Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[Emn1ty]

Well, if those opposed had stopped acting like babies and got together with their opponents to sort this out fairly and equitably, something sensible could be in place NOW and SCOTUS wouldn't have been forced to ram it down their throats.  I'm glad they did it, but it was always going to make a lot of people very angry.

 

I don't know, I think getting 37/50 states to legalize same sex marriage in under 15 years is pretty fast. I don't think SCOTUS needed to act at all personally.

 

Law overrides beliefs. If you can't handle that, you're in the wrong job.

 

Ever heard of the first amendment?

 

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Law does not supersede religion quite so easily.

[Taliseian]

Because if you are in a government position and are using your power to discriminate based on religion, that is a direct violation of the First Amendment.  

 

You don't have the right to force your religious beliefs on others.  If you deny access to the marriage paperwork (or any government based service like SNAP or a Fishing License) on the claims that it is against your religion, you are then imposing your beliefs upon others in the form of a governmental body.  It shows a favoritism to one specific religion or faith, and since we have the freedom to worship as we choose, or not to worship at all, forcing any religious test is considered unconstitutional.

 

I really can't explain it any clearer than that.

 

 

T

[ATLien_0]

Not sure why this is so hard

 

Your job is to uphold the laws of the constitution not the bible. If you have religious reservations then step aside and let someone else do your job plain and simple. Like I said before as an official you can't opt in or opt out on which laws you want to abide by based on your religion. 

 

"The forcing of a person to violate their religious beliefs is also completely unconstitutional, but let's just ignore that, shall we?"

[DConnell Member]

Because if you are in a government position and are using your power to discriminate based on religion, that is a direct violation of the First Amendment.  

 

You don't have the right to force your religious beliefs on others.  If you deny access to the marriage paperwork (or any government based service like SNAP or a Fishing License) on the claims that it is against your religion, you are then imposing your beliefs upon others in the form of a governmental body.  It shows a favoritism to one specific religion or faith, and since we have the freedom to worship as we choose, or not to worship at all, forcing any religious test is considered unconstitutional.

 

I really can't explain it any clearer than that.

 

 

T

 

By the same token, the government has no right to force its employees to check their beliefs at the door. We are guaranteed free expression of our religion, and that does not end at the church door. I do agree that being able to deny a marriage license is wrong, but it is similarly wrong to force someone to officiate at a ceremony against their faith. You can't suspend one right to accommodate the other, and that needs to be true regardless of which side you're on.

 

There has to be some compromise that protects both parties' rights. Saying that the official must do it is wrong, but so is preventing the now-legal gay marriage.

[Taliseian]

By the same token, the government has no right to force its employees to check their beliefs at the door. I do agree that being able to DENY a marriage license is wrong, but it is similarly wrong to force someone to officiate at a ceremony against their faith.

 

There has to be some compromise that protects both parties' rights. Saying that the official must do it is wrong, but so is preventing the now-legal gay marriage.

 

Actually, it does...

 

Since you can not use any religious test *as a representative of the government* to either allow or deny a government service, then yes if you are working for the government you check your religious beliefs at the door.  The First Amendment does not allow you to force your beliefs upon others.  If the law says, "Gays can marry", then you do your job or find another.  

 

It's really that simple.....

 

EDIT - The pastor performing a religious marriage ceremony is NOT a government employee.  They have the right to refuse to perform that service.  However, the County Clerk giving you the marriage license doesn't.

 

 

T

[hagjohn]

If you haven't denied marriage before this, I'm not sure how you can use religion now to deny marriage to gays now. People who offend morality must have crossed their desks before. 

[DConnell Member]

Actually, it does...

 

Since you can not use any religious test *as a representative of the government* to either allow or deny a government service, then yes if you are working for the government you check your religious beliefs at the door.  The First Amendment does not allow you to force your beliefs upon others.  If the law says, "Gays can marry", then you do your job or find another.  

 

It's really that simple.....

 

 

T

 

No, it doesn't. Show me the clause in the Constitution which grants an exclusion to freedom of religion for government employees.

 

You seemingly ignored most of my post. Both rights are protected by law, and one should not void the other.

 

Simple concept, but difficult in execution. Telling those who practice a religion to STFU and do it anyway is as much a violation of rights as denying the marriage.

[ATLien_0]

Actually, it does...

 

Since you can not use any religious test *as a representative of the government* to either allow or deny a government service, then yes if you are working for the government you check your religious beliefs at the door.  The First Amendment does not allow you to force your beliefs upon others.  If the law says, "Gays can marry", then you do your job or find another.  

 

It's really that simple.....

 

 

T

Exactly

And if these officials are about traditional marriage, then why don't they make more of a fuss about people who have had multiple marriages. Trump was just called out in an interview about how he is for Traditional marriage basically being asked what is Traditional about having 3 different marriages / wives. 

[ATLien_0]

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/a/what.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/

[Taliseian]

No, it doesn't. Show me the clause in the Constitution which grants an exclusion to freedom of religion for government employees.

 

You seemingly ignored most of my post. Both rights are protected by law, and one should not void the other.

 

Freedom of Religion gives you and me the right to worship as we choose. We can live our private lives as we see fit.

 

It does not, under any circumstances, gives you the right as a County Clerk working for the Government to tell a same-sex couple that they cannot marry because "God said so".  When you are working for the Government, you check your personal beliefs at the door and do your job.

 

No religious law, test, or belief can ever be used to perform or deny a service done by the Local, State, or Federal Government.

 

If you still don't understand it, I can't help you anymore....I really can't explain it any better.  

 

 

T

[ATLien_0]

What is the separation of church and state? That is a very good question

[DConnell Member]

Exactly

And if these officials are about traditional marriage, then why don't they make more of a fuss about people who have had multiple marriages. Trump was just called out in an interview about how he is for Traditional marriage basically being asked what is Traditional about having 3 different marriages / wives. 

 

Even the Catholic Church grants annulments, which basically state that for whatever reason the marriage wasn't valid. They're not easy to get, but they're in a very vague way analogous to divorce. And the Catholic Church does not remarry anyone without a annulment, as it regards the prior marriage as still in effect.

 

The only way it might be relevant is if the clerk were concerned with the status of the annulment or the equivalent in other faiths. Even if someone were aware of a prior religious marriage that would require annulment, how would a state clerk have access to the church records to base that decision?

 

Still, you make a valid point. The allowance for religious reasons should really extend only to not having to perform the ceremony - the clerk issuing the license should not be able to deny. I don't think a religious exemption should extend to paperwork.

[Arachno 1D]

I think a highly appropriate quote for the day

 

And on the note of traditional marriages didn't one of our English monarchs Henry VIII invent his own church just because the Church wouldn't allow him to marry again by annul his last.

 

 

Henry, at the time a Roman apostolic Catholic, sought the Pope's approval for an annulment on the grounds that his marriage was invalid because Catherine had first been his brother's wife. Henry had begun an affair with Anne Boleyn, who is said to have refused to become his mistress (Henry had already consummated an affair with and then dismissed Anne's sister, Mary Boleyn, and most historians believe that Anne wanted to avoid the same treatment)^{[citation needed]}. Despite the pope's refusal, Henry separated from Catherine in 1531. In the face of the Pope's continuing refusal to annul his marriage to Catherine, Henry ordered the highest church official in England, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, to convene a court to rule on the status of his marriage to Catherine. On 23 May 1533,^[3] Cranmer ruled the marriage to Catherine null and void. On 28 May 1533, he pronounced the King legally married to Anne (with whom Henry had already secretly exchanged wedding vows, probably in late January 1533). This led to the break from the Roman Catholic Church and the later establishment of the Church of England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_of_Henry_VIII

[DConnell Member]

Freedom of Religion gives you and me the right to worship as we choose. We can live our private lives as we see fit.

