Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

04/09/2013 01:34:55 PM · #6152

Originally posted by myqyl:

Where do your rights end and my rights begin?

Where belief is concerned, your rights end at action in a public setting. Like any other opinion you are free to believe whatever you like, but you have no right to exercise that belief against others. Per Thomas Jefferson: "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." This is not merely a courtesy toward minority groups, but a protection for the believers themselves after a long history of sectarian violence in the colonies. Interestingly, this mutual tolerance as a principle of government was first established with the founding of the colony of Maryland by Lord Baltimore Calvertâ�� my direct ancestor.

04/09/2013 02:47:22 PM · #6153

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by myqyl:
California put up a law that made no such provision... How'd that work out?

No it didn't. The California Supreme Court ruled that the California Constitution provides for equal treatment under the law regardless of gender. The voters then (by a slim majority) amended the Constitution to forbid same-sex marriages. That provision (Prop. 8) is what is now being challenged a a violation of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Sorry, I haven't lived in Cali for about 8 years. I could have sworn I voted on this back around 2002 or so. I could be wrong, that was many Oxycontin ago.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by myqyl:
Perhaps I'm a tad too pragmatic, but I always felt civil rights was an issue best won, instead of argued over endlessly. The strategy I suggest will likely lead to ultimate victory much sooner than the one you propose, and the sooner the "law" changes, the sooner society will change too, and we won't need the law anymore. Isn't that the ultimate goal? To not need a law for something so simply "right"? A little compromise and letting people have space and time to adjust will get us all to the goal a lot faster than hollering at each other and hauling folks into court

Perhaps you should ask some gay vets how well that Don't Ask/Don't Tell "compromise" worked out for them ...

It could be argued that without "Don't ask / Don't tell" gay service-people would still be in the same boat they were in back in 1990... DA/DT was a bad step, but a necessary step to get to where we are. It could be argued that the Emancipation Proclamation should never have been enacted because it didn't allow that freed slaves could sue a caterer if they refused to bake a cake for their wedding... I doubt the slaves set free thought it was too small a first step.

04/09/2013 04:13:41 PM · #6154

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by myqyl:
Where do your rights end and my rights begin?

Where belief is concerned, your rights end at action in a public setting. Like any other opinion you are free to believe whatever you like, but you have no right to exercise that belief against others. Per Thomas Jefferson: "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." This is not merely a courtesy toward minority groups, but a protection for the believers themselves after a long history of sectarian violence in the colonies. Interestingly, this mutual tolerance as a principle of government was first established with the founding of the colony of Maryland by Lord Baltimore Calvertâ�� my direct ancestor.

I like that... a lot...

"all men (and 200 years from now we can include women too) shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

But this doesn't say they have no right to act on their beliefs. Merely that their civil capacities will not be lesser or greater because they stated their belief. I'm not sure how this can be taken to mean that when their civil "responsibility" (very different than capacities) conflict with their moral (or religious) imperatives that they must discard the later for the sake of the former. In fact I read this as saying quite the opposite. Jefferson seems to be saying you can NOT force someone to act in opposition to their religion ( and by argument to maintain) by leveling civil penalties (shall in no wise diminish, their civil capacities) Am I missing a deeper point?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/09/2013 06:08:26 PM · #6155

Originally posted by myqyl:

Am I missing a deeper point?

Indeed, and a clearly stated one. All men are free to profess, and by argument (not action) maintain, religious opinions, but those opinions may not affect their civil capacities. You are free to privately believe bacon is abhorrent or women should not have power over men, however you cannot put those beliefs ahead of the rights of others. The premise was established because of, and in stark contrast to, early colonial models that led to such persecutions as Massachusetts officially banning Quakers from their colony and hanging those who dared enter. This is not only desirable, but necessary for a free and civil society... which is precisely why we DON'T have gas station attendants and restaurants refusing service to "your kind."

04/10/2013 08:36:06 AM · #6156

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by myqyl:
Am I missing a deeper point?

Indeed, and a clearly stated one. All men are free to profess, and by argument (not action) maintain, religious opinions, but those opinions may not affect their civil capacities. You are free to privately believe bacon is abhorrent or women should not have power over men, however you cannot put those beliefs ahead of the rights of others. The premise was established because of, and in stark contrast to, early colonial models that led to such persecutions as Massachusetts officially banning Quakers from their colony and hanging those who dared enter. This is not only desirable, but necessary for a free and civil society... which is precisely why we DON'T have gas station attendants and restaurants refusing service to "your kind."

I can see (kind of) how you are interpreting this... However the Constitution puts it in different terms.

Originally posted by FirstAmendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

This doesn't say, as you interpret Jefferson to have said, that we are free to talk about our religion, but that we are free of any law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... This states we are free to practice (with action) or exercise our religion, not merely by argument (no action) maintain...

Of course all of this, while fascinating (at least to me) is moot. I'm not arguing that businesses should be able to deny services to gays. I'm merely arguing that it may well be more prudent to allow the very small minority that actually would deny service to do so in order to achieve the greater good of giving clear legal status to the marriages of ALL loving couples, not just those in select states. I may be in the minority of folks on this thread that receive emails from the right wing lunatic fringe that are opposing Gay Marriage, but I can assure you that they are using this issue very effectively. They draw lines that would seem to prove that passage of a Marriage Equality act will result in the outlawing of religious doctrines that oppose it. This scares the crap out of a lot of folks. And it scares them right out of voting for passage of a law that would win overwhelming support if it allowed a provision for religious objection and non-participation on religious grounds.

Does anyone really believe that the number of business women and men that will turn away business because of the genders of the couple is significant? An overwhelming majority of Americans support Gay Marriage. Doesn't it stand to reason that an overwhelming number of bakers and photographers feel the same? The folks that turn down gigs at Gay Marriages will lose sympathetic Straight couple business and will soon be out of business. Why argue a moot point, especially when the argument stalls the advancement of your cause?

But as I said before, it's not my fight... My marriage is already recognized in all 50 states. I was just trying to point out a stumbling block that the Gay Rights movement is tripping all over.

04/10/2013 08:46:36 AM · #6157

One last note... Please don't take offense to my suggestions for how to advance your cause. I have a history of doing this.

I recall a march on DC in the 80's when everyone with me was shouting "Demand World Peace Now!" and I was wearing a tee-shirt that said "Politely Request World Peace as Soon as Convenient"...

So you see, it's just in my nature to suggest alternative strategies... Nothing personal.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/10/2013 10:10:13 AM · #6158

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by FirstAmendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

This doesn't say, as you interpret Jefferson to have said, that we are free to talk about our religion, but that we are free of any law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... This states we are free to practice (with action) or exercise our religion, not merely by argument (no action) maintain...

It's illegal- BY LAW- to shout fire in a crowded theater, print malicious libel in the press, or deface a competing church even if your beliefs demand it. Your interpretation is incorrect. Ironically, religious zealots are attempting to redefine the traditional meaning.

Message edited by author 2013-04-10 10:11:47.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/10/2013 11:10:26 AM · #6159

Originally posted by myqyl:

[Perhaps I'm a tad too pragmatic, but I always felt civil rights was an issue best won, instead of argued over endlessly. The strategy I suggest will likely lead to ultimate victory much sooner than the one you propose, and the sooner the "law" changes, the sooner society will change too, and we won't need the law anymore. Isn't that the ultimate goal? To not need a law for something so simply "right"? A little compromise and letting people have space and time to adjust will get us all to the goal a lot faster than hollering at each other and hauling folks into court.

Pardon my confusion, but I don't remember proposing even a whiff of strategy in this regard.

Perhaps this clear discrepancy between what you appear to be arguing against and what I am actually saying could be seen as an opportunity for you to reevaluate what it is you're arguing against.

