How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage?

[lx_theo]

Oh, it is, eh?

In Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U.S. 296), the 1st Amendment was applied to state and local governments by the US Supreme Court. In Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (447 U.S. 74), the Court decided the 1st Amendment only restricts the actions of the state, and not the actions of private entities. And let's not forget about Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (530 U.S. 640), where the Court upheld that Boy Scout's right to exclude homosexuals because they are a private entity, and not an agent of the state.

Simply put, the Constitution protects the right of the Church to deny service to homosexuals, and not the other way around.

Lets see...

Cantwell v. Connecticut

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not. Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not entail any threat of "bodily harm" and was protected religious speech.

No, that doesn't really apply. It applied Freedom of Speech, yes, but not the clause you've quoted outlying the Church's "right". In fact, what it says is that the state has the right to intervene if there's potential harm to a person. Adoption is not covered by freedom of speech.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

Since the California Constitution protected "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the shopping centers are privately owned," PruneYard could not prevent the students from soliciting on its property. The Court argued that it was within California's power to guarantee this expansive free speech right since it did not unreasonably intrude on the rights of private property owners.

Once again, this covers freedom of speech, not the part detailing religion. Basically, these first two mean nothing. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are not the same thing, which you've seem to have forgotten. Maybe your last one will have some relevance.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill," and that a gay troop leader's presence "would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the young members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."

This one actually applies. In this case, it does in fact protect the expression of religion within an organization. Now, this situation is A LOT different than the adoption issue. If you look at it, you see this is about leadership among a group of people who intentionally join an organization that uses those beliefs. Adoption, on the other hand, is over the livelihood of a child who did not have a choice in where they end up according to the Church.

A leadership role is one of influence in the scouts, in which homosexual influences is no ones the scouts want. They can't bar gay people from joining, though, just stop them from gaining influencing roles like scout leader. In the case of adoption, you see children that were driven without a choice into orphanages. These people did not choose to be involved with Catholic values, they were not given a choice. Then these Catholics choose to be the voice of the children, and continue this trend of them not giving them a choice.

At the very least, the children should be given a choice. They shouldn't be refused an option because another group of people don't like it. How many children do you think would prefer to go and live with two loving parents (regardless of their gender) or sit in an orphanage? If they've decided that they wish to go with the belief that its wrong for the homosexual couple to adopt, that's for them to decide. Of course, baby's who can't formulate opinions are a different story, but that's for another time.

In the case of the scouts, its a matter of an issue that effected the actual people who held the beliefs. Adoption doesn't. It effects the children, who have their own beliefs.


All sources from.... https://www.oyez.org/

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Lets see...

Cantwell v. Connecticut
No, that doesn't really apply. It applied Freedom of Speech, yes, but not the clause you've quoted outlying the Church's "right". In fact, what it says is that the state has the right to intervene if there's potential harm to a person. Adoption is not covered by freedom of speech.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Once again, this covers freedom of speech, not the part detailing religion. Basically, these first two mean nothing. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are not the same thing, which you've seem to have forgotten. Maybe your last one will have some relevance.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
This one actually applies. In this case, it does in fact protect the expression of religion within an organization. Now, this situation is A LOT different than the adoption issue. If you look at it, you see this is about leadership among a group of people who intentionally join an organization that uses those beliefs. Adoption, on the other hand, is over the livelihood of a child who did not have a choice in where they end up according to the Church.

A leadership role is one of influence in the scouts, in which homosexual influences is no ones the scouts want. They can't bar gay people from joining, though, just stop them from gaining influencing roles like scout leader. In the case of adoption, you see children that were driven without a choice into orphanages. These people did not choose to be involved with Catholic values, they were not given a choice. Then these Catholics choose to be the voice of the children, and continue this trend of them not giving them a choice.

At the very least, the children should be given a choice. They shouldn't be refused an option because another group of people don't like it. How many children do you think would prefer to go and live with two loving parents (regardless of their gender) or sit in an orphanage? If they've decided that they wish to go with the belief that its wrong for the homosexual couple to adopt, that's for them to decide. Of course, baby's who can't formulate opinions are a different story, but that's for another time.

In the case of the scouts, its a matter of an issue that effected the actual people who held the beliefs. Adoption doesn't. It effects the children, who have their own beliefs.


All sources from.... https://www.oyez.org/

I needed to cite Cantwell as it was the case where the 1st Amendment was applied to state and local governments. The Robins case applies because the underlying issue the Court decided was whether the 1st Amendment applied to private entities, or just the government. The Scouts case is the meat of my argument, yes.

The problem with your argument is that minors have no federally protected legal right to determine their fate in issues of custody. This is because of the fact that they are minors, who only enjoy very limited legal rights in comparison to legal adults. A minor is subject to the will of their legal guardian(s), and the Church is the legal guardian of these minors until they are adopted or turn 18.

