right' to discriminate. The fed is saying States Do Not Have the Ability To Restrict Individual Rights. They are protecting Individual Rights. Agreed x 1,000. In this particular case, "states rights" is nothing but a subterfuge for what is really going on: certain religious groups want to try and run the country by imposing laws on the civil, non-sectarian arena based on their religious beliefs. Once again, it has (correctly, I believe) been ruled that the Constitution does not permit religious beliefs to define civil law. This is NOT a disaster for religion, people! If you check your history books, all kinds of "we are all doomed!!!!!!" scenarios were put forth by religious folks when slavery was abolished. None of that came to pass . . . and none of it will come to pass here. Promise. It is only rhetoric by folks who now need to "save face."
|
|
jarma
New Member
Joined: Nov 29, 2013 23:03:21 GMT -5
Posts: 19
|
Post by jarma on Jun 26, 2015 13:28:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 17:40:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 13:32:10 GMT -5
Believer's have a right to not agree with same-sex marriage rulings, same sex, period.
Unbeliever's of our faith have a right to stand for what we do not stand for on behalf of our God.
Whosoever believes is a choice.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 13:32:08 GMT -5
Yep, this is the next step in the Equality fight. It may take time, but it will go down too . . .
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,893
|
Post by haapai on Jun 26, 2015 13:36:14 GMT -5
I guess we'll see. Lets reconvene in 50 years and see how things stand. Considering abortion has been a contentious issue for almost 40 years, I'm a bit skeptical. It may not take fifty years for the rewrite to occur. It may take as little as ten or twenty, especially if they see some sort of opportunity to get ahead of others and attempt to redeem their rottenness. A lot of the support for getting antiretroviral treatments available in Africa came from churchy folks who had been on the wrong side of history a decade before. I don't think that they did this just to inflict their special brand of impracticality regarding condoms and sex work on others. A guilty conscience was also driving them.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 13:41:51 GMT -5
Believer's have a right to not agree with same-sex marriage rulings, same sex, period. Unbeliever's of our faith have a right to stand for what we do not stand for on behalf of our God. Whosoever believes is a choice. You are correct, @heart2heart - you have an absolute right to disagree with today's ruling based on religious belief. You have an absolute right to believe what you want about the attributes of a God that your worship. You have the absolute right to make your rules and live your life in accordance with holy books you follow. You have an absolute right to enforce those holy book rules on the community of believers who are Like You. You have an absolute right to turn away from your church steps anyone who comes to you asking for your blessing and your rituals who does not believe like you and your community of faith believes.
You (the Big You) just don't have the right to take those Religious Rules out into a civil, non-sectarian arena and enforce them as Civil Law on persons who are Not Like You. That's why we have a constitution that defines a separation of church and state.
All the rest ("we will be forced - FORCED I TELL YOU!!!! - do to distasteful things that violate our beliefs") is fear-mongering.
|
|