Maine legalizes gay marriage

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

I think my thoughts have all be articulated by others now.Basically it turns out it isn't so easy to figure out where you draw the line when you say that someone doesn't have to do something against their principles (particularly those sourced from a particular religious teaching).We seem to all agree that a minister/priest of a church does not have to perform the religious service of marriage.We seem to also agree that someone working to supply some service must not discriminate. E.g., pharmacist, someone renting etc.Then we can start to discuss individuals in roles "between" these. I think it's been discussed enough by now but we haven't, that I noticed, drawn up the conclusions of the "court". It maybe that this will have to be worked out with a variety of court cases to settle it.Perhaps the guiding principle is:
If you can't discriminate based on race, religion etc. then you can't discriminate based on orientation unless you are offering religious services. That should be the criteria since the law was written to specifically allow discrimination from religious organizations.Here in Canada, with gay marriage totally legal across the country I think there have only been a handful of issues that have arisen. It's been pretty quiet overall and seems to be working so far.

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

And I'll try my best to not let the fact that you're a ________ (insert a descriptive noun here) affect my analysis of the substance of your argument. Yeah, and how does this answer my question? If businesses can't discriminate based on racism or whatever other -ism out there, why should religious bigotry get a free pass? You're right, of course. Let me ask you this. Do you think the burden on the black people for having to drink out of different drinking fountains than the ones white folks used slight?You seem to imply that discrimination is a-ok if the burden on the receiving end is relatively slight. Assuming that in most cases the hardship on the black people is slight when it comes to drinking out of certain drinking fountain, how does that weigh against compelling someone to do something that goes against their personal racist beliefs? Or do you discount that factor to nothing?The reason the gay rights movement is having a lot more difficulty convincing people of the injustice in our society than the civil rights movement is because the discrimination in this case is far more subtle than segregation. I am convinced that if segregation was only about drinking fountains and different schools instead of the myriads of other injustices like the police beating school children and such, you'd be making the same argument you're making now regarding racism.Discrimination is discrimination. You're downplaying it by pretending there's a scale of suffering or burden by the receiving party, and if I'm not mistaking you're suggesting that discrimination should be allowed if the suffering or burden felt by the receiving party is lower than certain level on your imaginary scale then discrimination is a-ok.Edited by Taz, : Changed "than" to "then". Stupid homophones...

Different shades of green, blue, and purple.

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

This would create a HUGE religious issue for some religious ceremonies. As an example:
I am LDS (Mormon). I married my wife for what we believe to be eternity in the St Louis Temple. This is considered a sacred event that can only occur within an LDS Temple.The only way a person can enter an LDS Temple is if they meet a lengthy list of stipulations such as being LDS, having a testimony of Jesus Christ, obeying the Word of Wisdom (abstaining from smoking, alcohol, drug abuse, etc), and many other factors.With your proposed concept, I would not have been allowed to legally marry my wife according to my own religious practices, as every worthy adult male member is a part of our lay-clergy.
________________________On another note, I think this whole subject reeks of childish attitudes.If a gay friend of mine wants me to be his best man at his gay wedding, I wouldn't turn him down, despite it being a HUGE disagreement with my religious disposition. I would do this because I acknowledge that our religious beliefs are merely one part of who we are.Too many people have created this US vs THEM mentality within the fundamentalist movements. They feel that somehow being a homosexual dehumanizes the individual. This is why they can justify their horrific (or downright cruel) behavior.I don't think any religion should be forced to provide a religious service in any manner that violates their own religious dispositions. I also don't think that the state should endorse those religious dispositions.If a gay couple wants to wed, let them do it through the state, or a willing religious authority, or from Jean Luke Picard on the Starship Enterprise Command Deck.The fact that people can become so militant about something so silly, in that it really has no effect on their lives at all, baffles me.As a post note:
When I read about the Tyra incident, I was shocked and appalled. The fact that individuals would refuse medical treatment of another human being simply because they thought the person was "icky" is ridiculous. I honestly think those EMTs should be imprisoned for negligent homicide.

Wrong. You can go through the sacrament of marriage, and it is as spiritually binding as you believe it to be. The only difference, is to get a legally binding marriage certificate you would have to have that administered by a judge or some other agent of the state. There would just be an extra step. You're religious rites (and rights) would in no way be infringed. They do this in a bunch of other countries, and it works out just fine.

---

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

Yet not a legally recognized marriage under what you propose. This also completely disregards the foundations of our beliefs in the first place. There is a stark difference between the component in which we are intertwined for eternity, and the actual marriage ceremony. Which would mean I would have to actually get married OUTSIDE the temple. Other than the fact that I would not have been able to legally marry my wife in the Temple. Please give me a list of countries where clergy are not authorized to officiate a marriage.

Which is more important, the legal aspect or the spiritual aspect? Are you saying if you were somewhere with no government to recognize your marriage that a spiritual ceremony alone would not suffice? My point is that there's marriage the sacrament and marriage the legal contract. They don't have to be the same thing, and really aren't. Technically, in an American marriages, two ceremonies are occurring at the same time.

quote:

---

A marriage is usually formalised at a wedding or marriage ceremony. The ceremony may be officiated either by a religious official, by a government official or by a state approved celebrant. In many European and some Latin American countries, any religious ceremony must be held separately from the required civil ceremony. Some countries — such as Belgium, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Romania and Turkey[35] — require that a civil ceremony take place before any religious one. In some countries — notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain — both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the state is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) — the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage is not recognised by government under the law.

---

I already did this in a previous post.

quote:

---

In some countries, such as France, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, Japan and Russia, it is necessary to be married by government authority separately from any religious ceremony, with the state ceremony being the legally binding one.

---

Those are the ones listed in Wikipedia. The quote above it was also from wikipedia.

---

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

Both are equally important. Well, this will go into an entirely new topic on what exactly a government is. If a government is merely an organization endorsed by a portion of the "governed" populace, then the mere presence of a religious institution would be the government. This statement alone shows your ignorance of LDS principles in matters of matrimony within the Temple. Of course, that is expected, unless you were a worthy member who has been married in the Temple.Of course this same argument can be used AGAINST same sex marriage as well, in the form of: "Well it's simply a legal contract, would you still not be able to be joined together as one if there were no government?".See, the issue here is this. You are talking about restricting marriage to a purely government administration. This is a totalitarian method if you ask me, and wholly unnecessary. Marriage is a tradition that spans beyond any modern government.The plan I would propose would be the abolishment of any stipulation of gender within current state laws. An example would be:

quote:

---

Marriage is defined as any persons, of legal age, and sound mind, entering into the confines of matrimony. The officiation of any marriage ceremony, that adheres to the aforementioned requirements, can be performed by any individual, so long as proper state endorsed documentation is shown with signed witnesses.

---

It's really that simple. No need for any government interference. No need for government oversight, as if it somehow a superior agent in the process. On top of that, same-sex marriages still happen, and LDS Temple marriages still happen.I feel that in 30 years we will all look back at this whole thing much the same way the general populace looks back at the civil rights movement.

They are not really participating, they're being hired to provide a service. That service is their chosen area of business. They should not have the right to inject there religious bias into the business they run publicly.If their line of business now puts them at risk of being forced to do something against their religion, to bad for them. Sorry, but they should have to change their line of business or get over it. In no way should they be aloud to use their religion to openly discriminate against anyone.

Actually, I think Artemis's rainbow needs to have 7 colors, representing the 7 sacraments to be a Christian symbol.

Here's my point: from the government's perspective a legally recognized marriage has no religious affiliation. That's why, under the current system in america, there are technically 2 ceremonies occurring during a religious ceremony: the civil and the religious. The state ONLY recognizes the civil and on paper, an LDS marriage is no different from a Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or Scientologist marriage. The civil marriage, being a legal contract is what gives certain legal rights and responsibilities to the spouses, such as joint custody, hospital visitation, etc. If there were no government, then yes, only the religious marriages would stand, and if the religion was against gay marriage, then gays could not get married. I don't think this is right, but it becomes a theological issue, not a legal issue because. So as unromantic as it sounds, gay marriage in america comes down to the state recognizing the right of all it's citizens to form a contract of responsibility between each other regardless of race, creed, or orientation. That's what I'm talking about. And I don't think it's right to allow someone to act as an agent of the state if they are going to be discriminatory. It's not totalitarian, it's to ensure no discrimination. Yes marriage is an old tradition, but it is one that has radically changed, if you don't believe me, do some reading. Your right, I don't know exactly how LDS marriages work, but I assume they still work in the countries where the civil and religious ceremonies are separate, so you should maybe talk to them about how they pull it off. If you can't separate the spiritual from the legal at all, that's a problem in a country that separates church and 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