"It's over: Gay marriage can't lose in courts" - Slate Magazine

[Swiper]

"Last night, only days after hearing oral arguments in the case, a Virginia federal judge struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage, writing unequivocally that “[t]radition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.” The judge opened her opinion with the quote, above, from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the 1967 challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. She thus joined a unanimous and ever-expanding collection of federal judges who have chosen to answer the question left up in the air by the Supreme Court last Spring: Did the Windsor decision—striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act—pretty much strike down gay-marriage bans as well?"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/virginia_s_gay_marriage_ban_ruled_unconstitutional_a_perfect_record_for.htm

Is it even possible now to turn the tide and stop same-sex marriage from becoming the law of the land? What's your thoughts?

[Lakumi]

That's the way the wind seems to be blowing nowadays, its legal in Canada, has been for like 10 years now...more for some provinces before the nationwide civil marriage act came into being.

[Guest]

This topic never, ever, EVER gets old.

[Lakumi]

This topic never, ever, EVER gets old.

this thread chose... poorly

[Backroads]

My thoughts?

I really can't care too much. The libertarian me says hey, let people do what they will.

But the more religious me doesn't find it okay.

The libertarian me also says states should have this right to determine stuff like this, so that's largely what bothers me.

Yet I'm still not too bothered.

And sooner or later someone will start spouting reasons against gay marriage that make sense to me and I'll find myself liking those posts and becoming conflicted in my position.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Backroads

[Quin]

YAY!!!!

Happy Dance.

Q

[Bini]

This is positive news.

[LittleWyvern]

Is it even possible now to turn the tide and stop same-sex marriage from becoming the law of the land? What's your thoughts?

I don't think that question is nearly as important as "How can we keep our eternal marriages strong regardless what the world thinks of marriage?"

[Guest]

Sad.

Especially seeing the joyful mood of Church people about it.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think SCOTUS could still stop it, from a constitutional law standpoint. But from a public opinion standpoint, I think the writing's on the wall--at least for the next generation or two. But at some point, I think two realizations are going to become prevalent even in spite of ongoing efforts to hush up any reporting about them:

1) Why is a broke government like ours subsidizing monogamous sexual relationships in the first place, if not for the production of children? and

2) Holy cow--having a kid raised with both a mother figure and a father figure in the home, is more important than we ever thought it was. Who knew?

In the short term: The really interesting thing, to me, is how I think even a lot of conservatives are misreading the implications of the situation. Here in Utah they're introducing panic legislation guaranteeing that no clergyman will ever, ever be forced to solemnize a same-sex marriage. Marrying people? Even I don't think someone's going to successfully sue a clergyman for refusing to marry a couple. Frankly, the religious right should start looking at what happened to the segregationists and the KKK--loss of tax-exempt status for institutions that hold unacceptable social views and government-assisted professional black-balling of the members of those institutions, the re-programming of their children in a compulsory education system, and the like--because that's the game plan for how we are to be dealt with, and those are the moves we should be anticipating next.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Lakumi]

I think SCOTUS could still stop it, from a constitutional law standpoint. But from a public opinion standpoint, I think the writing's on the wall--at least for the next generation or two.

The interesting thing, to me, is how I think even a lot of conservatives are misreading the implications of the situation. Here in Utah they're introducing panic legislation guaranteeing that no clergyman will ever, ever be forced to solemnize a same-sex marriage. Marrying people? Even I don't think someone's going to successfully sue a clergyman for refusing to marry a couple. Frankly, the religious right should start looking at what happened to the segregationists and the KKK--loss of tax-exempt status for institutions that hold unacceptable social views and government-assisted professional black-balling of the members of those institutions, the re-programming of their children in a compulsory education system, and the like--because that's the game plan for how we are to be dealt with, and those are the moves we should be anticipating next.

don't think anyone misses the KKK

[Just_A_Guy]

I think you'd miss the Mormons, though.

And there's a word for this system of "sit down, shut up, and let the guys with the guns attempt to eradicate your sacred beliefs by preventing you from acting on them and teaching your children that you're a hateful old dinosaur". It's called "tyranny", and whether we find the victims particularly likeable is wholly irrelevant.

But, thanks for confirming my concerns. Most gay-rights advocates won't even admit what the end game really is--at least, not when they think a moderate or conservative is listening.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Lakumi]

I think both sides have to find a common ground where they can both exist, but both seem to want the otherside gone completely...

[Backroads]

don't think anyone misses the KKK

The point is, how would you feel if the government turned on something that was important to you? If you say you're okay with government finding sneaky ways of punishing groups who do not conform to a certain pattern, you have to declare yourself okay with one day being the victim of such an action.

[Quin]

Most gay-rights advocates won't even admit what the end game really is--at least, not when they think a moderate or conservative is listening.

Equal rights and protection under the law?

Q

[Backroads]

Equal rights and protection under the law?

Q

loss of tax-exempt status for institutions that hold unacceptable social views and government-assisted professional black-balling of the members of those institutions, the re-programming of their children in a compulsory education system, and the like--because that's the game plan for how we are to be dealt with, and those are the moves we should be anticipating next.

