Bigotry Violates Religious Freedom
Apr. 30th, 2014 12:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmith My partner Doug tipped me to this article about a lawsuit which claims that same-sex marriage bans violate religious freedom for clergy who wish to perform those weddings. This is true, and it's especially glaring when you have one cleric performing weddings for two different couples, only one of which is permitted legal recognition. I'll add that we have the same problem when three or more people choose to marry. And it violates freedom of religion for homosexual and polyfolks, who are illegally held accountable by the bigoted beliefs of a religion they may not follow.
My dad would be LIVID.
Date: 2014-04-30 06:18 pm (UTC)It's very, very typical for people who aren't /religious/ to have their beliefs pooh-poohed, outright abused, or completely ignored. Just because someone doesn't walk into a BUILDING to "practice their faith". BLERGH.
What we need is something like a ten-foot rule. You know, if your music is loud enough to be heard ten feet away, it's impinging on other people's right to enjoy a public space without music? You can't throw your religion in other people's faces in ways that violate THEIR rights to enjoy publicly available goods and services listed under "the common good". Marriage. Family visiting in hospital (DON'T get me started on that one!). ACCESS TO LEGAL MEDICATIONS that the only pharmacist in the county won't fill due to "violating his/her religious beliefs".
It's the same deal: if your job is considered part of the public good, you HAVE to fulfill the legal duties. Yes, right now, that means denying licenses in states with their heads up their collective mikta, BUT if they're already ignoring mounds of evidence of people hiding behind "faith" to behave like bigoted bullies, we've got a long, long road before anybody's going to actually admit that Bill and Steve or Susan and Jane getting married has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO with my own marriage.
G-DS, that really makes me mad. Look at the stats for abuse, both spousal and child abuse, and tell me that same gender couples won't be spread EXACTLY the same way across the spectrum of hetero marriages, given the same education and income levels.
They at least deserve the common respect that will give them the chance to TRY not to screw up their spouse and family - a chance that I took twenty-five years ago, but nobody said 'boo' because we happen to be hetero.
Anybody who says "they shouldn't", no matter what language they phrase the denial in, IS trying to impose THEIR morals on OTHER people.
Re: My dad would be LIVID.
Date: 2014-05-01 03:48 am (UTC)Re: My dad would be LIVID.
Date: 2014-05-01 04:16 am (UTC)That's a good start.
>> You know, if your music is loud enough to be heard ten feet away, it's impinging on other people's right to enjoy a public space without music? <<
I have to say I'm not a fan of banning public music though. Assaults on street performers are rising. Why is this a problem? It's one of the few ways to making a living that doesn't require someone granting you the *privilege* of a job. But if the state bans public performances unless you pay for a permit, it has the same effect of sawing the bottom rungs off the ladder. Fuck that noise.
>> You can't throw your religion in other people's faces in ways that violate THEIR rights to enjoy publicly available goods and services listed under "the common good". <<
If only. I think people should be prohibited from taking jobs when they plan to refuse to do the work. If your religion conflicts with a certain job, you need to get a different job, not abuse other people by only pretending to do the job. Somebody else needs that job who will actually DO IT.
>> It's the same deal: if your job is considered part of the public good, you HAVE to fulfill the legal duties. <<
In theory, yes. In practice, people often don't.
>> Yes, right now, that means denying
licenses in states with their heads up their collective mikta, <<
There's a whole nother argument about whether people have an obligation to disobey unjust laws. I wouldn't call it an obligation, because if you do that then usually you're fucked, but it sure is morally justified.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-30 06:31 pm (UTC)O_O
Date: 2014-04-30 06:35 pm (UTC)NC Law
Date: 2014-04-30 06:44 pm (UTC)Yeah, that's a clear violation of the clergy's religious freedom, and a good place to start kicking the dark...
We need to get busloads of activists into that state. Just like the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties-- there is no other way to see, boots-on-the-ground, whether this is a case of the larger group of VOTERS winning, or the larger POPULATION winning. The two are very much not the same- local turnout is something like 8 percent on average, but the Mormon church got well over 75% of their eligible voters to the polls for prop 8. (Stats directly from the proud coordinator the week after the thing passed, but they're thumbnail "pulpit poll" information after the election.)