 

It does not, under any circumstances, gives you the right as a County Clerk working for the Government to tell a same-sex couple that they cannot marry because "God said so".  When you are working for the Government, you check your personal beliefs at the door and do your job.

 

No religious law, test, or belief can ever be used to perform or deny a service done by the Local, State, or Federal Government.

 

If you still don't understand it, I can't help you anymore....I really can't explain it any better.  

 

 

T

 

The clerk issuing the paperwork, I agree, and always have. Their job is to facilitate and file the paperwork, nothing more. Any religious exemption should not apply to them. However, the official who would be performing the ceremony should have some choice, since he should not have to participate in an event that violates his faith. An official should not have to violate his faith - or lose his job - over a ruling made after he signed on.

 

But for this opt out to be fair/legal, there must be alternatives. There have to be some officials willing to do so, otherwise the ability to opt out would constitute a denial of service. My concern here is not a desire to block gay marriage but the protection of freedom of religion. If officials are allowed to opt out, then there must be alternatives available. For particular officials to opt out, they can't be the only game in town.

 

Reread my posts - I've always focused on the performing of the ceremony. Opting out of the ceremony is not denying the service - the couple still has the license and can contract any official willing to do it.

 

Yes, now that gay marriage is legal the couple has a right to get the license and be married. But does that right supercede a minister's/priest's/justice of the peace's right to follow their religion? Should they be obligated to conduct a ceremony that is against their faith? My view is that such a requirement is a violation of separation of church & state/freedom of religion.

[DefyTheOutcome]

I don't know, I think getting 37/50 states to legalize same sex marriage in under 15 years is pretty fast. I don't think SCOTUS needed to act at all personally.

 

 

Ever heard of the first amendment?

 

First amendment allows you to practice your own religion.

Imposing your religious beliefs on other is an attack on their constitutional rights of citizens of the country, especially if you are a civil servant who is bound to treat all citizens equally as per the 14th amendment

 

I am going to pay author's rights to Taliseian https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1261624-louisiana-wont-recognize-same-sex-marriages/?view=findpost&p=596907564

 

 

Law does not supersede religion quite so easily.

 

In a Theocracy like Saudi Arabia, certainly. In a Republic like the United States, no.

There are no states religion in the US. Religious text do not have any bearing, only the US constitutions and the laws voted by elected representatives and validated by the judicial system have values

[DefyTheOutcome]

Yes, now that gay marriage is legal the couple has a right to get the license and be married. But does that right supercede a minister's/priest's/justice of the peace's right to follow their religion? Should they be obligated to conduct a ceremony that is against their faith? My view is that such a requirement is a violation of seperation of church & state/freedom of religion.

 

Super Easy solution that I think has been suggested earlier. The only recognized and legal marriage is performed by a civil servant and religious ceremonies do not have any legal weight. If you want to get married, you get to the city hall. If you want to do a religious ceremony at the church, the temple, the synagogue; the mosque and have a party between the family, you can but this is accessory

[DConnell Member]

Super Easy solution that I think has been suggested earlier. The only recognized and legal marriage is performed by a civil servant and religious ceremonies do not have any legal weight. If you want to get married, you get to the city hall. If you want to do a religious ceremony at the church, the temple, the synagogue; the mosque and have a party between the family, you can but this is accessory

 

So in other words, force those who want a religious ceremony to have 2? Some people do choose to go that route, but why should it be a requirement? Note I did not specify a religious ceremony - the issue in question here is a secular official, so your suggestion is not a solution in this particular case.

 

Still, that would be an answer that provides some benefit to both sides. Maybe not an ideal one, but I'm not sure there is an ideal one.

[Emn1ty]

First amendment allows you to practice your own religion.

Imposing your religious beliefs on other is an attack on their constitutional rights of citizens of the country, especially if you are a civil servant who is bound to treat all citizens equally as per the 14th amendment

 

Imposing "beliefs" or life choices on others in general is bad practice. Forcing people, through judicial ruling, to tolerate something they voted against is in and of itself a breech of their rights and the legislative process. Regardless of issue, that's what it is.

 

People are forgetting the context of all this. It was not until 2008 that we had in all 50 states legally defined what a marriage even was. It's not an "imposing of religious beliefs" to define something not yet defined legally, and the states chose their own definitions in a relatively short amount of time. 50 states in around 6 years. That' blazingly fast legislation wise. To assume that by defining something are intentionally excluding things from that definition is ludicrous, because there was no definition in the first place. Therefore it's a neutral action.

 

Lets not forget that marriage is a state level affair, so other things have been breached here than just the rights of religious groups, but entire communities to decided their own legislation. If people think such practices are ok because "well, the ends justify the means" that's just a dumb way to go about it. The ends never justify the means, ever. You can't murder someone because you think doing so will make the world a better place anymore than you can force people to conform to some social standard because you have assumed you are on a higher moral ground.

 

That's not to say I don't agree with the ruling, but I don't like the ruling itself. The act of it having been ruled by a judicial body instead of voted for. But for some reason people here, who continuously accuse the religious of "cherry picking" the values they live by and enforce are doing just that with the laws of the land. Suddenly certain parts of the way our system works are "impractical" when they get in the way of a socially accepted "good cause" and then when it's the opposite those systems are in place "for a good reason". If this was about defining marriage as man and woman I'm sure the LGBT community would be up in arms over it being decided in the courts and not via legislation. That it'd be tyranny by the judicial branch.

 

Double standards suck no matter who employs them. The religious or the self concluded righteous.

[PGHammer]

I think a highly appropriate quote for the day

 

And on the note of traditional marriages didn't one of our English monarchs Henry VIII invent his own church just because the Church wouldn't allow him to marry again by annul his last.

 

I think a highly appropriate quote for the day

 

And on the note of traditional marriages didn't one of our English monarchs Henry VIII invent his own church just because the Church wouldn't allow him to marry again by annul his last.

 

 

I think a highly appropriate quote for the day

 

And on the note of traditional marriages didn't one of our English monarchs Henry VIII invent his own church just because the Church wouldn't allow him to marry again by annul his last.

Exactly - the Church of England (or Anglican Church, as it is called in the US).  And ever since, said Church has had a running feud with the Roman Catholic Church, which resulted in MUCH discrimination against British-born practicing Roman Catholics (and eventually the founding of the colony of Maryland - one of the original thirteen United States).  And the Roman Catholics weren't the only religious movement the Church of England picked fights with - except for Rhode Island, Georgia, and Delaware, ALL of the original colonies were the DIRECT result of religious persecution instigated by the Church of England.  (While Rhode Island was founded by those escaping religious persecution, they were escaping from colonial Connecticut - not England, and Georgia was a prison colony.)

[DefyTheOutcome]

So in other words, force those who want a religious ceremony to have 2? Some people do choose to go that route, but why should it be a requirement? Note I did not specify a religious ceremony - the issue in question here is a secular official, so your suggestion is not a solution in this particular case.

 

Still, that would be an answer that provides some benefit to both sides. Maybe not an ideal one, but I'm not sure there is an ideal one.

 

It is really not that complicated: Have the civil ceremony in the morning and the religious one during the afternoon and spend the rest of the day having a family party celebration.

I know some interfaith couples who had oecumenical ceremonies, some others had two ceremonies. More celebrations and more happiness, that gets my vote.

[DConnell Member]

It is really not that complicated: Have the civil ceremony in the morning and the religious one during the afternoon and spend the rest of the day having a family party celebration.

I know some interfaith couples who had oecumenical ceremonies, some others had two ceremonies. More celebrations and more happiness, that gets my votes.