Try reading the posts and keeping up with them, Quin.

Equal protection and rights should belong to everyone. JaG is saying the end game is to take away those rights from certain groups that don't fit a certain political agenda.

[Lakumi]

The point is, how would you feel if the government turned on something that was important to you? If you say you're okay with government finding sneaky ways of punishing groups who do not conform to a certain pattern, you have to declare yourself okay with one day being the victim of such an action.

Mormons don't linch people

I am okay if the government steps in on groups that do illegal things.

And I do agree that a church shouldn't be made to have to marry someone or change their belief system to conform to society, but they can't expect all of society to conform to their beliefs.

There are going to be people who are different, who believe different things.

Humanity has always existed with those issues, and the only key to peaceful existance is finding a common road.

No utopia was made upon the misery of others.

[Lakumi]

Try reading the posts and keeping up with them, Quin.

Equal protection and rights should belong to everyone. JaG is saying the end game is to take away those rights from certain groups that don't fit a certain political agenda.

what rights would, say Mormons loose?

[Backroads]

Mormons don't linch people

I am okay if the government steps in on things that do illegal things.

And I do agree that a church shouldn't be made to have to marry someone or change their belief system to conform to society, but they can't expect all of society to conform to their beliefs.

There are going to be people who are different, who believe different things.

Humanity has always existed with those issues, and the only key to peaceful existance is finding a common road.

No utopia was made upon the misery of others.

I don't think the KKK has linched anyone for years, but they've still lost many rights.

Yes, a lot of people say religious clergy shouldn't be forced to marry anyone and I believe you are sincere in your belief. BUT a lot of those same people add the caveat the church should be prepared for consequences such as losing a tax-exemption status. Just another route to punish.

The rest of your post I completely agree with.

[Lakumi]

I don't think the KKK has linched anyone for years, but they've still lost many rights.

Yes, a lot of people say religious clergy shouldn't be forced to marry anyone and I believe you are sincere in your belief. BUT a lot of those same people add the caveat the church should be prepared for consequences such as losing a tax-exemption status. Just another route to punish.

The rest of your post I completely agree with.

The KKK is a hategroup, you can't tell me they've done any good, or that they deserve anything but the hatred most people have for them.

It just seems unlikely churches will loose tax exempt status, now perhaps if churches begun to order the assaults or illegal activities towards other groups, then I can see some loss of rights there.

But otherwise...no, I don't see it. The US, for example, is still highly religious, even Canada, which is less religious hasn't done that, and we've legalized same sex marriage 100%

[Quin]

Try reading the posts and keeping up with them, Quin.

Equal protection and rights should belong to everyone. JaG is saying the end game is to take away those rights from certain groups that don't fit a certain political agenda.

I'm caught up.

There just is no secret agenda that those of us who ARE for gay marriage whisper about and plot about in secret.

As far as removing tax-exempt status... That's a very old dog.

No new tricks about it.

Does it get used?

Certainly.

It's political leverage.

The same way churches use funding & votes as political leverage.

The separation of church & state has never (to my knowledge) been at peace.

At BEST it's a balanced stalemate between equal adversaries.

It's not simply churches which hold tax exempt status, however.

Non-profits, sports leagues (the NFL has tax-exempt status), and others all carry it.

In order to KEEP it, the organization either has to do as suggested by JaG and fly under the radar, OR have the political weight to buck the system (as most established churches, including our own) do.

Q

Edited February 15, 2014 by Quin
Typo: I typed nonprofit when I meant to say tax exempt :P

[Quin]

You DO, get though, that tax-exempt status is not a right?

It's a privilege... Either earned (by flying under the radar) or held by having the political clout to make it more of a pain to remove than to let it lie.

Q

[Backroads]

Oh, I get that it's not a right, but why should the status requirements get to change willy-nilly? Why should groups be forced to fly under the radar?

And, good grief, what does the NFL and non-profits have to do with our discussion? Yes, yes, yes, I know many different groups have tax-empty status. Thanks for playing teacher.

And, yes, there are plenty of people who are working to affect tax-empty qualifications to have a very liberal bias. Maybe not you, but there's plenty of groups. A simple google search reveals it.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Backroads

[Lakumi]

how would the church change if it didn't have tax exempt status in the US

[LittleWyvern]

In order to KEEP it, the organization either has to do as suggested by JaG and fly under the radar, OR have the political weight to buck the system (as most established churches, including our own) do.

This seems kinda silly. Our church is a tax-exempt organization because it falls under the category of a charitable organization. Charitable organizations are tax-exempt in many countries as it is believed (in general) that such organizations provide a public good or support public services. In the US, for instance, religious organizations are explicitly listed in the tax code in regard to tax-exempt organizations. There isn't any flying under the radar or bucking the system involved here.

That being said, though, I highly doubt that the Church's tax-exempt status is in any danger unless massive changes (like removing charitable organizations from the list of tax-exempt organizations) are made to the tax code.