 

[lx_theo]

I needed to cited Cantwell as it was the case where the 1st Amendment was applied to state and local governments. The Robins case applies because the underlying issue the Court decided was whether the 1st Amendment applied to private entities, or just the government. The Scouts case is the meat of my argument, yes.

The problem with your argument is that minors have no federally protected legal right to determine their fate in issues of custody. This is because of the fact that they are minors, who only enjoy very limited legal rights in comparison to legal adults. A minor is subject to the will of their legal guardian(s), and the Church is the legal guardian of these minors until they are adopted or turn 18.

Like I said, those cases only apply those as parts of 1st Amendment, not the entirety of it.

And thats not entirely true. I went and did some research, and restrictions of liberty of anyone, minors included, must be based in a State's agenda. It must have adequete justification to remove these liberties, might I cite Meyer V. Nebraska

Facts of the Case:
Nebraska, along with other states, prohibited the teaching of modern foreign languages to grade school children. Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under this law.



Question:
Does the Nebraska statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause?



Conclusion:
Yes, the Nebraska law is unconstitutional. Nebraska violated the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Liberty means more than freedom from bodily restraint. State regulation of liberty must be reasonably related to a proper state objective. The legislature's view of reasonableness was subject to supervision by the courts. The legislative purpose of the law was to promote assimilation and civic development. But these purposes were not adequate to justify interfering with Meyer's liberty to teach or the liberty of parents to employ him during a "time of peace and domestic tranquillity."

Looking at this does lead me to believe that there is in fact more liberties being given to people by the Mass. law than there is being restricted. As my argument laid out before, precedent does not follow with the religious right of expression being taken away because it is not in direct influence of the Church and its message. Instead, it gives homosexual couples a greater liberty of adoption to match everyone else, and gives the orphans more liberty of options.

As far as I'm concerned, this all adds up almost perfectly. Almost moreso than I thought possible.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Like I said, those cases only apply those as parts of 1st Amendment, not the entirety of it.

And thats not entirely true. I went and did some research, and restrictions of liberty of anyone, minors included, must be based in a State's agenda. It must have adequete justification to remove these liberties, might I cite Meyer V. Nebraska

Looking at this does lead me to believe that there is in fact more liberties being given to people by the Mass. law than there is being restricted. As my argument laid out before, precedent does not follow with the religious right of expression being taken away because it is not in direct influence of the Church and its message. Instead, it gives homosexual couples a greater liberty of adoption to match everyone else, and gives the orphans more liberty of options.

As far as I'm concerned, this all adds up almost perfectly. Almost moreso than I thought possible.

The case you cited is a flawed argument. In that case, you cited a state law that prohibited the teaching of the German language. This is state action. In the Mass. case, the actor is a private entity; thus, the Constitution does not restrict their actions. What a minor's legal guardian decides to do with them does not constitute state action. When the state infringes on the liberties of a minor, then there may be a constitutional cause of action for a lawsuit.

You are also using the wrong analysis to examine this law. You are using the rational basis analysis, which is not applicable to Free Exercise cases. Rational basis (which is the level of protection homosexuals get) only requires that the state have a legitimate interest, and that the law be rationally related to that interest. The correct analysis is strict scrutiny. This requires the State of Mass. to have a compelling interest in restricting the liberties of the Church, the law must be narrowly tailored in advancing those interests, and the state must use the least restrictive means possible on the Church's liberties in doing so.

 

[lx_theo]

The case you cited is a flawed argument. In that case, you cited a state law that prohibited the teaching of the German language. This is state action. In the Mass. case, the actor is a private entity; thus, the Constitution does not restrict their actions. What a minor's legal guardian decides to do with them does not constitute state action. When the state infringes on the liberties of a minor, then there may be a constitutional cause of action for a lawsuit.

You are also using the wrong analysis to examine this law. You are using the rational basis analysis, which is not applicable to Free Exercise cases. Rational basis (which is the level of protection homosexuals get) only requires that the state have a legitimate interest, and that the law be rationally related to that interest. The correct analysis is strict scrutiny. This requires the State of Mass. to have a compelling interest in restricting the liberties of the Church, the law must be narrowly tailored in advancing those interests, and the state must use the least restrictive means possible on the Church's liberties in doing so.

COMPELLING is to give liberties to those people, and allowing more children to go to loving homes. City of Boernes V. Flores states that there is states are the ones who deem what is appropriate in regulation of free expression of religion for a compelling interest. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye V. Hialeah and Employment Division V. Smith lay out that a law must specifically burden religious practice for it to violate Free Religious expression. Adoption is something the Catholic Church does, it is not the religion itself. Its doesn't not burden the religion, it burdens something they decide to participate in.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

COMPELLING is to give liberties to those people, and allowing more children to go to loving homes. City of Boernes V. Flores states that there is states are the ones who deem what is appropriate in regulation of free expression of religion for a compelling interest. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye V. Hialeah and Employment Division V. Smith lay out that a law must specifically burden religious practice for it to violate Free Religious expression. Adoption is something the Catholic Church does, it is not the religion itself. Its doesn't not burden the religion, it burdens something they decide to participate in.