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-30 07:23 pm (UTC)Do you know if the clergy are arguing against the North Carolina's anti-gay marriage amendment to the State Constitution, or some other law? I thought this was a fascinating legal approach, so I wanted to see the language of the law they are challenging. The amendment (in its entirety) reads:
Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts. (2011-409, s. 1)
Bigoted bullshit, of course, but I can't come up with any reading of it that would make performing (or participating in) the religious marriage ceremony a criminal act. It simply says that marriage won't be legally recognized by the State.
I agree on an ethical and moral level that anti-marriage laws are an attack on religious freedom. But (unless I'm missing something, which is totally possible) on a legal level, I don't think this holds up. There's a huge difference (legally) between the government trying to stop you from practicing your religion, and the government simply not giving legal weight to your religious beliefs.
Really interesting articles!
Meg
It has to be challenged
Date: 2014-04-30 08:18 pm (UTC)Dreamwidth just ATE my previous attempt at a reply, so let's try again.
EVEN AS WORDED, that section of the law clearly invalidates marriages and civil unions conducted in states where they are legal.
That violates state reciprocity all to H-LL!
Simple example of reciprocity: I am licensed to drive a car for non-business purposes in my home state of California. I set out on a roadtrip to meet everyone I hang out with on Dreamwidth, and state reciprocity is the reason I can do so without having to stop at every border, either hire a vehicle or take a license exam for the particular state I'm passing through, and then continue.
State reciprocity means that if I move across country with my kids ages 15, 11, and 3, the two older kids don't have to start school OVER. State reciprocity means that if my husband and I have a mutual bout of insanity and divorce, if he leaves for Michigan, the legal divorce and custody arrangement is considered valid there. He can't turn around and sue me under Michigan law for a NEW divorce or custody arrangement.
See where I'm going with this?
Just like in Prop8, FAMILIES who had already legally married, legally adopted kids as a COUPLE (that's important, as the single-adoptive-parent paperwork is different, even when living with another adult of any gender)-- HAVE NO LEGAL STANDING. Say effin' what? California law already got ITS head out of its mikta, so NC just has to try again?
Fortunately, I don't know, or even KNOW OF, cases where a couple has lost custody of an adopted child due to prop 8, nor even been denied enrollment in a school. But ALL of that continuity is IN SPITE OF the law, not in the spirit of it. Everyone, EVERYONE who 'looked the other way', but was in a position of "mandated reporter", especially, was in violation of OTHER laws already on the books.
Technically, every family affected by the prop 8 law, as many as 8,000 kids, were "kidnap victims" while that law was in effect.
I argued that particular aspect of a bad law with my Mormon friends who /genuinely/ felt that "allowing homosexual marriages degrades the fabric of society"-- does that mean their children should be made legal orphans, snapped up by children's services and maybe never, ever, see their LOVING, responsible parents again?
Under the law as written, that's exactly what happens when the law meets EXISTING guidelines for children's welfare.
Even so, such a challenge would have to wind its way through the courts for YEARS. The damage is potentially catastrophic, and the reason it WASN'T ubiquitous in California was that people used common sense and QUIETLY BROKE THE LAW.
Re: It has to be challenged
Date: 2014-05-01 03:00 am (UTC)My problem was not that people were challenging the law. My issue was with specific legal argument that the clergy members and their lawyers chose--I could not see how a religious freedom argument applied to North Carolina's law. An anon below clarified the law in question, so now I can see their reasoning. I hope it holds up in court, but I don't see it as a long-term winning strategy.
The quicker these laws can be struck down, the better. I just want the laws to be struck down on unimpeachable legal ground, so that we don't have to go back and fight the same fight over and over again. While the religious freedom angle is interesting, it would be laughingly simple for NC legislators to just change the phrasing of the law to delineate between religious "solemnization" and legal "solemnization", without actually changing the anti-marriage law at all.
(I'm adopted myself,and the well-being of the children of same-sex couples is a major part of why I want to see marriage equality, too.)
Meg
Re: It has to be challenged
Date: 2014-05-01 03:15 am (UTC)I don't see it as different than the relationship my husband and I have. Why should the law differentiate between "marriage" and "civil ceremony" as a sop to SOMEONE ELSE'S beliefs. If the couple in question want to CALL their relationship a civil ceremony, let 'em.
