Quote from: ImagineKateMy guess based on how the court has done it in the past is to strike down the bans with conditions. For example it would not force officiants to marry a gay (or straight) couple if it goes against their religious beliefs. Often the courts will tiptoe the line like this as they really aren't supposed to be legislating from the bench but give enough guidance so that everyone is supposed to get the message.

"Legislating from the bench" is an accusation usually leveled at judges who make decisions with which the accuser disagrees. It's the same with "judicial activism." One person's judicial activist is another's thoughtful interpreter of the law; it depends entirely on one's politics.

As to whether the Court's decision will let officiants off the hook because of their religious beliefs, it absolutely should not. Rulings in discrimination cases, of which this is one, rely on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In the case of judges, justices of the peace, and other public servants, it is their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution; they're not permitted to pick and choose the bits they want to follow. If they're not able to do that duty for religious reasons, they need to resign. (Note that Chief Justice Moore, who is attempting to flout a federal court ruling in this matter, is doing so on religious grounds, invoking the "sanctity of marriage." It's not going to work for him, nor should it work for officials at lower levels of the system.)

The situation is less clear-cut when it comes to religious officiants; I presume that some will refuse to perform same-sex marriages, but to the extent that the marriages they perform are legally recognized, they are carrying out a function of the state and should be subject to the same imperative. (I'd like to see the case made that if a member of the clergy refused to marry certain people, the marriages they did perform ought not to be recognized by the state; but that's probably just my own wishful thinking. )

Quote from: Tysilio on February 13, 2015, 02:41:34 PM
(I'd like to see the case made that if a member of the clergy refused to marry certain people, the marriages they did perform ought not to be recognized by the state; but that's probably just my own wishful thinking. )

Well said, your whole post I mean. The quoted bit is an interesting idea. Personally I would rather see legal unions, ahem, divorced from non-government representatives entirely just to avoid this quagmire. Someone who feels it is important that their union be sanctified before XYZ is free to have a ceremony at the appropriate church, but this institutionalized mixing of church and state  is just begging for conflicts.

QuoteWell said, your whole post I mean. The quoted bit is an interesting idea. Personally I would rather see legal unions, ahem, divorced from non-government representatives entirely just to avoid this quagmire. Someone who feels it is important that their union be sanctified before XYZ is free to have a ceremony at the appropriate church, but this institutionalized mixing of church and state  is just begging for conflicts.

Thanks, Jeni.

We're in total agreement about that "divorce." Back in 2000, when Vermont passed legislation creating civil unions for same-sex couples, I thought (and said!) "Great! Get the state out of the marriage business entirely! If people want to get married in church, let that be a completely separate thing from having the government recognize their relationships. Civil unions for everyone!"

I still think that would be the sensible thing to do... but they never take my advice about this stuff. 

One can only hope that someday they will because they really should. It's great advice.
Mariah

Quote from: Tysilio on February 13, 2015, 09:07:41 PM
Thanks, Jeni.

We're in total agreement about that "divorce." Back in 2000, when Vermont passed legislation creating civil unions for same-sex couples, I thought (and said!) "Great! Get the state out of the marriage business entirely! If people want to get married in church, let that be a completely separate thing from having the government recognize their relationships. Civil unions for everyone!"

I still think that would be the sensible thing to do... but they never take my advice about this stuff. 

I'm sure I would love to see that as well but there are others in the LGBT community who see government sanctioned marriage as an inclusion and government divorce from marriage to be in reaction to gay couples wanting to get married. Look at Alabama, it's gotten so bad that in some counties they're refusing to issue licenses to anyone, same or opposite sex.

As for religious officiants I believe in strong separation of church and state and I think it is their right to refuse whomever they want. For example in my church one CANNOT be married there unless one of the persons (or their parents) attend the church for at least 6 months and is catholic. That is fine I think. There are many places to get married and if you're not wanted there then why force it.

I have to say I have never understood the opposition to the government's ditching the marriage business, though I have certainly come across it. I have seen a lot of arguments, but never one that I thought was convincing.

Your example of a church having requirements is fine with me, but I think is exactly the reason that religious "marriage" needs to be totally separate from legal unions. It is reasonable for a group to decide that they believe in restrictions on what they consider marriage, but it is not ok for the government to recognize discriminatory institutions, and I don't see any way to reconcile those.

Marriage is a legal contract that started as a religious/social thing. I can see good reason to separate the legal from the religion part.

From what I get it's not so much the benefits but more the equality argument that has both sides passionate about marriage.

Why? Even with "separate but equal" civil unions that wasn't enough for gay rights activists (and rightfully so). They want the word. They want equality. They want recognition that they are no different from a heterosexual married couple in terms of what a marriage means. To be honest I differ a wee bit on the last part but I really don't mind same sex marriage. I mean I'm kinda in one...

I think the part I don't understand is why anyone would consider their marriage to be validated because the State of XYZ proclaimed it to be one, but if the term is civil union, that doesn't count. As long as no one can obtain a "marriage" from the state, it's no longer separate but equal, it's identical. Ah well.