How to steal a frame. Gay Marriage as an issue of Religious Freedon

[mentalslavery]

The fundamentalist have given us a golden opportunity and we have not yet realized it. Gay marriage is a matter of religious freedom. What!! How could this be? Wait for it..............Wait for it


Im a UU (Unitarian Universalist), we are christian, we marry gay's. Reformed Jews marry gays. Other religions marry gays. Our religious freedom is being violated. We are free to decide what we consider as a marriage and should not be subjected to state approval. We are free to marry gays and not be subjected to the critical review of other denominations.

Why should my religious freedom to participant in a gay wedding that is recognized by the state as equal to other religions be violated? Why is it that certain christian denominations (fundies) are the sole providers of the definition of marriage? Why is the state acting as a mediator between religious denominations? Is that big government or small government? I believe in family values which is why I don't want to proposition 8 to dissolve marriages because it is destroying families. Why are we taking a popular vote to decide if other peoples families should be destroyed?

If I disagree with another christian about religious beliefs, rituals, or values is my religious freedom to practice and believe as my church instructs protected?

Currently, my church, the UU's (and others) believe gay marriage is LEGITIMATE. We disagree with other churches on this religious matter. The state can't constitutionally tell us any different.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-STEAL THE FRAME.

[sandnsea]

1. Mormons and polygamy

What basis did the courts use to decide they could make that illegal. It's a good point, I would think the UUs or somebody would have taken it to court by now if they didn't have legal advice to the contrary.

[boppers]

5. On the Mormons... whoo boy.

Here's the biggie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

[sandnsea]

6. It could be argued a religious duty

They would have to prove gay marriage would "impair the public interest" and I don't think they could do that. I think it should be argued as a violation of religious freedom. People are being forced to have sex outside marriage, forced to violate one of the Ten Commandments.

[mentalslavery]

8. Good points here. NT

[mentalslavery]

7. Well, thats not necessarily true. I honestly don't know what advice

UU's (or others) have been given, but I do know that UU's aren't the most legal savvy or financially sound of churches. Something I hope will change in the future. I'm working on trying to form a class action lawsuit which would represent the churches who marry gays. I would appreciate any help I could get.

[sandnsea]

15. I think you need a test case

May as well go with Texas since they they had the case where they tried to claim UU's weren't a religion, and they had the gay sex law that the Supreme Court overturned. I don't know that you need a class action. Just one gay couple who want to get married in a UU church and can't. Off you go to the Supreme Court. As far as I know. You just need a lawyer or money to pay a lawyer, seems to me.

Actually, PM ronnykmarshall. He's in Cali, but I bet he'd do this in a second.

[Kalyke]

21. Considering most of the girls polygamists marry are just that: girls -

I think the issue is moot.

A 13-year-old can't give consent.

Maybe that's the difference.

[boppers]

25. 13 year olds? You're thinking of FLDS.

There's a lot more polygamy out there than makes it into the press.

Check out, for example:
http://www.christianpolygamy.com/
http://www.truthbearer.org/

Along with:
http://www.polyamorysociety.org/

(Poly folks generally don't fight the same fights, but it's another "multi-partner" situation.

[sandnsea]

26. That's a completely different law

I'm sure gay marriage wouldn't include children either.

[moriah]

23. I personally think polygamy should be legal, too -- BUT!

I believe it should be permissible only when ALL current members in the marriage agree. A person should not be allowed to marry another person while still married if their current spouse doesn't want to share.

I know a woman with two "husbands", she's legally married to one of them but the other lives with them and they're happy. If they can do it and not significantly affect the community they live in or cause problems for her son (he calls both of them Dad, neither are his biological father), I don't see why others cannot.

[sandnsea]

27. I think because of the roots of Mormonism

wherein somebody just up and created a whole new religion one day, it was a lot easier to rule that this new behavior didn't meet the traditional standards of religious duty. But using the traditional Ten Commandments is a whole different thing, as it pertains to the protections provided in the Constitution.