The whole attitude of "no harm, no foul" when it comes to the total DISASTER that the prop 8 law actually made of California family law was a major mistake. There should've been MORE challenges, to make sure that the IMPLICATIONS of a bad law were made perfectly obvious to anybody with EYES. Or EARS.
One of the problems is that most Americans are utterly ignorant of what their civic structure IS, what it MEANS, and what it can or cannot do. "Civics" or "American Government" classes in public school have become seventy-minute propoganda slots, with NOTHING taught.
Just for giggles, I gave my third grader a basic "graduating exam" for eighth grade civics. He kept rolling his eyes and asking WHY people didn't know the stuff by then!-- Just from living with people who notice law, civics, and politics, he scored 82 percent. Passing was 65, to make matters even more depressing.
Re: It has to be challenged
Date: 2014-05-01 03:32 am (UTC)So then you ask who benefits from that. Well, the 1% have a population they can more easily fleece.
The drawback is that when you have a pack of fucking ignorant peasants, you can really only lead them in the direction they want to go. If they decide to light you on fire, you can't use logic to explain why that's a bad idea. Same for any other idiotic idea they decide to follow. You're stuck. Numerous empires have fallen due to this. Don't imagine that America is somehow "special" because it isn't. It's just another nation, and for decades now it's made a lot of bad decisions that are causing problems.
Re: It has to be challenged
Date: 2014-05-01 03:22 am (UTC)Since the haters and the cheapskates have almost total overlap, I like to deal with this kind of nonsense thusly: "So you're suggesting that the government, the taxpayers, should pay out of pocket to support all these kids? Instead of having parents support them? Congratulations, you've just blown millions of Uncle Sam's dollars out of your butt."
Same thing for the drug babies, briefly viable babies, and rape babies they want to force women to have. Because a lot of women are going to turn around immediately and say, "Here, you wanted the brat, you pay for it." And many who are shamed into keeping children they can't afford will lose them to foster care later anyway. Again, you've just blown millions of Uncle Sam's dollars out of your butt.
Re: It has to be challenged
Date: 2014-05-01 03:51 am (UTC)Get the add-in Lazarus.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-01 12:37 am (UTC)ยง 51-7. Penalty for solemnizing without license.
Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
So, yeah, it's a crime for a minister to conduct a wedding ceremony without a marriage license, which, of course, gay couples can't get in NC. I'm not sure if there are any instances of it actually being enforced in that way, but it absolutely could as written.
solemnizing
Date: 2014-05-01 01:42 am (UTC)Re: solemnizing
Date: 2014-05-01 03:17 am (UTC)Re: solemnizing
Date: 2014-05-01 03:51 am (UTC)I have argued until I am blue in the face that even ONE exception blows their argument. I have argued that WHOLE SWATHS of Europeans came to this country to dig for gold. The blipping IDJITS didn't even bring seed with them!
But nooo, I'm apparently "biased" and "ignoring evidence".
I am surrounded, absolutely surrounded, in this city by people who OPENLY share that belief. OH, and they're the first ones to argue that "separation of church and state" is NOT enshrined in law, it came from TWO letters written by one of the framers.
Re: solemnizing
Date: 2014-05-01 03:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-01 02:24 am (UTC)I can definitely see the religious freedom argument here, and it will be interesting to see how the case goes. My guess is that it will come down to the interpretation of the word "solemnize"--if that refers to the entire ceremony (even the purely religious parts) or just to the legal "filing the paperwork" bit.
I certainly hope it goes in favor of the clergy members here! It's a fascinating angle on the whole thing.
Meg
Solemnizing
Date: 2014-05-01 02:39 am (UTC)Well...
Date: 2014-05-01 03:29 am (UTC)Re: Well...
Date: 2014-05-01 03:56 am (UTC)I grew up in the seventies. I was pretty D-MN sure that my kids wouldn't have to worry about which gender they were interested in at LEAST as far as being able to get jobs in areas like nursing, teaching, et cetera. And I was SOO confident that by 2000, civil union would be the NORM, and used for any binary combination.
S-groups as in Heinlein, I didn't think would take off until 2050 or so, but now it looks like THAT's at least a century too optimistic.
Re: Well...
Date: 2014-05-01 03:59 am (UTC)