Maine legalizes gay marriage

Here is the text of the bill.In particular, I'd like to focus on the following: This section was included as an accommodation to the religious liberties of those involved in the solemnization of marriages, giving them the option of not participating in gay marriages that violate their religious beliefs. If broadly read, it might allow opting out of solemnizing marriages for second marriages, mixed marriages, etc. At a minimum, it's probably required by the First Amendment since governments can't tell churches what marriages they must sanctify. To that extent, I assume nobody here would object.However, some have proposed a much broader religious freedom protection to accompany gay marriage legislation that would allow any individual to opt out of participating in a gay marriage in any fashion (photographer, florist, etc) if the marriage violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.I've given some little thought to the matter of, in effect, state sanctioned discrimination on the basis of one's sincerely held religious beliefs with regard to marriage ceremonies and find myself undecided. Perhaps it's difficult for me to put myself in the place of a bigot and, thus, find it hard to understand why bigotry should be state sanctioned. On the other hand, I've always been a zealous defender of religious freedom, and can see the point behind the position.Anyone who has any thoughts on this particular aspect of the issue, please chime in.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You're joking, right?Let's forget for a moment that this is about marriage. Let's suppose my religion (which is X) says that eating chicken is a sacred act and that the act of eating chicken can only be done by men and women of religion X inside the churches of religion X. But chicken tastes good, one might argue, and that anybody ought to be able to eat chicken anywhere and not just inside churches.Now, suppose that myself and everyone who follows the teachings of religion X decides to go out by the masses to vote for legislation that would ban anyone and everyone who's not of religion X from eating chicken.But then someone would point out that this is unfair. But hang on a second. Everyone is treated equal here. If you think about it, you have the same right as we do. Anyone can eat chicken as long as he follows the teachings of religion X and performs the act inside a church of religion X.Do you see how ridiculous this position is? Now, replace eating chicken with marriage.The real question is why the hell do we, as a society, tolerate christian bigots?

Your whole post is totally off the point that Subbie is making. He is not, in any way, talking about banning anything. He is talking about not forcing anyone to take part in an action that they have religious convictions against.I have the same mixed reactions to the issue as he has.

IMO, the best solution is to copy many other countries (such as France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, Japan and Russia) where it is necessary to be married by government authority separately from any religious ceremony, with the state ceremony being the legally binding one.Just as the Catholic church is allowed to deny the eucharist to those who have not participated in the sacraments of baptism, confession, and first communion, so they should be able to deny the sacrament of holy matrimony. This becomes a moot point if you have holy chicken and secular chicken (to continue the metaphor). So yes, the way most marriage laws stand are like your chicken analogy, and I believe this is an unconstitutional situation and we need to stop letting the states decide and make a federal law recognizing same-sex marriage. But once we have that, religions should be able to discriminate when it comes to administering sacraments. Just in the same way that I can currently by a box of communion wafers to snack on while watching a movie (though I don't know why I would, it's like snacking on styrofoam) but the Catholic church does not have to give me a wafer during the sacrament of communion.However, anyone acting as a representative of the government would not be able to discriminate at all.Edited by Stagamancer, : No reason given.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

You're right that I missed it. I failed to read his whole post. Now that I have read his whole post including the quotes, I still don't see how you guys can have mixed feelings.Let's go back to my eating chicken analogy. Suppose I own a restaurant and would only want to sell chicken to people of the same religion as me and if only they would eat the chicken in one of my churches. The question is do I have a right to deny selling some people chicken? Have we forgotten the "we don't serve your kind here" that was so widely used not too long ago?As long as we're having doubts about forcing people to do fair business, why don't we forget about Tyra Hunter?We all have a part to play in our society. If you're a doctor, you can't use religious excuses to deny care to a patient. Why on earth would we allow religious bigots in other parts of society to deny fair service to people because of their religious based hate?This question seems to come up again and again. Why does religion get a free pass?Added by edit.I'll take that all back. If you're a christian florist, I suppose you have every right to put up a sign that says "we don't serve fags" in front of your store much the same way that christian doctors could put up a sign in front of their clinics that says "we don't treat fags".Honestly, guys, it's one thing to not force anyone to personally do something he's against. If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It's another to actually carry this attitude into the professional world. Do I need to spell out the kinds of problems our society would face if professionals are allowed to choose who to serve or help and who not to serve or help based on their religious bigotry?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Obviously, you're correct in your criticism. Which why we need to take the power of granting legally binding marriages from the churches and give it solely to the state.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

My view is that the state can only deal with marriage as a civil institution. It should not get involved in the religious side. (Personally I have a strong feeling that there should be a complete split between religious and civil marriage)In general I would agree with the first of the quoted sentences. The state has no business forcing churches to hold religious ceremonies. Any state interference in religion needs strong justification and I don't see it here.I would disagree with the second since it seems to go too far (although this may be poor wording).I don't know how things work in Maine but if I were talking about the UK I would say that registrars (who are civil servants) should be required to perform marriages - and should be subject to disciplinary action if they refuse. Any couple who are legally entitled to marry should be able to do so, regardless of the personal religious convictions of officials.

