More gay marriage discussion!

[PaloAltoCougar]

Despite the instant thread-killing title, some may be interested that a bill is being introduced in California that would expressly permit churches and others to refuse to perform marriages based on religious beliefs. The bill's sponsors (mainly gay rights activists) observed that one of the most compelling arguments in favor of Prop. 8 was based on concerns that churches would be coerced into performing marriages that conflicted with their beliefs (this argument was rejected by dozens of California Con Law profs, but was still persuasive to many).

By supporting this bill (and how can they not?), pro-8 forces may be undermining their own support.

[Flystripper]

pretty smart move.

[Viking]

Despite the instant thread-killing title, some may be interested that a bill is being introduced in California that would expressly permit churches and others to refuse to perform marriages based on religious beliefs. The bill's sponsors (mainly gay rights activists) observed that one of the most compelling arguments in favor of Prop. 8 was based on concerns that churches would be coerced into performing marriages that conflicted with their beliefs (this argument was rejected by dozens of California Con Law profs, but was still persuasive to many).

By supporting this bill (and how can they not?), pro-8 forces may be undermining their own support.

This is great news as a precursor to a follow up prop that allows for gay marriage. Protecting the rights of private organizations and protecting the rights of a large public class to live how they choose seems about as close to Nash equilibrium as will be possible in this debate.

There's that whole "marriage" vs. "civil union" issue that might be sticky (did I just say that?!!) with the igrejas but I bet they lose the battle but retain the right to be discriminatory within their own four walls.

[Jacob]

Despite the instant thread-killing title, some may be interested that a bill is being introduced in California that would expressly permit churches and others to refuse to perform marriages based on religious beliefs. The bill's sponsors (mainly gay rights activists) observed that one of the most compelling arguments in favor of Prop. 8 was based on concerns that churches would be coerced into performing marriages that conflicted with their beliefs (this argument was rejected by dozens of California Con Law profs, but was still persuasive to many).

By supporting this bill (and how can they not?), pro-8 forces may be undermining their own support.

Is it the case that the forcing churches to marry gays was a "compelling argument" in favor of Prop 8?

Also are you saying that the Pro-Prop 8 forces are championing this legislation? I don't understand why they'd care since gay-marriages are not allowed in the first place, and church's would be protected under religious freedom anyway.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Is it the case that the forcing churches to marry gays was a "compelling argument" in favor of Prop 8?

Also are you saying that the Pro-Prop 8 forces are championing this legislation? I don't understand why they'd care since gay-marriages are not allowed in the first place, and church's would be protected under religious freedom anyway.

Much of the literature that was distributed in support of Prop 8 expressed concerns that if gay marriage were legalized, churches would be required to perform such marriages or subject themselves to lawsuits for discrimination and a possible loss of tax exemption. One can argue whether there was a basis in law for that concern (many experts said it was nonsense--that the First Amendment would allow churches to deny marriage to whomever they chose), but the argument was made and the polls showed it influenced may of the voters.

Pro-8 forces aren't championing this new bill; the No on 8 forces are doing so since it eliminates an argument that helped get 8 passed. It's a clever tactical move.

[creekster]

Is it the case that the forcing churches to marry gays was a "compelling argument" in favor of Prop 8?

Also are you saying that the Pro-Prop 8 forces are championing this legislation? I don't understand why they'd care since gay-marriages are not allowed in the first place, and church's would be protected under religious freedom anyway.

The bill is being submitted and pushed by no on prop 8 forces. It is sponsored, I eblieve, by Mark Leno, a former SF supervisor and current state legislator, who has been a very vocal critic of the LDS chruch and its stance on gay rights in the past, including making an attempt to revoke the LDS church's tax exempt status. This is merely an attempt, IMO, to prepare the way for either Vaughan Wlaker's overturning of the prop 8 result or the next prop 8 ballot proposition, whichever comes first.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wow. This will be interesting to watch. You California folks please keep us updated.

[Hallelujah]

Despite the instant thread-killing title, some may be interested that a bill is being introduced in California that would expressly permit churches and others to refuse to perform marriages based on religious beliefs. The bill's sponsors (mainly gay rights activists) observed that one of the most compelling arguments in favor of Prop. 8 was based on concerns that churches would be coerced into performing marriages that conflicted with their beliefs (this argument was rejected by dozens of California Con Law profs, but was still persuasive to many).

By supporting this bill (and how can they not?), pro-8 forces may be undermining their own support.

Wolf in sheep's clothing? OK, you don't have to perform gay marriages, but we will take your tax exempt status away. Are you OK with that?

Just like they supported leaving it up to the states to determine whether they would grant gay marriages and then they tried to force other states to accept gay marriages performed in other states. I think some gay leader in SLC in the last couple of years specifically mentioned that.

Appears that the gays may be smarter than you think and not so innocent.

What rights are they giving up with civil unions that they would otherwise have under 'marriage'?

[PaloAltoCougar]

What rights are they giving up with civil unions that they would otherwise have under 'marriage'?

I have responded to this question from you at least twice before and yet, in another triumph of hope over experience, I accept my Sisyphean burden of trying to inform you of something which you choose to ignore.

Under federal law, there are hundreds of benefits available to married couples that are denied to participants in a civil union. They include Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children; family and medical leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member; workers' compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job; ERISA protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse; exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies; exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance, etc.

[YOhio]

You California folks please keep us updated.

Yes, please do. These California gay marriage issues just seem to fly under the radar.

[DU Ute]

I have responded to this question from you at least twice before and yet, in another triumph of hope over experience, I accept my Sisyphean burden of trying to inform you of something which you choose to ignore.

Under federal law, there are hundreds of benefits available to married couples that are denied to participants in a civil union. They include Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children; family and medical leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member; workers' compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job; ERISA protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse; exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies; exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance, etc.

This sounds made up. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes, please do. These California gay marriage issues just seem to fly under the radar.

Smartass.

[byu71]

I have responded to this question from you at least twice before and yet, in another triumph of hope over experience, I accept my Sisyphean burden of trying to inform you of something which you choose to ignore.

Under federal law, there are hundreds of benefits available to married couples that are denied to participants in a civil union. They include Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children; family and medical leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member; workers' compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job; ERISA protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse; exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies; exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance, etc.

If civil union's were granted all of those rights, do you think gays would still insist on marriage? Me thinks they would.

I can support them getting all those rights you mentioned as a part of a civil union. Maybe I am just too, too old and set in my ways. I just don't want anyone calling me a bigot and other names just because I can't accept a guy taking in the rear from another guy as normal.

[Moliere]

Under federal law, there are hundreds of benefits available to married couples that are denied to participants in a civil union. They include Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children; family and medical leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member; workers' compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job; ERISA protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse; exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies; exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance, etc.

I understand this argument but why can't the federal civil union law be changed to grant these benefits? That would seem less polarizing than trying to clarify the definition of marriage.

If civil unions are granted the same benefits as marriages under federal law then you truly are reaching the point where marriage becomes more of a religious rite instead of a discriminatory right.

FWIW, I'm ignorant on this issue so I'm sure this has been hashed over but it seems like a simple fix, but maybe it's too simplistic in my mind.

[RobinFinderson]

I understand this argument but why can't the federal civil union law be changed to grant these benefits? That would seem less polarizing than trying to clarify the definition of marriage.

If civil unions are granted the same benefits as marriages under federal law then you truly are reaching the point where marriage becomes more of a religious rite instead of a discriminatory right.

FWIW, I'm ignorant on this issue so I'm sure this has been hashed over but it seems like a simple fix, but maybe it's too simplistic in my mind.

It really could be a simple fix, but there are too many religious people for whom it would ALWAYS be unacceptable for gay people to be able to adopt and enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual people. Supporters of gay rights (I'm one) don't accept the 'different names, same rights' argument because we know that for a significant number of the opposition, it is a disingenuous argument used to stall progress. There is no good reason to double the cost of government in keeping track of two different status situations that enjoy the exact same rights. The fact that small-government conservatives, many of the same people who argue against the cost and need for having government documents created in languages other than English, are some of the principle advocates of this government redundancy is enough to set off red flags.

Really, in the eyes of the government, everyone should receive a civil union. There is no good reason for the government to recognize the special religious status of marriage if that status is going to be denied to gay people. Civil Unions for everyone, in the eyes of the government, and marriage for everyone through their respective churches. This is the obvious answer.