gay rights in the USA...

Couldn't someone just create a religion that acknowledges gay marriage and then appeal to the supreme Court that gay marriage is therefore a constitutional right as a result of the freedom of religion clause.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Damask-

Because of course gay rights start and end with equal marriage rights. :rolleyes:

There's a separation of church and state at any rate, despite the fact that Christianity has wormed its way into a lot of bills.

Reply 2

RandZul'Zorander

Same-sex Marriage is already legal on the federal level in the US. Last year DOMA was struck down, however marriage licenses and eligibility laws differ from state to state. So in some states you can marry a person of the same sex and in some you cannot. But wherever you get your marriage the federal government will recognize it for federal benefits. The DOMA ruling didn't address the issue of state's rights to define marriage and in the Prop 8 case the Supreme Court chose not to making a ruling that affected state law nation-wide.

In any case, I do not think the courts would take kindly to a person who 'made up' a religion and there are already cases well on their way that can challenge a state's right to deny same-sex couples. It'l likely to happen within the next year or so I think. This will be from cases that challenge state's constitutional ban's on such marriages, and maybe even cases about state's recognizing marriages performed in other states.

Reply 3

No Man

Original post by Jam'

There are a large number of US states where gay marriage is legal, fyi.

Reply 4

Oldcon1953

Original post by Damask-

Because of course gay rights start and end with equal marriage rights. :rolleyes:

There's a separation of church and state at any rate, despite the fact that Christianity has wormed its way into a lot of bills.

Christianity has ,"wormed", it's way into a lot of bills because a lot of us are Christian. It's not because someone stands up in front of the legislature and quotes Scripture to the congress. Religion does influence culture and proposed bills will reflect the culture. Do you expect people to set aside their cultural influences when they vote. What makes you think the Shinto religion does not reflect in the laws that are passed in Japan? I would go as far as to say that it is because of Americas Christianity that most of us feel that everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. The 20 member Westboro Church does not speak for mainstream Christianity. I think it's more accurate to say the Christianity has wormed it's way OUT of a lot of bills.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 5

Damask-

Original post by Oldcon1953

Christianity has ,"wormed", it's way into a lot of bills because a lot of us are Christian.

That shouldn't come into it, which is precisely the problem.

Reply 6

username1258398

Original post by Damask-

That shouldn't come into it, which is precisely the problem.

If the people want Christian laws, the law-makers have a duty to make them. I agree there should be no formal structure encouraging religion-influenced laws - the state and religion should be separate - but if the people of the country express a desire for Christian elements to be a part of their bills, then the House of Representatives and the Senate have no choice but to bow to the voice of the people.

That's what should happen, anyway. Sadly, with the amount of corruption in D.C., Congressmen usually better represent their corporate sponsors than the people in their constituencies.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 7

ottom

Original post by StrangeBanana

Not so. The USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The "people" do not have the right to oppress any minority via the ballot box. The primary duty of Congress members is to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, particularly in recent times, they have not always done so.

Reply 8

Damask-

Original post by StrangeBanana

Fortunately you're completely wrong and this isn't how it works!

Reply 9

username1258398

Original post by ottom

Where did I say anything about oppressing a minority? Of course the House can't pass unconstitutional laws, but they are supposed to make laws that represent the wishes of the people they represent, no?

Original post by Damask-

Fortunately you're completely wrong and this isn't how it works!

It would be more helpful if you actually tried to explain which points you disagreed with and why you disagreed with them instead of just saying "Ha! You're wrong!".

Reply 10

Damask-

Original post by StrangeBanana

It would be more helpful if you actually tried to explain which points you disagreed with and why you disagreed with them instead of just saying "Ha! You're wrong!".

Original post by StrangeBanana

If the people want Christian laws, the law-makers have a duty to make them... if the people of the country express a desire for Christian elements to be a part of their bills, then the House of Representatives and the Senate have no choice but to bow to the voice of the people.

In the same way that if people want to bring back lynching and take the vote away from women, Congress has a duty to pass that, right? Wrong.

Law-makers don't have a duty to go with public opinion to create laws even if the entire population is in 100% agreement, otherwise pretty much every Whitehouse.gov petition would be instantly passed as law. :rolleyes:

Original post by StrangeBanana

That's what should happen, anyway. Sadly, with the amount of corruption in D.C., Congressmen usually better represent their corporate sponsors than the people in their constituencies.

There is a reason we don't let the general public make the law. It's hard enough to pass anything and get a majority, let alone leaving it to 300 million people to fight over it and come to a resolution. Your thinking is very small-scale and naïve, so yes, let's pretend that it's easy to represent an entire state's worth of diverse opinions and that the choice to instead pander to corporations is an easy way out and not a vastly more complex process.

Reply 11

username1258398

Original post by Damask-

Christianity influencing law is also not how the US political system works, due to the First Amendment and the separation of Church and State. So, this is less of a disagreement and more of me stating plain fact.

There is a reason we don't let the general public make the law. It's hard enough to pass anything and get a majority, let alone leaving it to 300 million people to fight over it and come to a resolution. Your thinking is very small-scale and naïve, so yes, let's pretend that it's easy to represent an entire state's worth of diverse opinions and that the choice to instead pander to corporations is an easy way out and not a vastly more complex process.

I've already said that unconstitutional proposals wouldn't be allowed to be passed. Lynching was never legal, by the way. :curious:

Congressmen represent their districts. That's pretty much their job description: to vote in ways that will benefit the people of their constituency and make their views heard. That's why they're called representatives.

I haven't suggested we let the whole population vote. :K:

It's neither small-scale nor naive to want Congress to do it's job properly. I haven't labelled "pandering to corporations" as an "easy way out"; it has been going on for years, has gotten worse gradually, and hasn't really been caused by differences in opinions.

Reply 12

felamaslen

Original post by Jam'

Gay marriage is not a federal issue in the US. States decide, hence California and a few others have allowed gay marriage since a few years ago now.

And as for actual basic gay rights, see Lawrence v. Texas.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 13

Oldcon1953

Original post by ottom

My first comment vanished so this may come up twice. It's the judicial branch that determines the constitutionality of a law. Proposals, or bills, don't recieve a lot of legal review. Indeed, it is almost the mark of a good bill writer if he can get the state legislature to pass a bill in spite of questions as to it's constitutional standing. Bills that do pass become laws and then they are subject to review by the courts whose job it is to say whether or not the law is constitutional. This can take several years and will only come to the attention of the courts if someone has questioned it's legality in light of the Constitution. I know this is a bit off point but just thought I'd throw my two cents in.

Reply 14

Oldcon1953

Original post by Damask-

That shouldn't come into it, which is precisely the problem.

" That shouldn't come into it."????????? I would love to hear what, in your opinion, a person should be allowed to consider when casting a vote. Maybe I should wait to ask this when I have more time because your comment seems
really odd and quite impossible to achieve.

Reply 15

Damask-

Original post by Oldcon1953

Religion should not influence a country's political policy, i.e. even if Bible says "gay ain't okay" congress should not take that into consideration whatsoever while proposing bills. I didn't say it shouldn't come into people casting votes, there is a difference.

(IMO it shouldn't come into the latter either, because all that happens is one group or another gets oppressed which is supposedly okay because it's all good and holy, but whatever.)

Reply 16

Jam'

Original post by felamaslen

But the constitution is a federal thing. And with the whole "freedom of religion" business...it would be unconstitutional to ban gay marriage on the basis that it didn't comply with another religion if gay marriage was a constituent to another religion.

I know it's silly...gay marriage is a civil not religious issue, but for those who think religions should wrap themselves around law could be matched with their own medicine is what I was saying.

Reply 17

Oldcon1953

Original post by Damask-

I think we have different ideas of what the, "separation of church and state", means. The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law establishing an official state religion. This is far cry from expecting people to leave their religious feelings at the door when performing their civic duties whether they're voting or lobbying Congress to write a bill. Also, many people who are strongly opposed to gay marriage have no religious feelings whatsoever. It's strickly a social issue with them and they feel it will be detrimental to society if we allow the definition of marriage to be altered. This would be consistant with an ultra-right wing point of view but you shouldn't assume this automatically includes religious motives also.

Reply 18

felamaslen

Original post by Jam'

Well you've defeated your own argument; since marriage is a civil issue, and religion is separate from the state, religions have no right to dictate what is or is not constitutionally (or otherwise federally) lawful.

The point is, gay marriage shouldn't even be a major issue in politics, and to my mind it is to America's shame that these kind of things actually play a part in election debates. I would support (if I were American or living in America) a constitutional upholding of gay marriage rights, but I wouldn't cite religion as the reason (religion, or at least certain specific religious dogmas are the problem to begin with!).

Reply 19

Oldcon1953

Original post by StrangeBanana

There was a time in the U.S. when laws were passed solely on the grounds of religious belief. So called, "Blue Laws", were a common thing. In many states businesses were'nt allowed to open on Sundays. Alcohol sales were heavily regulated or prohibited entirely resulting in, "dry counties" which still exist today in the Mid West and the South. I'm sure if their constitutionality were challanged many would fall but some are retained because the population that lives under them feel some good is wrought from them.

Today, if a member of Congress were to stand up and quote chapter and verse from the Bible when trying to influence a bill he would be quietly helped back to his seat or to the infirmary. What the people want to see is Christian values, which can be held as strongly by an atheist, reflected in the laws.