I might think more on polygamy if it wasn't always some old leach seducing teen-agers into his harem.

[jberryhill]

31. "But using the traditional Ten Commandments is a whole different thing"

I see.... and how many wives did David, or any number of Old Testament folks have?

[sandnsea]

38. Not relevant

All the little nitpicks in the Old Testament are not paid attention to.

[jberryhill]

41. There is implied polygamy in the new testament....

Titus 1:6 "An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient."

That "an elder" is to be "the husband of but one wife" implies that men other than elders either are or can be.

[sandnsea]

43. nitpick away

To be an elder in the Mormon church is the exact opposite, or was. In any event, this is completely irrelevant unless you want to say only an elder has to marry a woman and everybody else can do what they want, which would also open the religious door to gay marriage.

[jberryhill]

47. Non sequitur

If you follow the subthread, I wasn't referring to Mormonism.

[xchrom]

2. cool. -- i'll go with that. nt

[Hellataz]

3. Great Post K&R!

Great way turn their ideas back around on them. If we respect their religious views then they should respect yours.

[mentalslavery]

10. Exactly. Hows that for "reaching out" and finding

"common ground". My hope is that more people will understand that both "reaching out" and finding "common ground", can be something different from what most are assuming. Additionally, if we treat their views with "respect" first, then we gain the moral authority "edge" to demand that they respect ours. We can make this tactic play out well in the MSM and it might be a rallying point from which to build popular support. Popular support, unfortunately, is necessary for legislative or judicial action. My personal goal is legislative or judicial action that will permanently protect existing gay marriages and allow other to realize their rights despite the cultural and political climate of region. I would prefer that this action take place without Obama involvement, because some will use this as a rallying point from which to drive that old familiar wedge between us.

Additionally, if we can steal the frame, previous research on social movements would predict that it would be a significant advantage for us. I am hoping this tactic might catch on. Please spread the word.

[Divine Discontent]

4. great point - it's a religious viewpoint, also! we have many argument points

from which to start our argument stating Gays have the right to marry.

[AntiFascist]

9. K&R, excellent frame !

There is a lawsuit filed against Prop 8 on behalf of the minority of churches who feel that Prop 8 could eventually lead to the infringement of their own right to religious freedoms, but even that lawsuit seems to miss the point that 'gay marriage' could be viewed as an issue of religious freedom in and of itself.

[mentalslavery]

12. Can you get me a link to that text? Or more info on that suit.

That would be really helpful. Thanks in advance

[AntiFascist]

13. Sure...

my post here contains a link to the document filed with the CA Supreme Court:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4486854

[AntiFascist]

14. This document should also be read for its content...

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168047-letter-support-ecumencial.pdf

[mentalslavery]

19. thanks, thats big-time nt

[H2O Man]

11. True.

I've said this several times on DU, most recently on a thread about when the USSC might be expected to rule correctly on the issue of gay marriage. I suggested there are two ways to approach it; I think that Amendment 1 is the one with the most potential for success.

The church my wife and daughters attend has a lesbian couple. Everyone in the church considers them married, and views the government as failing to honor the couple's status. The rural community is, by and large, of the same opinion.

One of my hobbies is legal research, and to forward ideas to a few friends who are attorneys. I've been looking at various related matters, specifically Native American "freedom of religion" cases that have helped lead to the progressive 1978 and 1991 federal legislation. In some NA communities, pre-reservation era, gay marriage was recognized as being as valid as any other adult relationships.

I think that even with the current conservative USSC, we could get a 5-4 victory within two years.

[sandnsea]

16. This is a good idea

What is the argument against this? Why isn't Ronny or somebody already doing this?

[H2O Man]

17. Thanks.

I could only speculate on why this hasn't been tried. My guess would be that it goes towards what has traditionally been considered the "strength" of the opposition's position. Being an old boxer, I always have always thought that there are distinct advantages of attacking the opponent's strength.

There should be an effort to find a strong "test case" to move up to the federal court level in 2009, to be argued in the USSC in 2010 (or as soon as possible). It actually would have the best chance of gaining public support and achieving victory.

[Cha]

18. Excellent framing..and what's

not factual about it? I love Unitarians..they're the best. I have a positive feeling that out of all this "pain and struggle" that victory will come from the "real dialogue" that is being spread across our country.

[moriah]

20. That's something I've mentioned several times.

I am an ordained minister in my faith.

I have performed handfastings for gay couples, but a reading of Arkansas law shows that it could be considered illegal to do so, even if I am not signing a marriage license or telling the couple they are legally married.

That's just flat-out wrong, and IS a violation of religious freedom.

[JBear]

33. But that is different...

I agree that this interpretation of Arkansas law is a violation of religious freedom. They can not restrict someone from having a ceremony that harms no one and violates no other law. In this case, a handfasting would be just like another dinner party (not to belittle the subject).

This does not provide a framework for claiming religious persecution by the anti-gay marriage law any more than the Reynolds case does for polygamy (age of the two referred to religions notwithstanding....but that is another argument).

:bounce:

[dsc]

22. This would be directly analogous to Catholic annulments

They aren't valid legally but are valid religiously. UU gays can get married by UU ministers just not have any legal rights associated with the marriage. Similarly a Catholic couple can get a Catholic annulment but unless they also get a legal one or a legal divorce, they are still married.

[moriah]

24. Yes, but some states laws are written where it says that it is illegal....

... to perform a marriage ceremony without a license, even if the marriage is not recognized or intended to be recognized legally.

THAT is wrong.

[mentalslavery]

45. Its unconsitutional. I thought that I had the freedom to practice

religion without state intervention? We are at a defining moment where we, as a nation, must decide if marriage is a religious ritual or a legal contract. Up until now, it has been a little of this and a little of that. The state needs to explain to me, and all like-minded others, why to same-sex couples can't engage in this legal contract. As for the church, UU's will marry same sex couples, so their is a pre-existing religious service for such an occasion. As for the legal contract aspect of a marriage, which specifies legal rights and obligations,the state must explain how their previous practices are not institutional discrimination. The claim they make, "Marriage is between an Man and a Women", is questionable because the state has no constitutional authority to define social institutions such as marriage. Speaking for all UU's (not!), either way, the state can kiss our radical a*&^&$&#ses!


Folks, our real battle is with the state, not Warren. Let the blowhard blow hard, he will be on the wrong side of history as these simpletons always are. Same-sexed couples need to be able to sign the document that decree's rights. Civil Rights! UU's, and other like-minded churches, will provide caring, supportive, religious environments for rituals or ceremonies should individuals decide that necessary or desirable. Assuming that we convince every fundie same-sex marriage is legitimate, that does not result in legal protections. That will not result in different procedures and practices at your local "county court house". Keep your eyes on the prize!! They tried to make king lose focus by interjecting religion. At one point in time, it was considered a legitimate "perspective", that races where to be separate because the bible said so. King, played the religious tip, but focused his civil action on the state, not racist churches. Keep that in mind. He forced conflict between local law and protesters. Not local churches and protesters. I'm working on some direct civil disobedience action tactics. More later.

[sandnsea]

28. But if a lawsuit forced the issue

Then the only grounds they could oppose to gay marriage would be that religious marriage and civil marriage are separate issues. If they did that, then they do away with the sanctity of marriage argument so you win anyway.

[mentalslavery]

46. Which means the state has established religion.

If my church can marry gays, but those marriages don't have the legal rights associated with marriage, then the state has adopted a definition of marriage that is not only religious, but specifically denominational. And it is not analogous to catholic annulments because after Catholics perform the annulment ritual, the couple can file the paperwork with the state that begins the legal process or either annulment or divorce. After we perform a gay wedding, the couple is barred from filing the associated paperwork which begins the legal process of securing the rights and obligations associated with marriage. If, our couples could file that paperwork with the state, we would not be discussing this. The reason given (the barring from legal marriage filing) is that certain, not all, Christian denominations define marriage as a union between men and women. That is, constitutionally, a very weak position because why not just go with the UU's definition of marriage. How about that? Why does the state adopt the fundies definition of marriage?

The central question is, if the state has adopted one religious definition of marriage over others, then is it establishing religion? I mean fuck! Didn't we already fight this battle, but the topic was divorce?

[mkultra]

29. WOW, this argument line is a killer

seriously, this is the one that could win it.

We really should explore this more as an argument could be made that the constitution ALREADY protects gay marriage.

[JBear]

34. That is essentially what the Mass decision said...

Though not in the same context as the above post. It said that the Mass Constitution protected the rights of all equally and showing no other harm caused by gay couples marrying declared that prohibiting it was unconstitutional.

:bounce:

[mkultra]

36. yeah, i think that decision was based more on general rights

rather than right to practice religion freely.

From my perspective, this argument is a real winner because it attacks the core of the opposition.

Essentially:

A vague case is often made regarding marriage being traditionally between a man and a women. i.e. Tribal tradition lead to religious sanctity which eventually lead to codification from a historical perspective.

In America however, those opposing gay marriage do so based on a hidden religious context that they put forth as a construct of tradition. If a legitimate case can be made that marriage of any type is religiously supported by a mainstream religion, then its a simple step to cross the religious freedom line to gain those rights.

In fact, even the bible makes mention of a possible homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan mentioning that David loved Jonathan above the love of any woman and the two of them made a covenant.

It inst far fetched and is probably the argument best suited for American courts.

[mentalslavery]

48. It inst far fetched and is probably the argument best suited for American courts.

Thanks, thats high props. Hope it leaves up to it one day.

[Clio the Leo]

30. Joel Osteen was asked on a recent appearance on Larry King...

.... what his thoughts were as to a ban on gay marriage violating a person's civil rights. His response was "what's that? I haven't been schooled to that yet?"

And I think he was dead serious .... and I would venture to guess that's how most who are in favor of the ban think .... they are ONLY thinking about it as a sin ..... no concept about how it violates 14th Amendment.

[JBear]

32. I think that we have to clearly lay out the differences here...

Surrounding the gay marriage issue are things involving religious freedom on both sides, slippery slope issues involving polygamy and a host of other things, and equal treatment under the law. So lets break this down:

Current law in all states allows two people to marry. In most of them it is traditionally considered a man and a woman.
No state allows (in statute anyway) marriage of more than two people.
No state allows marriage of a human and a non-human.
No state allows marriage of "close" blood relatives.
All states allow for marriage to be either a civil act (requiring no intervention from a church) or a religious one (where some "clergy" presides over a ceremony).
All states require a document of intent to marry (commonly referred to as a marriage license) and a legal filing after the act to obtain a certificate of marriage (please correct me if I missed something here...)

So lets start with religious freedoms:
Because there is a legal filing required to call it marriage, it has been commonly held that the church service is not the binding part of this. Therefore (and it happens all over) you can have a church marriage without a legal marriage. No church is being told that they have to file paperwork on all "marriage" services they perform. The end result is that legally (tax wise, benefit wise etc) the couple is not married. Allowing gay marriage or disallowing it neither infringes on this or changes it. There is no standing therefore for arguments relating to churches who perform gay marriage from being discriminated against.

Now lets flip the arguement:
To my knowledge there is no law, court finding or precedent that forces a church to marry anyone. Even if they perform marriages to certain couples, they are not required to offer them to all who seek them. To do so would indeed violate the 1st amendment as a restriction on the free practice of religion. This would not be the case if there were no other alternative, but since any couple can file with a civil servant (justice of the peace for example) and have them perform a legal marriage, there is no harm done to any party by allowing the church to do its own discrimination. Therefore, there is no standing for a church to come back and argue that they are forced to violate their religion by a mandate to marry gay couples.

Slippery slope:
I think that the Reynolds case is fairly clear on how allowing gay marriage is completely unlike polygamy. First point is that there is no 14th amendment protection for polygamy as the statutes are uniform. The benefits, tax codes, survivorship rights all are written from the perspective of two people in a marriage. The part that the Reynolds jury came to is that there was a clear violation of an explicit statute when it came to polygamy. This was a blanket restriction not based on being perjorative to any particular religion but came from generally accepted law of the time. Further to overturn this based on 1st amendment was to say that anyone could come up with a "religion" to circumvent a law. They found that he was free to believe whatever he wanted, but to participate in the legal act of marriage he had to follow the law. Oddly enough, this is the main point that people use to deny gay marriage too. It also serves as a way to not allow "religion" as a way of overturning restrictions on other kinds of marriage and pretty much puts all the slippery slope arguments to rest.

Equal treatment under the law:
This is the part that Osteen was asked about and really should be clear as mud to anyone. Marriage rights are written referring to a couple. They rarely, except in the most recent changes due to the gay marriage issue, refer to man and woman, but rather the couple. They afford rights to either spouse equally. Denying the right of any adult couple to marry (with one exception) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The noted exception is where denying equal protection is done with the public interest - close blood relatives or endogamy. Various arguments could be made about endogamy and its prohibition as it relates to gay marriage as there are no biological children involved, but equal to the Reynolds case, it is outlawed uniformly across the US.

So the only question left is how affording equal treatment under the law for a gay couple as a straight couple wishing to marry would either violate the rights of another individual or group or result in an unintended special class. To date, no one has convinced me that either form of harm (standing) exists. When we look at the big picture, the answer should be clear!

:bounce:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Good argument

IMHO the whole fact that civil laws have been enacted against gay marriage exclusively on religious grounds has been a real travesty for a supposedly pluralistic country and one in which a state of separation between church and state is supposed to exist. And gay marriage is not even something at ALL religions/denominations agree on like, say, murder, theft, rape, etc and if there is a legitimate secular reason to oppose gay marriage I haven't heard it. Frankly, religious beliefs should NOT be allowed to be codified into law and that some compelling secular reason must be also be advanced for something to be legitimately codified into law IMHO.

[Terran]

37. But that's the same argument some of them make already.

Fundies claim that legal same-sex marriage infringes their freedom of religion (which I think is a bullshit argument). So, if you say the lack of same-sex marriage infringes yours, I can't see that any better. All religious institutions already have the freedom to perform same-sex marriages or not as they see fit; there's no discrimination there, and that wouldn't change if same-sex marriages were sanctioned on a governmental level.

Sorry, but I see this as purely a matter of federal government--the function of federal government in this area is to grant status to its citizens based on maritial status. The government is doing that selectively now, in violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Const. It can't be seen as a religious matter.

[JBear]

39. But why is it bullshit?

Basically the claim that same sex marriage infringes on the freedom of anyone's religion is completely bogus. There is absolutely no harm done to someone of fundamentalist christian nature when two other people get married. Their church has the freedom to perform marriages to whom they please. If they choose to not perform same sex marriages that is their choice and the first amendment guarantees it.

So putting Jonathan and David aside, how does the marriage of two men infringe on the religious freedom of any other person?

:bounce:

[Terran]

42. That's what I'm saying

There's misunderstanding here, because I'm agreeing exactly with what you're saying. No one has to have a religious ceremony to be considered married, but they do need governmental recognition. So saying that denial of same-sex marriage rights is a violation of one's *religious* freedom makes a an argument based on religion, and technically religion plays no part in this issue. It's governments selectively applying the law that is the problem. So I think we both disagree with the OP, no?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

40. Non-starter. Polygamy, Mormonism. Already fully adjudicated.

[JuniperLea]

44. Not to mention the fact that Jesus never told anyone to force God's laws upon others

What the Fundy's are doing is trying to take away the free will that God gave everyone. The nerve, I mean really.

Forcing everyone to obey whatever laws they THINK God gave negates the reason for this great Earth experiment anyway. Why let anyone out of the garden in the first place?

If God wanted his/her laws forced upon all, I think he/she would have done that already.