You met one of three prongs of the strict scrutiny analysis. Now meet the other two, and you've successfully defended the law's constitutionality. The Flores case dealt with a Act of Congress call the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The holding in that case was that the Act was beyond the scope of Congress' enforcement power. That Act was passed in direct response to the Smith decision. In this decision, (this is the only one you cited that helps your argument), the Court upheld the state's ability to ban the use of peyote. The other cases you cited actually hinders your argument since the holding of the Court was against the state and in favor of the folk religion church's right to perform animal sacrifices. Jurisprudence over many, many years has upheld the state's ability to ban the use of recreational drugs, although I personally disagree with that belief.

In the same respect, Mass.'s law could past constitutional muster very easily by providing exemptions for religious organizations that oppose homosexuality. That would meet the strict scrutiny standard.

 

[Rionix]

My opinion

This is all my opinion:

Overview

Why do people can't accept that not everyone is the same. There are really people born that way. They can't control it, its just there inside them. A part of them. Now if someone ridicule gays and lesbians for being like that? Then that person is very narrow-minded. For the gays and lesbians: why would you hide it? Are you afraid that everyone will look at you like you are some alien wandering earth? Please don't hide it. Its you. No one can take it from you because you are you and they are themselves. Everyone has the right to live their life the way they want it to. Do they trouble society? No. Then why reject them? As long as their not causing any trouble then we have no right to reject them.

Same-sex Marriage

Now on the topic of marriage. I don't recall the meaning of marriage as for man and woman ONLY, even in bible, there's nothing in there that says so. I thought marriage is a pledge of love. So why do people don't accept same-sex marriage? Is it yucky? Is it sad? Depressing? Look at yourselves first please. If they love each other (even if its a ManxMan, WomanxWoman), in my honest opinion, they have the right. As long as they love each other, they should be given the right to get married.

I am not gay but I understand them. We are all humans, each should have the right to live their life the way they want it to be.

 

[Pwnyta Jockey]

By all means, if Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez wanna wed, let them.


Have no objections as I could care less.

Any objection would be from same-sex "parenting". Elton John for example. Nothing wrongs me about it. Just baffles me when I think on it.

 

[johnny18]

Same-sex marriage. I'm for it.
I define the word Marriage as a commitment between 2 people, 2 persons, not only between opposite genders. ^_^

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Same-sex marriage. I'm for it.
I define the word Marriage as a commitment between 2 people, 2 persons, not only between opposite genders. ^_^

Why does it have to only be 2 people? You can have a commited relationship with multiple people.

 

[Steven]

Why does it have to only be 2 people? You can hav a commited relationship with multiple people.

This. I am personally someone who is monogamous, but I see no reason why more than two people can't be in a loving relationship as long as they're all consenting adults and treated equally.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

This. I am personally someone who is monogamous, but I see no reason why more than two people can't be in a loving relationship as long as they're all consenting adults and treated equally.

And let's not forget that the ban on polygmay has Christian roots just like the ban on same-sex marriage does.

 

[Cooker]

Personally, it kind of disturbs me and goes against my religious beliefs. But this (US anyway) is the land of the free and there is not legimate reason for it to be illegal- homosexual marriage doesn't impede on anyone else's freedoms, last time I checked. Since this doesn't actually affect me I'm not like an all-out supporter but I do believe in equality and freedom. Hopefully one day we'll look back on this topic as we view interracial marriages nowadays.

 

[kevcrash]

And let's not forget that the ban on polygmay has Christian roots just like the ban on same-sex marriage does.

Call me naive but polygamy is such a sleazy kind of thing.. I'm not saying that it should be outlawed or whatever, but it doesn't seem very.. safe.

Also, I know many people who would date 2 people at once, but no one who would get married to both people. That kind of relationship, in the end, would end in someone's heart being broken.

 

[Steven]

Personally, it kind of disturbs me and goes against my religious beliefs. But this (US anyway) is the land of the free and there is not legimate reason for it to be illegal- homosexual marriage doesn't impede on anyone else's freedoms, last time I checked. Since this doesn't actually affect me I'm not like an all-out supporter but I do believe in equality and freedom. Hopefully one day we'll look back on this topic as we view interracial marriages nowadays.

Although I am disturbed by you being disturbing by this, I have to say..kudos to you. You put your own personal bias aside and realized that it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's just two people getting married. Although you don't like it, you realize that's not a reason for it to be illegal.