As far as I know in the US, the state doesn't recognise marriages except for those that have a state issued marriage license or common law marriages that a court has recognised. It's this piece of paper that makes the marriage legally binding, not that the wedding took place in a church or was preformed by a priest. So the churches already don't have this power.

But we're not talking about refusing to serve homosexuals. That's prohibited in most states by anti-discrimination legislation. The issue is very specific and limited, participation in gay marriage ceremonies.One part of the argument in favor of gay marriage has been that allowing it won't change anyone else's lives. Well, that's not strictly true without some kind of opt out legislation to go along with it.Look at it this way: it would be illegal for a catering business to refuse to provide service for a gay rights picnic, but not for them to refuse to cater a gay marriage if they have a sincerely held religious belief that gay marriage is wrong.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Again, why does religion get a free pass? If the catering business you mentioned refuses to serve an interracial marriage ceremony or a muslim marriage ceremony, there would be hell for weeks and weeks in the courts as well as the media. But you're telling us that it's ok for them to refuse a gay marriage ceremony simply because of religious bigotry?Why does religion get a free pass when it comes to hate?

We've already done that years ago. Your marriage don't mean squat in a church unless you obtain a marriage license from the state.The point is allowing businesses to deny service to a gay marriage ceremony simply because of religious bigotry.

While your topic is focused on marriage, this is not the focus of the fundamentalists. In his June 2008 newsletter, Focus on the Family leader Dr. James Dobson, writing about his disgust with the Colorado legislature and a new state law, says:

quote:

---

It adds a prohibition against discrimination in sexual orientation to more than 23 separate provisions of Colorado law that already prohibit discrimination in various areas of public life. Some of them threaten the religious liberties of every Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owner who operates a business on faith-based principles. A refusal to do business with someone based on a sincerely held religious belief that homosexuality is wrong would violate the law. In addition to civil fines and penalties, small-business owners can be prosecuted under the criminal laws of Colorado and spend up to one year in jail for trying to live according to their faith.
Those wishing to express their outrage to the officials responsible for this new law can reach Governor Bill Ritter at:...

---

Apparently the position of FOF is that discrimination by Christian business people is ok if it is justified by a "sincerely held religious belief". I wrote and asked them about supporting a refusal to serve non-Christians by Christian businesses based on a sincerely held religious belief that those people shouldn't worship a false God. They refused to support that particular discrimination because of the long-standing U.S. tradition of religious freedom.I guess "sincerely held religious belief" can only go so far.I did write again and asked if doctors and pharmacists were among the Christian business people who they felt should be allowed to refuse to serve homosexuals based on their "sincerely held religious belief". No reply from them.I am not undecided. To allow this discrimination would open the door for more, just as the fundamentalists want.
Jesus sat down to eat with sinners and was criticized for it by the religious leaders. Now the fundamentalist powers that be want to criticize Christian business people for serving "sinners". Some things don't really change.

So, if I was a photographer and a couple asks me to take pictures of their wedding, under what circumstances am I allowed to decline?Because I don't have the time?Because I don't want to?Because I don't like his face?Because she's a real bitch of a bridezilla?Because they're gay?Because they're yellow?I mean, when does a photographer actually have to take the job?

All states have some for of anti-discrimination legislation. The details vary from state to state, but fairly common prohibitions include refusing to serve someone on the basis of race, religion, marital status, disability, and sexual orientation. I'm not aware of any anti-discrimination that prohibits refusing to serve someone on the basis of time, personality, shoe size, or any other obviously ridiculous counter example you might like to propose.I'd also like to point out that this is off topic for this thread. If you want to start a thread devoted generally to issues of discrimination, please do so.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Our country has a long and venerated history of accommodating religious objections to generally applicable laws; military service, photographs on drivers licenses, markings on slow moving vehicles are a few that come immediately to mind. Such accommodations are not automatically granted, it depends on a balancing process where the burden on the religious belief is compared to the harm done by not requiring compliance with the law.Now, if you want to take the position that there ought to be no accommodation of religious beliefs whatsoever and that all people should be subject to all the same laws, that's certainly a defensible position. It's not the direction our country has taken, and I think it's virtually certain that we'll not change our general policy of accommodation. Thus, assuming that some policy of accommodation exists, the question becomes whether this is a reasonable one or not. A careful reading of what I've said here will show you that I'm undecided on the matter. It appears that your belief is that this would not be a reasonable accommodation.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat