|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 13 and counting
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
He called the exorcism a “fitting” response, saying such services are needed when the “church is under persecution or some opposition, and certainly the redefinition of marriage is very much in opposition to God's plan for married life.”
Yeah. Because the second half of that sentence REALLY supports the first. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And exorcisms for persecution? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
It's like someone threw catchphrases into a random number generator.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
It's looking almost inevitable that Holyrood will go later today. By tomorrow I will be in a "qualifying civil partnership" under Scottish law.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
To The Pain
Shipmate
# 12235
|
Posted
Yup, might have been a foregone conclusion, but it went through and that's what counts. They didn't even slap any of the restricting amendments on it, so Scotland might just have the most comprehensive legislation out there.
Also, one of the MSPs quoted my girlfriend - it's like she's gone down in history or something. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Now occasionally blogging.
Hire Bell Tents and camping equipment in Scotland
Posts: 1183 | From: The Granite City | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by To The Pain:
Yup, might have been a foregone conclusion, but it went through and that's what counts.
Well the 105 to 18 vote is impressive. That's 85%, which is a massive level of support for the bill, and is encouraging with regard to showing a pervasive shift in attitudes.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Am I right in thinking that makes Scotland the 17th country?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
Yes, I've seen "17th" quoted several times, so I'm going with that!
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Would you like me to change the thread title to show 17?
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Would you like me to change the thread title to show 17?
Personally I like it how it is, as a historical artifact.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Then I'll leave it as it is ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Nevada is an interesting case. There's been a strong pro same sex marriage support in recent months from... the hospitality and tourism industry. They are worried about losing the wedding and honeymoon revenue from gay couples who might decide to stay in California. So your right to a same sex marriage officiated by an Elvis impersonator is a dream that will soon be attainable. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So your right to a same sex marriage officiated by an Elvis impersonator is a dream that will soon be attainable.
You have been able to get married under (or at least near) a grotesque of Darth Vader for some time now, although I think the officiant has to be a boring ol' clergyperson.
Best wishes to Nevada. Boy, the order in which states have accepted gay marriage is interesting. I never would have guessed Nevada before Oregon.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Best wishes to Nevada. Boy, the order in which states have accepted gay marriage is interesting. I never would have guessed Nevada before Oregon.
Given Nevada's emphasis as a tourist destination for those getting married, for those on their honeymoons, and for those combining the two, I always thought they'd be an early adopter of same-sex marriage. Quite frankly, I would have thought they'd be higher on the list than they (potentially) are.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
And now Kentucky (sort of).
quote:
A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, striking down part of the state ban.
In 23-page a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that Kentucky's laws treat gay and lesbians differently in a "way that demeans them." The constitutional ban on same-sex marriagewas approved by voters in 2004. The out-of-state clause was part of it.
I think the big problem is that marriage equality opponents are having trouble articulating why it's a legitimate state interest for the government to discriminate against same-sex couples. Or at least a reason that doesn't boil down to "we hate fags" or violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Given that difficulty, would there be any grounds for the Supreme Court to decide against allowing SSMs when the case finally gets there?
Or will the Court go the same way as the Harper Tories in Canada, and just let things go along?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given that difficulty, would there be any grounds for the Supreme Court to decide against allowing SSMs when the case finally gets there?
Or will the Court go the same way as the Harper Tories in Canada, and just let things go along?
That's one of the advantages of being the Supreme Court. They don't have to take any cases they don't want to.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's one of the advantages of being the Supreme Court. They don't have to take any cases they don't want to.
Actually they have to take some cases such as disputes between states (such as the Ellis Island boundary dispute between New York and New Jersey). See Article III.2 of the Constitution.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The rate at which these rulings are happening in the USA now is quite dizzying.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The rate at which these rulings are happening in the USA now is quite dizzying.
Part of the reason for that is the patchwork of U.S. jurisdiction. There are fifty state legal systems, another for the District of Columbia, and the federal system. Unless there's a clear federal constitutional standard, disputes will proliferate.
One of the interesting things about the opinion [PDF] is that Judge Wright-Allen held that, since marriage is a fundamental right (per Loving v. Virginia), laws restricting it are subject to strict scrutiny (a fairly high level of legal review) but also noted that such laws would also fail a 'rational basis' test (a much lower level of legal review).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It's interesting reading and following the news, all of this.
Just a note from Canada, there isn't such a thing as "same sex marriage" any more. No-one talks this way. It's just "marriage". It seems dropping the distinction is part of what happens over time.
It is interesting also, that we have now seen that family breakup also happens, with the same parallels in divorce court.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It is interesting also, that we have now seen that family breakup also happens, with the same parallels in divorce court.
Yep. That's why it's called "marriage equality", not "lifestyle one-upmanship".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yep. That's why it's called "marriage equality", not "lifestyle one-upmanship".
I would like to see wholesale shift in language, as your post suggests.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The rate at which these rulings are happening in the USA now is quite dizzying.
The lawyers who lead the California effort to the Supreme Court and the organizations involved are busy with lawsuits in all the states where it's not legal. In some cases, there has been some squabbling because the local lawyers want to lead the case and the ones who took it to the Supreme Court want to lead the case because they expect most of them to head there.
The upshot is that at some point the Supreme Court will take the case, if only to stop endless appeals to the Supreme Court which they have to stay or not stay and ignore.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Meanwhile... Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has said
quote:
“State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.”
This brings the number of State Attorney Generals who will not defend state laws against same sex marriage to six.
Oregon, Nevada, Virginia, Pennsylvania, California and Illinois.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
There's a good article out today here about the rise of the anti-gay movement in Russia and the role of evangelical US Christians and Russian Orthodox Christians in it.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Illinois has gone further. Legal marriages will be available here for people of all genders starting in June I think.
Even quicker than that in certain jurisdictions:
quote:
There is no reason to delay further when no opposition has been presented to this Court and committed gay and lesbian couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry.
- U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, in a ruling instructing the Cook County Clerk to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples immediately
For those unfamiliar with the geography, Cook County is where Chicago is located.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I was honestly a bit surprised by that one - not by the ruling but by the fact that anyone would mount a court case to overturn a ban that is already on its way out.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I was honestly a bit surprised by that one - not by the ruling but by the fact that anyone would mount a court case to overturn a ban that is already on its way out.
Given that no opposition has been presented to the court, what's to be gained by delaying another three months plus one week? What's more surprising to me is that "no opposition has been presented", assuming Judge Coleman's statement is accurate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I was honestly a bit surprised by that one - not by the ruling but by the fact that anyone would mount a court case to overturn a ban that is already on its way out.
There are a few couples where one partner is dying and might not live that long.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Good point, Net Spinster.
As for what's to be gained by delay, the usual answer is some kind of administrative convenience. Although, with a law change of this nature one wonders just how 'complicated' it might be.
It basically consists of telling any system (computerised, presumably) that expects information about a marriage to have one male and one female in it that this assumption no longer holds. You'd be surprised. People do program these kinds of rules into computers... and then years go by and no-one who actually understood the code properly is left around.
When I was involved in law changes here (to treat same-sex couples equally with opposite-sex couples in various areas, but not marriage), some parts of government wanted a very long lead time because of how long they thought it would take to untangle the code in a vast computer system, with the all the gendered rules for entitlements and benefits. I can't remember exactly how long they asked for, but it was a pretty darn long time. They didn't get anywhere near as much time as they asked for, though. The government didn't want the flak it would cop for waiting so long.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Because I was curious and because the information is readily available on the internet, according to the 2010 census Illinois has a population of a little less than thirteen million. About 40% of those live within the borders of Cook County. Another 24% of the population of Illinois lives in one of the five counties that directly borders Cook (Lake, McHenry, Kane, DuPage, and Will). In other words, this ruling has immediately legalized same-sex marriage for about two-thirds of the population of Illinois.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Texas?!?
quote:
A federal judge has struck down Texas' ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday it has no "rational relation to a legitimate government purpose."
The decision is the latest in a series of federal and state court moves to overturn current laws forbidding gay and lesbians from legal wedlock.
Nothing changes immediately though.
quote:
Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.
The reactions to this one are likely to be quite interesting (and occasionally appalling).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The thing is, every judge is basically going to come to that conclusion (is there any that hasn't?), and in fact a more conservative, small-government judge is more likely to come to the conclusion that there is no legitimate purpose to the ban. If they're looking at this stuff logically and on the basis of principle rather than the kind of emotive language that politicians and church leaders are fond of.
The reason that all these judges keep following the same reasoning is that they look at the reasoning of their predecessors and find it impeccable.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I would be surprised if there's a unanimous set of state court rulings eliminating bans on same-sex marriage. Sooner or later one of the judges will decide to ignore the impeccable logic and keep a state amendment. Still it's nice to see things bump along. This completely confuses me as to what constitutes a dead horse. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I would be surprised if there's a unanimous set of state court rulings eliminating bans on same-sex marriage. Sooner or later one of the judges will decide to ignore the impeccable logic and keep a state amendment.
Well, most of the recent rulings we've been discussing have come from federal District Courts, not state courts, holding that various bans are in conflict with the federal constitution. State judges, many of whom are elected, are often far more circumspect.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The governor of Arizona has vetoed the "religious protection against gays" bill. She castigated the legislature for wasting her time.
Interesting a number of Businesses have spoken up against the bill, some of whom are planning to expand in Arizona. This include Apple, Intel, and even the National Football League which was beginning to explore alternative locations for next year's Super bowl if the bill passed.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The governor of Arizona has vetoed the "religious protection against gays" bill. She castigated the legislature for wasting her time.
Indeed. As Anderson Cooper pointed out in a rather pointed interview with a legislator who had supported the bill (embedded version here, if you're interested) since sexual orientation is not mentioned in either Arizona's civil rights laws or federal civil rights law it's already legal to discriminate against gay people in Arizona.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
What continues to puzzle me is how a business proprietor who wished to discriminate, er, "protect his/her religious freedoms" was supposed to distinguish among customers. Have the straight Arizonans rounded up all the GLBT Arizonans and branded them?
And what would, um, discriminating proprietors have done about all the tourists from elsewhere, who presumably enter the state unbranded? Close the Grand Canyon in case the "wrong sort" want to look at it?
I sometimes wonder if I'll live long enough for this sort of nonsense to finally dwindle out of existence . . .
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyzyl
Ship's dog
# 374
|
Posted
Meanwhile, in Texas... Texas ruling
--------------------
I need a quote.
Posts: 668 | From: Wapasha's Prairie | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
A wedding cake baker probably can tell if it's a cake for a same sex wedding. I remember a long ago anecdote where someone was trying to order a wedding cake from an immigrant baker. He had to show her he couldn't put two grooms on the cake because his cake figures came in single unit with a connecting strand between the bride and groom.
They made the cake without the figurines.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
The KS, AZ, GA, MS, MI, etc. laws are meant to protect right-wing Christians from lawsuits rather than identify gay people to discriminate, though I supposed if you walked into a Denny's with your partner and held hands at the table, the staff could have kicked you out.
No doubt, most gay people wouldn't want a homophobic person to ruin their wedding day, but from what I have read, many of the lawsuits that have occurred happened when there were no other alternatives to the service that was being provided, or when the business backed out of an existing agreement (i.e., when they found out that Tom and Chris aren't an opposite sex couple.)
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The KS, AZ, GA, MS, MI, etc. laws are meant to protect right-wing Christians from lawsuits rather than identify gay people to discriminate, though I supposed if you walked into a Denny's with your partner and held hands at the table, the staff could have kicked you out.
The Sheraton Phoenix Hotel actually.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
No doubt homophobes aren't the preferred provider for same sex weddings. But this issued dates back to the issues of desegregation. Why would black people want to eat at a lunch counter marked "whites only"? What if all the businesses in a small town are run by homophobes who don't want to serve gays. Are gay people forced to leave town? The answer is that we define a public space for businesses and they have to serve the public.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Well, SB1062 is dead, but AZ is advancing a similar bill to prevent clergy from officiating marriages that are inconsistent with their beliefs.
Spotlight of SB 1062 swings to new bill
quote:
“The intent of my bill is to directly protect clergy, churches, man or woman of the cloth, to protect them from doing marriage ceremonies that go against their faith,” Montenegro said.
He could not provide an example of a clergy member in Arizona who has been forced to act against his or her beliefs in marrying individuals.
Perhaps the AZ legislature will spend even more taxpayer dollars debating and passing bills that state that the Sun must rise in the east.
Clowns.
[ 28. February 2014, 14:40: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Well, SB1062 is dead, but AZ is advancing a similar bill to prevent clergy from officiating marriages that are inconsistent with their beliefs.
Spotlight of SB 1062 swings to new bill
quote:
“The intent of my bill is to directly protect clergy, churches, man or woman of the cloth, to protect them from doing marriage ceremonies that go against their faith,” Montenegro said.
He could not provide an example of a clergy member in Arizona who has been forced to act against his or her beliefs in marrying individuals.
Perhaps the AZ legislature will spend even more taxpayer dollars debating and passing bills that state that the Sun must rise in the east.
Clowns.
I'm not so sure this is a meaningless bill. From the bill:
quote:
4. "Minister" means an individual who is authorized to solemnize a marriage pursuant to section 25‑124.
.
.
.
Government may not require a minister to solemnize a marriage that is inconsistent with the minister's sincerely held religious beliefs.
So who is "an individual who is authorized to solemnize a marriage pursuant to section 25-124" of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and therefore considered a "minister" under the proposed law?
quote:
25-124. Persons authorized to perform marriage ceremony; definition
A. The following are authorized to solemnize marriages between persons who are authorized to marry:
1. Duly licensed or ordained clergymen.
2. Judges of courts of record.
3. Municipal court judges.
4. Justices of the peace.
5. Justices of the United States supreme court.
6. Judges of courts of appeals, district courts and courts that are created by an act of Congress if the judges are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
7. Bankruptcy court and tax court judges.
8. United States magistrate judges.
9. Judges of the Arizona court of military appeals.
B. For the purposes of this section, "licensed or ordained clergymen" includes ministers, elders or other persons who by the customs, rules and regulations of a religious society or sect are authorized or permitted to solemnize marriages or to officiate at marriage ceremonies.
I've marked in bold all the "ministers" we wouldn't ordinarily think of as clergy and who are "ministers" largely due to grants of power by the state. If my reading of the legalese is correct, this bill would grant certain government officials the ability to engage in religiously-based discrimination in the discharge of their duties.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yep yep. Good point.
TPM: Arizona Not Done! Bill Would Allow Judges To Discriminate Against Gays
Almost, but not quite right. Judge can refuse to perform same-sex marriages in Arizona because Arizona law forbids marriage between partners of the same sex. The broad writing of the bill allows judges to refuse "to solemnize a marriage that is inconsistent with the minister's sincerely held religious beliefs". Any beliefs, as long as you preface it with "God says . . . " Don't like inter-racial marriage? Just say your God is against it. Inter-faith marriages? Marriages with a wide age gap? The bill is pretty much carte blanche to engage in exactly the kind of behavior we have civil rights laws to prevent.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