You, sir, are smart, and you get the Win Prize of the Day. Why can't everyone be logical? ;_;

Call me naive but polygamy is such a sleazy kind of thing.. I'm not saying that it should be outlawed or whatever, but it doesn't seem very.. safe.

Also, I know many people who would date 2 people at once, but no one who would get married to both people. That kind of relationship, in the end, would end in someone's heart being broken.

You should watch Sister Wives sometime.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Bay Area rapper Lil' B getting death threats over album titled "I'm Gay"

https://24hourhiphop.com/hip+hop+News/Lil+B+Receiving+Death+Threats+due+to+%22I'm+Gay%22+Album+Title/10568/

Idk if any of you listen to rap music, but in case you don't know who this guy is, I'll fill you in. Lil' B was a member of a group called The Pack. They are most well-known for the song "Vans" where they promote Vans shoes. Anyway, Lil' B (who isn't actually homosexual) announced that his next album would be called "I'm Gay" as a way to show his support for the LGBT community. Apparently, he's receiving death threats over it. The hip-hop community is very homophobic, and I'm glad this man is taking a stand against it. This is especially true since we are both Bay Area natives.

Here's a quote from him (it's kind of explicit):
"I could wear the tiniest pink shirt, I could have a hard hat on with the tiny pants going 'YMCA', but I'm not gay. I respect the gay community, you can do whatever you want it's no problem because it's all about pushing love and positivity. And if you're a gay man that's more girls for me. You can take the guy butt and I'll take the girl butt."

I posted this here because I felt like it's more of a discussion about attitudes towards LGBT people rather than about music, btw.

 

[-ty-]

I saw a few people mention parallels between same-sex marriage and interacial marriage. Well, that argument is still not going to be very compelling for many Evangelicals in the United States; last month there was a public opionion poll for Republicans in Missouri, one subject was, "do you disagree with interacial marriage?" The results showed that the majority of Missouri Republicans disagreed with interacial marriage, and that it should be illegal. The religious culture wars are really starting to pick-up, and for the first time gay marriage is a hot-button topic for the up-coming election. I believe alot of this has to do with polarization. Compared to a few decades ago, GBLT groups have much more support (GLAAD). With that being said, there has been hundreds of millions of dollars funded for anti-gay groups, like the Family Research Councel (DONT GET ANY FACTS FROM THEM!!). Since more money and outreach has been going into both sides, more people has very strong opinions about same-sex issues. I think that the most messed up thing about this topic is the fact that there are so many athiest heterosexual couple who get married, but gay people cannot because it destroys marriages sanctity?! I would be all for just having civil unions, but unfortunately, there about 75 percent less benefits and spousal-related laws that apply to civil unions; furthermore, there is not equity. So I believe that all couples should be recognized as marriages, or all should be recognized as civil unions.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I saw a few people mention parallels between same-sex marriage and interacial marriage. Well, that argument is still not going to be very compelling for many Evangelicals in the United States; last month there was a public opionion poll for Republicans in Missouri, one subject was, "do you disagree with interacial marriage?" The results showed that the majority of Missouri Republicans disagreed with interacial marriage, and that it should be illegal. The religious culture wars are really starting to pick-up, and for the first time gay marriage is a hot-button topic for the up-coming election. I believe alot of this has to do with polarization. Compared to a few decades ago, GBLT groups have much more support (GLAAD). With that being said, there has been hundreds of millions of dollars funded for anti-gay groups, like the Family Research Councel (DONT GET ANY FACTS FROM THEM!!). Since more money and outreach has been going into both sides, more people has very strong opinions about same-sex issues. I think that the most messed up thing about this topic is the fact that there are so many athiest heterosexual couple who get married, but gay people cannot because it destroys marriages sanctity?! I would be all for just having civil unions, but unfortunately, there about 75 percent less benefits and spousal-related laws that apply to civil unions; furthermore, there is not equity. So I believe that all couples should be recognized as marriages, or all should be recognized as civil unions.

Let's also not forget the fact that the majority of racial minorities disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds. It seems like the comparisons angered black voters to vote in droves against same-sex marriage in 2008. I would also like to point out that the 75% less benefits has nothing to do with whether a same-sex relationship is a marriage or some type of civil union. Even same-sex marriages are denied those same rights as civil unions are. The problem is not the term used, but an Act of Congress called the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed during the Clinton administration under the Republican Congress.

 

[Exploding Bunny]

great..... more homophobia..... I respect this rapper Lil' B now and the more girls for me idea is great, I'm gonna incorporate that into my many reasons for supporting homosexuals.

 

[Percy Thrillington]

Homophobia still rampant in the twenty first century? Shocking!

Humans aren't as sophisticated as we like to think.