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

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

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

I'm quite sure that fundamentalists have objections considerably broader than just serving canapes. I'm not particularly concerned about fundamentalist objections as these are, for the most part, easily swept aside. I'm not certain that the particular issue I've raised here can be so easily swept aside.

Well, I guess that's the crux of the matter. I'm sure nobody here would argue that a Catholic priest who believes gay marriage violates his religion should be required by law to officiate at a gay marriage. However, certainly a distinction can be made between the act of performing and sanctifying the marriage and just serving finger sandwiches to the celebrants at a post ceremony reception (unless the caterer actually belongs to a religious sect that teaches against feeding gay spouses, a possibility I'm not willing to rule out a priori).

---

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

What we absolutely cannot do is probe his reasoning to determine its legitimacy. Courts will not and, IMO, should not ever probe into the legitimacy of anyone's religious beliefs.However, what courts can do is determine whether it is a sincerely held belief, and whether it is a religious belief. My suspicion is that the number of people who refuse to do business with others for discriminatory reasons is shrinking, but I also believe that it does still happen. I can't give you any kind of estimate of frequency. Instead, I'll ask you this: How much invidious discrimination should we tolerate?

---

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

First off, tone down the snark. Not entirely true. If one person gets a pass on serving in the military, someone else will take their place. If someone gets a driver's license without a picture on it, it makes law enforcement more difficult, potentially endangering everyone.However, your point does have some merit to it. The burden in the examples I chose is borne more generally by society, instead of by two individuals.On the other hand, in most cases, the burden on the engaged couple is rather slight. All they have to do it find another photographer (a profession my Dad engaged in exclusively for over 60 years), caterer etc. I'm not discounting that on a particular case this might be a significant hardship if there aren't many around, in a small town for example. But in most cases, it's a small hardship. Moreover, in the case of a photographer, I'd rather not have someone taking pictures at my wedding who didn't want to be there, for whatever reason.Assuming that in most cases the hardship on the engaged couple is slight, how does that weigh against compelling someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs? Or do you discount that factor to nothing? Never said I didn't see the difference, and I think what I've just said shows that I in fact do see the difference. However, just because there are differences doesn't mean that there aren't similarities, too. Granted that in my examples there's little burden on individuals. However, there is an accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs. So, the question becomes, at what point does the burden become too heavy to justify the accommodation. You seem to be suggesting that any burden on an individual instead of one borne by society generally is too much. Is that your position? I suppose so, but until this last post of yours, there was very little by way of explanation why you believed the way you did.

---

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

I'll do my best to not let the fact that you are a dick affect my analysis of the substance of your argument. Granted, but only part of the story.You are correct that nobody will force a KKK member of perform services for anyone. You are also probably correct that a restaurant or a catering business that refuses to serve a black wedding would garner a lot of press. In both cases, however, each offending party would be subject to civil liability and sanctions from the state's anti-discrimination agency. Also, for purposes of anti-discrimination legislation, the distinction between a part-time business person and a full-time business person is irrelevant. If someone holds himself out as providing a service for the general public, even part-time, they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. Yes, I did. It's an outrageous situation. Were I involved, those responsible would have faced criminal charges as well as civil liability.You alluded to that outrage in response to my question about what effect it has on the calculus when the burden suffered by the offended party or parties is slight. I'm quite certain you don't think that the burden suffered by Ms. Hunter was slight. Are you ignoring my question? Or are you equating what happened to Ms. Hunter to a refusal to cater to a party? Or do you not comprehend that there are different levels of burden?Regardless of your answer (or lack thereof) to the immediately preceding questions, please answer this one: Finally, you repeatedly ask: I believe I've already given an answer to that question; our country's deep commitment to accommodating religious diversity. At this point, I'm trying to explore the limits of that accommodation. You repeating the question really isn't advancing the analysis, so this is the last time I'll address it.

---

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

Wrong. A judge has no discretion to determine whether applicants should be married. In theory, I suppose, a judge would be justified in refusing to marry if he was aware that the applicants were not legally entitled to marry. In fact, I've never heard of a judge refusing to perform a marriage ceremony. I suspect you haven't either and are simply talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about. Wrong again. A judge, in his official capacity, is an agent of the state. As such, he has no more right to discriminate than the state does. What's more, judges are expected and required to put their personal feelings aside when acting in their official capacity and administer the law. 0 for 3. Assuming a state that has allowed gay marriages, if a judge refused to allow a gay couple to marry, of course he would be discriminating. What else would you call depriving someone of something that they have a legal right to just because of their sexual orientation?

---

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

Irrelevant to the topic. We all have the right to do innumerable things that would we be vilified in the press for doing. I can see no principled basis for making an distinction between the two in the analysis of the issue.

---

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

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

---

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

Really?I'm hard pressed to find one difference (other than size) between this and this the former being Arti's avatar, the latter being the Rainbow flag of the LGBT movement.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reduce size of second image and make both images the same size.

---

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

And the information that I have is that there have been very few, if any, such problems of this nature in states that have legalized gay marriage. One suspects that the whole brouhaha really nothing more than a made up fundy objection intended to rile up opposition to gay marriage. If that is in fact the case, perhaps an argument could be made to put this sort of opt out provision in legislation to legalize gay marriage, just to keep the fundies from having something else to whip up the opposition.

---

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

Ok, you're not quite as big a dick as I imagined. Now it's you who's comparing apples to oranges.Nobody has a legitimate interest in not drinking from the same water fountain as a black person. This is simply not parallel to the question of whether the state should compel someone to do something that goes against their sincerely held religious belief. I'm not talking about denying anything to gays. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the exact same right to marry as anyone else. I don't think you've been paying much attention to what I've said in this forum about gay marriage. My support for gay marriage is second to none. Civil unions are unacceptable. I have made consistent legal, policy and moral arguments in favor of gay marriage. My issue here has nothing to do with discrimination against gays.I started this thread because my knee jerk reaction to the proposal of a right to opt out of participating in gay marriage ceremonies was exactly the same as yours. I am personally rather antipathetic to religion and believe that on balance the negatives outweigh the positives. However, I am also a strong supporter of religious freedom. I understand that my right to not support any religion, and to be openly critical of religion, depends on a healthy First Amendment. What's more, I'm far from arrogant enough to believe that I ought to have the right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. Please don't take what I'm saying as a suggestion that you don't share any of these beliefs, I'm simply explaining my reasons for this thread.I also know enough about human nature to know that we tend to get into patterns of thinking and use certain intellectual shortcuts. "If religious people want something enacted into law, it's bad." "If something impairs gay marriage in any way, it's bad." As broad statements of policy, I tend to agree with these sentiments. However, it's important to understand nuance. It's also important to look into one's basic assumptions from time to time, to make sure the foundations are sound and the details follow. Let me turn this around on you. Suppose the following facts were true.I'm a deeply religious person. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I have nothing against homosexuals themselves because I take to heart the suggestion that I should love my neighbor as myself. I'm intelligent enough to understand that this country isn't a theocracy, and I don't believe that gay marriage will bring society tumbling down about our ears, so I support the right of homosexuals to marry. After all, somebody once said something about Do Unto Others.The above notwithstanding, because I believe homosexuality is a sin, I believe it would be a sin on my part to participate in any way. I wish them all the best and hope they find the same happiness that I have, but leave me out of it because I do not want to sin.Explain how this is bigotry.Please, it's no good to simply brush off the scenario by refusing to accept its possibility. Regardless of the depth of my antipathy to religion, I refuse to accept that there aren't any good religious people in this country who might believe exactly as I have described. They have no hate. They don't believe that they are any better than gays. They don't wish to deny gays anything. They simply don't want to be compelled to participate in something that they consider a sin.Show me the bigotry.

---

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