To be clear, all I have suggested is that, winning or not, you are arguing for a strategy that caters to the false beliefs and false fears of bigots, simply because other bigots are using them as political tools.

The closest thing to a strategy you would be able to glean from what I have said above is that it may be a good idea to counter those false beliefs directly, not pander to them. I didn't say it, but I do indeed believe it; it's by demonstrating who we are as people that has won hearts and minds. As a group we are not evil, lurking in the shadows, waiting to steal your rights, trying to destroy the institution of the family, or hoping to bring down religion. For anyone to suggest otherwise is an insult, and hopelessly self-centered.

Simply put, pandering to the fears of a misguided population is not a long term strategy I can get behind, even if it leads to positive results in the short term. You tell them they're wrong, then you prove it.

And see how well the strategy I didn't propose is already working, given the huge shift in public opinion caused by gay people choosing to live openly, productively, and without shame... despite society's admonitions that we should be shameful, unseen, wait patiently for handouts, and protect the delicate feefees of conservatives. We've had almost a decade of gay marriage in the US, and even more in other countries, and what have we seen? A smattering of minor cases on the books were people were busted for not adhering to public accommodation laws that have existed well before gay marriage was even on the table. That is reality. The rest is fear-mongering.

I'd hate to think you're suggesting that conservatives are just too stupid to be reasoned with.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/10/2013 12:05:44 PM · #6160

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by myqyl:
[Perhaps I'm a tad too pragmatic, but I always felt civil rights was an issue best won, instead of argued over endlessly. The strategy I suggest will likely lead to ultimate victory much sooner than the one you propose, and the sooner the "law" changes, the sooner society will change too, and we won't need the law anymore. Isn't that the ultimate goal? To not need a law for something so simply "right"? A little compromise and letting people have space and time to adjust will get us all to the goal a lot faster than hollering at each other and hauling folks into court.

Pardon my confusion, but I don't remember proposing even a whiff of strategy in this regard.

Perhaps this clear discrepancy between what you appear to be arguing against and what I am actually saying could be seen as an opportunity for you to reevaluate what it is you're arguing against.

To be clear, all I have suggested is that, winning or not, you are arguing for a strategy that caters to the false beliefs and false fears of bigots, simply because other bigots are using them as political tools.

The closest thing to a strategy you would be able to glean from what I have said above is that it may be a good idea to counter those false beliefs directly, not pander to them. I didn't say it, but I do indeed believe it; it's by demonstrating who we are as people that has won hearts and minds. As a group we are not evil, lurking in the shadows, waiting to steal your rights, trying to destroy the institution of the family, or hoping to bring down religion. For anyone to suggest otherwise is an insult, and hopelessly self-centered.

Simply put, pandering to the fears of a misguided population is not a long term strategy I can get behind, even if it leads to positive results in the short term. You tell them they're wrong, then you prove it.

And see how well the strategy I didn't propose is already working, given the huge shift in public opinion caused by gay people choosing to live openly, productively, and without shame... despite society's admonitions that we should be shameful, unseen, wait patiently for handouts, and protect the delicate feefees of conservatives. We've had almost a decade of gay marriage in the US, and even more in other countries, and what have we seen? A smattering of minor cases on the books were people were busted for not adhering to public accommodation laws that have existed well before gay marriage was even on the table. That is reality. The rest is fear-mongering.

I'd hate to think you're suggesting that conservatives are just too stupid to be reasoned with.

As I've said, it's your cause and you should do as you see fit. I just wanted to point out why a progressive state like California is dragging it's heels... Personally neither my heart nor my mind was won over by anything except the fact that who you marry is none of my damn business. But when I see my Church having to stop servicing Foster children in Chicago, then it becomes my business. Washington State's clause stating that neither me nor my Church would get sued if I voted yes went a LONG way in my decision. If that makes me a religious zealot, conservative bigot or counter revolutionary, then so be it... I can live with that.

Message edited by author 2013-04-10 12:19:07.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/10/2013 12:29:41 PM · #6161

Originally posted by Mousie:

i can se his point, he saying that the faster road to acceptance in the long term is to protect bigotry in the short term.

its sounded counter productive at first honestly is probably a great strategy since you aren't legislating acceptance, you are letting the free marked weed those people out. that and the mindset is quickly changing so that that bigotry will be minimal anyway and erode away over time.

if it turns out to be a big problem you can always re0legislate later new laws that makes their actions illegal.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/10/2013 01:31:08 PM · #6162

Originally posted by mike_311:

if it turns out to be a big problem you can always re0legislate later new laws that makes their actions illegal.

Those actions are ALREADY illegal. Myqyl is suggesting EXEMPTING currently illegal actions when they are directed against a specific minority, in order to speed acceptance OF the minority, which is beyond counter-intuitive to the point of being irrational.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/10/2013 01:50:19 PM · #6163

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by mike_311:

if it turns out to be a big problem you can always re0legislate later new laws that makes their actions illegal.

Those actions are ALREADY illegal. Myqyl is suggesting EXEMPTING currently illegal actions when they are directed against a specific minority, in order to speed acceptance OF the minority, which is beyond counter-intuitive to the point of being irrational.

well i was saying if you make exemptions you can always take away the exemption.

in think if you are going to ask the public to vote on the issue, than you need to compromise because they wont be accepting. otherwise the government just needs to step in and and say wrong is wrong and stand behind it and let the bigots be damned.

i prefer the latter.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/10/2013 02:36:03 PM · #6164

Originally posted by myqyl:

To Ann's point though, I would think that there are professionals within reasonable driving distance of just about anywhere. I most certainly would not have wanted a racist photographing my wedding to my non-white wife. Why would a gay couple want a homophobic photographer? I would rather have an amateur with a good eye and a loving heart then a pro with a grudge...

Not necessarily. Throughout a lot of the West, the nearest town that has a large enough population to have a single full time professional photographer can be 100 miles away, and the nearest "big city" that has a substantial gay population can be 300 miles or more away. Of course the happy couple would prefer that all of the vendors for their wedding be there by choice, but any couple (not just gay) that's living in an area like that is going to take what they can get.

More to the point, the number of people who don't want to be forced to do business with gay people but would vote for gay marriage under some circumscribed set of circumstances is so small as to not be worth worrying about.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/10/2013 02:41:55 PM · #6165

Originally posted by myqyl:

As I've said, it's your cause and you should do as you see fit. I just wanted to point out why a progressive state like California is dragging it's heels...

California is dragging its heels because of a large, wealthy, and extremely bigoted Mormon population that was (and still is) willing to lie to gullible old people about things like forcing teachers to "teach homosexuality in the schools." One of the guests at my own wedding (an elderly woman) voted for Prop 8 because of this malarkey.

edit...spelling

Message edited by author 2013-04-10 14:43:53.

04/10/2013 03:44:23 PM · #6166

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by myqyl:

As I've said, it's your cause and you should do as you see fit. I just wanted to point out why a progressive state like California is dragging it's heels...

California is dragging its heels because of a large, wealthy, and extremely bigoted Mormon population that was (and still is) willing to lie to gullible old people about things like forcing teachers to "teach homosexuality in the schools." One of the guests at my own wedding (an elderly woman) voted for Prop 8 because of this malarkey.

Actually, as a Catholic I can tell you that the Church also pointed out (and it isn't malarkey) that passage of Marriage Equality without exemptions could very likely lead to the Church not being allowed to hold weddings inside the Church for parishioners, not allowing the Church to rent out the Church Hall, forcing the Churches Foster Child program to shut down (This happened in Illinois), forcing the Churches adoption services to shut down (this is HUGE for me for several reasons (i.e. see the bundle I'm holding in the avatar to the left)), marriage counselling services gone, pre and post school daycare gone...

In other countries Christians have to worship in basements and are often hauled out and shot when they are found (Something to which the Gay community should be able to relate). I don't take my religious freedoms for granted and I will not give them up without a fight. A simple exemption stating clearly that no one will be forced into actions they consider to be offensive to their God and I'm on board... Otherwise I'm oiling and burying my guns against the day they want to throw my kids to the lions.

Why make me choose?

Message edited by author 2013-04-10 15:47:11.

see

Canon PowerShot S95

04/10/2013 03:50:12 PM · #6167

Originally posted by Ann:

I wouldn't worry about the Mormon church, as public sentiment leans more towards acceptance, so will the LDS.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/10/2013 05:40:57 PM · #6168

It will be interesting to see if the Washington case proceeds similarly or differently from the New Mexico case because of some important differences. The Washington case didn't involve any subterfuge and the excuse of religious objection was first and foremost. Two rights are going to collide and we'll see which comes out on top.

However, for now and forevermore the "what do you care it doesn't affect you" argument is dead as a doornail.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

04/10/2013 06:03:14 PM · #6169

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I guess what I don't get is....are we really talking about comparing the right of a couple to get married and be a family with the so-called right to discriminate against someone? Really? I call BS.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/10/2013 06:23:50 PM · #6170

Originally posted by myqyl:

I don't take my religious freedoms for granted and I will not give them up without a fight. A simple exemption stating clearly that no one will be forced into actions they consider to be offensive to their God and I'm on board... Otherwise I'm oiling and burying my guns against the day they want to throw my kids to the lions.

Why make me choose?

Myqyl, the LAW of the LAND prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, creed, or sexual orientation. That's a fact. It's not a law made with respect to anybody's religion, it applies to all people in the United States. You can't claim the religious liberty to be a bigot. The same kind of laws that protect your religion from being discriminated against, protect gay people as well. That ship has sailed, brother, and it's not coming back to port any time soon.

Given that this is the case, I don't understand how you can you can interpret "religious freedom" as the right to not be forced into actions you consider to be offensive to your God.

In this case, the "action that is offensive to your God" would be to for you to marry another man: and nobody, EVER, is going to force you to do that. Furthermore, nobody, EVER, on the government front at least, is going to force your church to ignore doctrine and conduct gay marriages. Your PARISHIONERS may eventually force a re-evaluation of doctrine, but the state's not going to.

But at the same time, if you, or your church, runs a public BUSINESS, then that business is bound by the laws of the land, specifically the anti-discrimination laws. I'm sure you wouldn't condone anyone discriminating against people of color, would you? What makes this any different?

04/10/2013 06:36:54 PM · #6171

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It will be interesting to see if the Washington case proceeds similarly or differently from the New Mexico case because of some important differences. The Washington case didn't involve any subterfuge and the excuse of religious objection was first and foremost. Two rights are going to collide and we'll see which comes out on top.

However, for now and forevermore the "what do you care it doesn't affect you" argument is dead as a doornail.

I guess what I don't get is....are we really talking about comparing the right of a couple to get married and be a family with the so-called right to discriminate against someone? Really? I call BS.

I dunno. I'm talking about the florist who didn't want to provide flowers at the same-sex wedding. It's similar to the New Mexico photographer case. Is that what you are talking about?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/10/2013 06:39:31 PM · #6172

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I would disagree with the assuredness of this sentiment Robert. The New Mexico judge said as much in his ruling as said that religious freedom COULD trump freedom of equality and that direct head-to-head confrontation between the two rights had not been decided in the NM case (because the judge felt the wrong argument had been made and he couldn't make the argument for them).

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/10/2013 06:44:58 PM · #6173

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So it would be your argument that if a religion, in its doctrine, considered, say, black people to be "not human", then a business run by an adherent of that religion would be free to discriminate against black people? And if that's the case, how can you rationally accept discrimination ONLY if it's institutionalized? Or do yuou feel that ANY business owner should be free to refuse service to black people, or gay people for that matter? Given that the law of the land says we can't do that?