 

Makes some sense, and it would be an answer for the sacramental marriage issue. Let the sacrament be the sacrament, and the legal union be the legal union. As long as it doesn't make things more expensive for the families involved.

 

 

Still, like I said, it doesn't address this particular issue.

[macoman]

That's the thing about the bible, it can be interpreted many different ways, often in a way that aligns with and supports the existing beliefs of the interpreter.

Same thing is happening with the terrorist ISIS... they are hiring extremist terrorist by telling them that the Quran said that they need to kill and behead. All religions are just messed up. 

[DefyTheOutcome]

Imposing "beliefs" or life choices on others in general is bad practice. Forcing people, through judicial ruling, to tolerate something they voted against is in and of itself a breech of their rights and the legislative process. Regardless of issue, that's what it is.

 

People are forgetting the context of all this. It was not until 2008 that we had in all 50 states legally defined what a marriage even was. It's not an "imposing of religious beliefs" to define something not yet defined legally, and the states chose their own definitions in a relatively short amount of time. 50 states in around 6 years. That' blazingly fast legislation wise. To assume that by defining something are intentionally excluding things from that definition is ludicrous, because there was no definition in the first place. Therefore it's a neutral action.

 

Lets not forget that marriage is a state level affair, so other things have been breached here than just the rights of religious groups, but entire communities to decided their own legislation. If people think such practices are ok because "well, the ends justify the means" that's just a dumb way to go about it. The ends never justify the means, ever. You can't murder someone because you think doing so will make the world a better place anymore than you can force people to conform to some social standard because you have assumed you are on a higher moral ground.

 

That's not to say I don't agree with the ruling, but I don't like the ruling itself. The act of it having been ruled by a judicial body instead of voted for. But for some reason people here, who continuously accuse the religious of "cherry picking" the values they live by and enforce are doing just that with the laws of the land. Suddenly certain parts of the way our system works are "impractical" when they get in the way of a socially accepted "good cause" and then when it's the opposite those systems are in place "for a good reason". If this was about defining marriage as man and woman I'm sure the LGBT community would be up in arms over it being decided in the courts and not via legislation. That it'd be tyranny by the judicial branch.

 

Double standards suck no matter who employs them. The religious or the self concluded righteous.

 

Your premise of marriage being a state level issue is wrong, this is a civil rights issue and as with all civil rights issue: it is decided at the federal level.

 

This is the following case: two gay men are married in California, one of them is critically injured and rushed to the hospital, the doctor must ask the family for a decision regarding medical choice. In California where their marriage is recognized, the partner will have to be consulted. In Texas for example, where the marriage would not be recognized, the partner cannot say anything. .

The man injured dies, in California, the partner inherits. In Texas, he gets nothing.

 

Yet, they both got married to shoulder the hardness of life together.

[TPreston]

Your premise of marriage being a state level issue is wrong, this is a civil rights issue and as with all civil rights issue: it is decided at the federal level.

 

This is the following case: two gay men are married in California, one of them is critically injured and rushed to the hospital, the doctor must ask the family for a decision regarding medical choice. In California where their marriage is recognized, the partner will have to be consulted. In Texas for example, where the marriage would not be recognized, the partner cannot say anything. .

The man injured dies, in California, the partner inherits. In Texas, he gets nothing.

 

Yet, they both got married to shoulder the hardness of life together.

Ill save you some time, He doesn't care

[PGHammer]

For services that could be true if the person asking for the service is not a protected class in the civil rights statute. Or if the goods were not involved in interstate commerce under federal law.

In many States LGBT's are not a protected classes.

True - even though Maryland DOES recognize same-sex marriage (approved by referendum in 2012), LGBT is NOT a protected class in Maryland's state constitution (and thus not part and parcel of Maryland civil-rights law). In how many OTHER states that recognized SSM pre-SCOTUS is this the case?