Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
21. "The" ceremony?
Tue Apr 29, 2014, 12:54 PM
Apr 2014

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

What ceremony, specifically? A commitment ceremony? A ceremony to celebrate a life partnership? No. That's not what they're asking to be allowed to do. The law doesn't prevent that. The complaint is about churches not being allowed to perform marriage ceremonies specifically, between people who cannot legally marry. Freedom of religion does not give a religious body that right, nor should any sensible person want it to.

It's a legal loser. Trying to throw a "religious freedom" argument into the mix is just silly, and has no constitutional basis in this case. The use of an equal protection argument to compel civil governments to permit and recognize same-sex marriages has been successful in a number of jurisdictions-it's a proven winner. Why screw it up by adding an argument that has no basis and that no court will accept (i.e. that "religious freedom" gives a religious body the right to usurp the power of civil government to dictate laws concerning marriage)?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Excellent! cbayer Apr 2014 #1
The amendment doesn't bar a church from performing the ceremony FBaggins Apr 2014 #2
There is this from another article: cbayer Apr 2014 #3
I hadn't seen that. FBaggins Apr 2014 #4
But, but... Evil Intolerant Xtians!! Wait, what?!? I'm so confused... n/t TygrBright Apr 2014 #5
Good! Confused is exactly where I like to see you. cbayer Apr 2014 #6
Now that IS a compliment! Thank you, Ma'am! TygrBright Apr 2014 #7
Doesn't surprise me at all that the UCC is involved Rob H. Apr 2014 #8
UCC is great and getting better. cbayer Apr 2014 #9
UCC is about as inclusive as you can get as far as Christian denominations. Manifestor_of_Light Apr 2014 #10
Good for them edhopper Apr 2014 #11
It's a nice try skepticscott Apr 2014 #12
"Loser of a case" means that UCC clergy gets convicted of a crime for marrying gay couples. stone space Apr 2014 #13
Good point. Roe v. Wade is a criminal case. Wade was the Dallas DA. rug Apr 2014 #15
It's so easy to forget history. Take New York as an example. Since 2011, marriage equality... stone space Apr 2014 #16
The Washington Post, from a decade ago...we should never forget the struggle stone space Apr 2014 #17
Ummmm...yeah. I got that part skepticscott Apr 2014 #18
Clearly, you don't get it Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #20
"The" ceremony? skepticscott Apr 2014 #21
The marriage ceremony. As you would know if you had bothered reading the previous posts Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #22
It would seem to me that the amendment itself is a loser case. mmonk Apr 2014 #19
For the record, a PDF of the original complaint is available at the link in the OP. (nt) stone space Apr 2014 #14
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Battle of Church and Stat...»Reply #21