LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Well, everybody can hold a silly ceremony and call that a "wedding". What makes a marriage a marriage is the social and legal recognition of it. So it's IMO silly to say that there could be civil unions with exactly the same rights but not called marriages - that would go against the very definition of the term. After all, marriage is legal/social first and religious secondary - if that: The former is essential, but you can very well do without the latter.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

I've always seen marriage as a civil institution so I never understood the huge uproar by Christians talking about someone "stealing their right over marriage". It did not start as a religious institution and people should notice during a wedding ceremonies that priests, pastors and other entities say "By the power granted to me BY THE STATE..."

And without that it would just be a silly ceremony without meaning.

Though, speaking across the Atlantic ;) I find it weird that priests should even have that power. Seems like a kinda violation of the separation of state and church to me.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Well over here you have the choice to go to a civil servant or a religious person to get married but the licence is always through the government. It'd just be a waste of time for you to go do your wedding at a Church or Mosque (non-Christian was legalised somewhere in the 90s) and then go back to some government office to finish it off. Afterall, you have to go get your wedding photos right?

The first gay marriage here was a person going to a civil servant to get it done and they accepted. Then they fought a legal battle to have it recognised when it was immediately challenged by the government.

But, you want to know the funniest thing is that there are several prominent intellectuals (right-wing and religious I'm guessing) who argued that the Canadian government abused the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by not fighting the gay marriage lawsuit hard enough. They suggested the government evilly let the case fail.

edited 4th Jan '12 8:32:46 AM by breadloaf

It used to be until ten years ago or so here that you were literally forbidden from holding a religious marriage ceremony if you had not legally married before. A relic of Bismarck's Kulturkampf. Silly how long such laws can last. But the idea that only the appropriate state institutions can marry you and hence give you all the benefits the state associates with marriage looks very much sound to me.

Of course, if it is in fact done the way the USA does, then a good argument is asking "What about the religious rights of those denominations who would marry gays?"

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

That particular argument (the freedom of religion angle) has been used to amusingly ironic effect in several jurisdictions to put up "atheist" holiday displays. It is definitely logical to assert that, if you have to allow a denomination to discriminate against gays under the "separation of church and state" principle, you also have to allow a denomination to marry them if they choose.

Edit: On the other hand, if you establish a thing as a basic civil right, then separation of church and state also means you can't allow denominations to decide not to honor it.

edited 4th Jan '12 8:50:47 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The compromise in Canada was that religious institutions are not forced to do anything but the government must provide a civil method to perform any of the actions not just in an equivalent institution but the same one (ie. marriage, not a civil union). Therefore, a civil servant marrying you is marriage, not a civil union. But a Christian church can deny marrying you because it's against their religion.

However, if a civil servant refuses because he/she is against gay marriage that person is immediately fired and replaced. Government officials aren't allowed to discriminate.

That makes perfect sense from a social standpoint. My concern would be that it could act as a precedent to allow religions to engage in other discriminatory behaviors with government protection.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, of course.

Now, thing is, I think if churches get state rights, they should also get state duties - i.e., "either you marry all people, or you don't get to marry people at all".

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Edit: That didn't say what I wanted it to say.

I don't see why we should force churches to hold ceremonies for people they don't approve of. If marriage is, legally, an entirely civil matter, then the church can add whatever pomp and circumstance it wants.

edited 4th Jan '12 9:15:19 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well whether or not you give them the power to marry you still presents the problem of discrimination. Afterall, what if you're gay but you really want that Presbyterian Church wedding? You can still get married from a civil servant but unless government forces a church to hold the wedding you won't be getting it regardless of the church's power to marry.

EDIT: Err you changed your post :P

edited 4th Jan '12 9:17:35 AM by breadloaf

Yes, what I'm saying is that the church should have no power to proclaim someone married or not, only conduct the ceremony, which is entirely optional.

edited 4th Jan '12 9:40:54 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

If someone wants a priest or a pastor to officiate their wedding, why should they not have that right?

I suppose the canonical answer is that government is restricted by Constitutional precedent from dictating precisely what churches can and cannot do among their own congregations. A Catholic church could refuse to wed a Mormon, for example, despite federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. They simply don't apply here.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Because legal precedent? I already said why in the first sentence.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Shit, I'm gay and if a church doesn't want to marry my boyfriend and I, I will respect their decision. A person's religion isn't something that you throw around as if it's some silly superstition. It's a deeply held belief. You certainly don't try to barge yourself into it and force them into something that they find objectionable.

edited 4th Jan '12 10:03:18 AM by Completion

Yes, I very much agree with that as best solution, and that's done here (the two are not connected - there's a lot of stuff here which I don't approve of, heh).

But IF churches are given state authority, they should also be given all the duties coming with it. Fair is fair.

Because it's a power of the state, and laying it into church hands violates the separation of state and church.

And that's fine. But then it shouldn't have any authority to legally marry people. No authority without duties.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

How does it violate the separation of church and state in any meaningful way? SoCaS is there to prevent the influence of the government on a church and the church on the government. A priest officiating a wedding does not violate that.

edited 4th Jan '12 10:06:19 AM by Completion

As long as the "wedding" is just meaningless ceremony, no. But conducting a legal marriage very clearly is a state authority.

edited 4th Jan '12 10:08:03 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Yes, that is exactly the point, because it's the state's ball!

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic