General Gay Marriage Issues Thread

[Edi]

They really should have shot the idiots at the Bundy Ranch, or at least rounded them up and thrown them in jail afterward (don't know if anyone was pursued later when the brouhaha died down).

In this case they really can't well back down because it calls a lot of the entire building blocks of the nation into question. Davis should be thrown in jail and her release reviewed sometime after six months.

[The Romulan Republic]

They obviously should not have simply stormed in and gunned everyone at Bundy's ranch down. However, they should have attempted to arrest anyone they had legal grounds to arrest, and if they were stupid enough to resist with lethal force... well, they fired the first shot, and at that point they're fair game for using force in return.

Or, hell, if they didn't want a bloodbath (understandable), wait until things died down and then arrest them in their homes. To be fair, its possible this has happened to some people without my hearing of it, but so far as I'm aware, Bundy himself is still a free man (which in my opinion constitutes one of the greatest domestic national security failures of Obama's presidency).

[bilateralrope]

Who was being directly harmed by the actions of Bundy and his friends ?

Pointing to people harmed by Davis is easy: Anyone wanting to get a marriage license through her office. Even though people can get a marriage license elsewhere, that's still extra travel expenses imposed on them. Along with the risk of someone with money deciding that if Davis could shut down gay marriage in one location, then shutting down gay marriage in other locations is just a matter of getting the "right" people elected as county clerks elsewhere.

Gay marriage supporters will be doing all they can to prevent the government backing down here. Was there anyone doing anything to convince the government to not back down over Bundy ?


As for what I think should happen to Davis, she was imprisoned until she said that she wouldn't interfere with deputy clerks. She lied. Since her word can't be trusted I'm thinking she should be imprisoned until she is unable to interfere with issuing marriage licenses. Once she can't interfere keeping her locked up serves no purpose. If she resigns from her position, let her out immediately. If not, keep her locked up until someone else gets elected to replace her.

[The Romulan Republic]

Who was being directly harmed by the actions of Bundy and his friends ?

No one, physically, at least so far as I am aware (though I recall seeing later that a couple of people who were their and were thrown out later committed a shooting). However, they were certainly behaving threateningly, and they harmed the entire concept of the rule of law in America.

Pointing to people harmed by Davis is easy: Anyone wanting to get a marriage license through her office. Even though people can get a marriage license elsewhere, that's still extra travel expenses imposed on them. Along with the risk of someone with money deciding that if Davis could shut down gay marriage in one location, then shutting down gay marriage in other locations is just a matter of getting the "right" people elected as county clerks elsewhere.

Very true.

Gay marriage supporters will be doing all they can to prevent the government backing down here. Was there anyone doing anything to convince the government to not back down over Bundy ?

Don't know, but I hope that gay rights advocates and the government will hold the line (ideally without bloodshed occurring, but we shouldn't back down for fear that nuts will do something horrible because that would mean surrendering the rule of law and peoples' rights and encourage more such nuts).

As for what I think should happen to Davis, she was imprisoned until she said that she wouldn't interfere with deputy clerks. She lied. Since her word can't be trusted I'm thinking she should be imprisoned until she is unable to interfere with issuing marriage licenses. Once she can't interfere keeping her locked up serves no purpose. If she resigns from her position, let her out immediately. If not, keep her locked up until someone else gets elected to replace her.

That sounds pretty reasonable based on what I know about this case, except that I don't know if the law would permit keeping her imprisoned indefinitely.

Edit: You know, I'm wondering if we need a new law/crime for situations like this. Something like "Undermining the Rule of Law", applying specifically to public servants who use their position to abuse the law. With a penalty that reflects the severity of the crime (not quite on the level of treason, but close). Potentially including a bar on ever holding government office again.

Of course, this could probably be abused to jail people who disobey illegal orders and so on, so there is a risk to worry about.

[Terralthra]

That sounds pretty reasonable based on what I know about this case, except that I don't know if the law would permit keeping her imprisoned indefinitely.

Contempt of court, when charged criminally and the defendant found guilty, may be subject to fines or imprisonment for so long as the contempt continues. She can be held for the rest of her life if she spends it continuing to defy the court's order.

[LaCroix]

Edit: You know, I'm wondering if we need a new law/crime for situations like this. Something like "Undermining the Rule of Law", applying specifically to public servants who use their position to abuse the law. With a penalty that reflects the severity of the crime (not quite on the level of treason, but close). Potentially including a bar on ever holding government office again.

Of course, this could probably be abused to jail people who disobey illegal orders and so on, so there is a risk to worry about.

Don't you have an "abuse of office" felony in the book? That would fit perfectly well - using her position for a personal gain/agenda.

[The Romulan Republic]

If their is, I haven't heard this woman being charged over it.

Keep in mind that a lot of US law is handled on a state by state basis, as well.

[FaxModem1]

*Dusts off thread* Here we go again:

The New York Times

Top Alabama Judge Orders Halt to Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
By ALAN BLINDERJAN. 6, 2016
Photo

Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court, said that a United States Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage had prompted “confusion and uncertainty” among the state's probate judges. Credit Butch Dill/Associated Press
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Email
Share
Tweet
Save
More
Continue reading the main story

ATLANTA — The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, on Wednesday effectively ordered probate judges in the state not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move that could cloud the carrying out of the United States Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex unions.

Within hours of an administrative order, the probate court in Mobile County said on its website that it was “not issuing marriage licenses to any applicants until further notice.” That probate office, among the busiest in Alabama, was involved in the litigation that last year prompted a federal judge to strike down the state’s marriage restrictions as unconstitutional and, ultimately, issue an injunction forbidding probate judges “from enforcing the Alabama laws which prohibit or fail to recognize same-sex marriage.”

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

Justices Favor Lesbian Adoptive Mother in Visitation CaseDEC. 14, 2015
Chief Justice Moore previously used an administrative order to try to derail same-sex nuptials in Alabama. On a Sunday night last February, hours before same-sex marriages were scheduled to begin in the state, he issued a similar order to probate judges, most of whom defied the edict.

On Wednesday, Chief Justice Moore, who is among the country’s most prominent religious conservatives, argued, in part, that probate judges should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of a State Supreme Court decision that upheld Alabama’s marriage prohibitions. The conflicting decisions in Washington and Montgomery, the chief justice wrote, led to “confusion and uncertainty” among Alabama’s probate judges about how to apply the federal court’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

“Many probate judges are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in accordance with Obergefell; others are issuing marriage licenses only to couples of the opposite gender or have ceased issuing all marriage licenses,” he wrote. “This disparity affects the administration of justice in this state.”

The chief justice’s order prompted criticism from supporters of same-sex marriage.

“Roy Moore is obstructing same-sex couples’ access to marriage, which they are constitutionally guaranteed,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign. “This is just more of his shenanigans. It’s about him and his personal beliefs at this point, rather than carrying out the rule of law.”

Some probate judges said they would ignore the chief justice.

In a post on Twitter, Judge Steven L. Reed of Montgomery County Probate Court called the order a charade and said he would continue to process marriage licenses for all couples.

Legal experts also questioned the chief justice’s order.

“Ordering the state’s probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to all couples who seek them constitutes an exercise in futility,” Ronald Krotoszynski, a law professor at the University of Alabama, wrote in an email. “At best, it sows chaos and confusion; at worst, it forces couples to bring federal court litigation in order to exercise a clearly established federal constitutional right.”

i wonder about Alabama's standards for judges, if he doesn't realize that the federal government trumps individual states in court decisions.

[Dominus Atheos]

In Alabama the Supreme court for some reason is elected. And I don't think that there are any requirements to be elected, you just have to run.

[FaxModem1]

Ah, Mississippi, where people can from the rest of the country can point to if they want to say, "My state may be bad, but at least I'm not Mississippi.

The big law in question:

HB 1523

Slate.com

Mississippi Governor Signs LGBTQ Segregation Bill Into Law
8.8k
342
933
By Mark Joseph Stern
464260892-mississippi-governor-phil-bryant-looks-on-during-a
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant photographed in February 2015.
Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

On Tuesday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law the most expansive and malicious anti-LGBTQ bill ever passed in the United States.

The measure, cloaked in the language of religious liberty, is essentially an attempt to legalize segregation between LGBTQ people and the rest of society. It allows religious landlords to evict gay and trans renters; permits religious employers to fire workers for being LGBTQ; allows adoption agencies—private and state-run—to turn away same-sex couples; allows private businesses to refuse services to gay people; allows clerks and judges to refuse to marry same-sex couples; and forbids trans students from using public school bathrooms that align with their gender identity. No state has ever passed a law so blatantly rooted in malevolent animus toward LGBTQ people.

Over the past week, myriad businesses and community leaders asked Bryant to veto the bill, which sailed through the Republican-dominated legislature. Recently, pressure from the business and civil rights communities persuaded Republican governors in South Dakota and Georgia to veto anti-LGBTQ bills.

Top Comment

Isn't it contrary to the Mississippi Republicans' views on sodomy for them to have their heads so far up their a$$es? More...

933 CommentsJoin In
But the lobbying was to no avail: A conservative Republican, Bryant quickly signed the measure once the legislature finalized it. (This, despite the fact that Mississippi already has an anti-LGBTQ “religious liberty” law on the books.) Bryant was apparently unruffled by the tribulations of his fellow Republican, Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina, who signed a similar though less sweeping bill and is now facing a revolt by hundreds of businesses. Most recently, PayPal announced that it will withdraw its expansion to Charlotte, North Carolina, on account of the legislation, costing the state millions in revenue.

Similar backlash is likely in Mississippi, as are lawsuits over the extremely dubious constitutionality of the law.

New York Times

Mississippi Law on Serving Gays Proves Divisive
By MIKE McPHATEAPRIL 14, 2016
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save
Photo

Opponents of the bill protested outside the Mississippi governor’s mansion last week in Jackson, the capital. Credit James Patterson/Associated Press
To hear some supporters tell it, a measure signed into law last week in Mississippi does little more than let bakers reject wedding cake orders from same-sex couples.

But its provisions allowing people with religious objections to deny certain services to gay couples have ignited fierce opposition, with some critics portraying them as a free pass to open-ended discrimination.

The Mississippi measure, the latest in a wave of similar legislative efforts across the country, has turned a harsh national spotlight on the state, as gay rights organizations, several major companies and at least five other states have publicly denounced it.

Gov. Phil Bryant has strongly defended the law, known officially as the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, by arguing that it was drafted in the “most targeted manner possible.”

“This does not create any action against any class or group of people,” he said during a talk radio show on April 5, the day he signed the law. “All this bill does is stop the government from interfering with people of faith who are exercising their religious beliefs.”

Critics of the bill, he added, “give the worst possible examples that may happen.”

An examination of the bill by Columbia Law School, however, found that it created a number of specific potential harms to gay, transgender and other people in schools, workplaces and government settings.

Among the scenarios described in the report, which was signed by 10 law professors:

• A school mental health counselor could refuse to work with a transgender student

• A government agency manager could require female employees to wear skirts or dresses

• A religious university could fire a single mother working in the cafeteria

In each case, the acting group or individual would only need to profess adherence to any of three religious beliefs specified in the bill: that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex is reserved for heterosexual marriage, or that gender is determined at birth as male or female.

Messages left with Mr. Bryant and the main sponsor of the bill, House Speaker Philip Gunn, were not returned.

Photo

Gov. Phil Bryant, in the Capitol in Jackson, Miss., has dismissed concerns about the law as overblown. Credit Rogelio V. Solis/Associated Press
“I think it’s one of the most aggressive bills that we have seen that would target L.G.B.T people,” said Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “This explicit targeting of specific populations, many of whom are already fairly marginalized and face discrimination in everyday life, poses huge problems.”

Much of the law focuses on same-sex marriage. It spells out more than a dozen of the services that could be denied by individuals or businesses on the basis of religious objections, among them poetry, printing, flowers and limousine rentals.

Wedding ceremonies are what this is really all about, said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, which has supported the legislation.

“This is specifically tailored to keep the state government from going after small business owners who may be Christian or Jew or whatever,” he said. “They have a religious objection to being forced to participate in a gay wedding ceremony.”

But the law goes much further than that, opponents say. One the most grievous passages of the legislation, they say, grants government clerks the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“Here we’re talking about public employees, who can potentially use religion as a means of denying somebody else their civil rights,” said Rob Hill, the state director of the Human Rights Campaign in Mississippi.

Legal experts have noted that such refusals would additionally pose a stigmatizing effect on same-sex couples that is forbidden by the Constitution. Ms. Rho, of the A.C.L.U., said assertions by some politicians that the law would cause no harmful consequences to gay and transgender people "couldn’t be further from the truth.”

“It’s difficult for me to understand how they think this is narrowly tailored given the breadth of the populations that are affected,” she said. “I suppose if you’re a heterosexual married couple, you’re fine?”

Mr. Wildmon and other supporters of the law have depicted a country whose religious convictions are under siege. The outcry over measures in North Carolina and Mississippi, the argument goes, is the result of a cultural insurgency of pro-L.G.B.T. forces that have taken over big business, Hollywood and the news media.

Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox. Monday – Friday.


“These people are so paranoid, the L.G.B.T. bunch, about this, when nobody is discriminating against them because of who they have sex with,” Mr. Wildmon said. “They want to go after these Christians to prove a point and that’s why these laws are being enacted.”

That sentiment has become increasingly acute in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage. Nowadays, Gov. Bryant said during his radio interview, religious people who raise objections to gay marriage are stigmatized as hateful.

Religious believers aren’t trying to dictate other people’s lives, he said. “We’re just saying, ‘Can you let us lead our lives? Can you just let us decide what we want to do?’ ”

Several legal experts have predicted that the law, which goes into effect July 1, would not survive judicial scrutiny in part because its elevation of specific religious beliefs violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which bars an official endorsement of one particular religion.

Mr. Hill, of the Human Rights Campaign, said the gay rights group and its partners were already exploring their litigation options.

Some analysts have dismissed the whole legislative effort as political theater, arguing that the bill won’t significantly alter the ground reality for gay and transgender people who are already vulnerable under state law.

Mississippi lacks any legal protections for gay, lesbian and transgender people in housing, employment or public accommodations such as restaurants, hospitals and schools. At the same time, the Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968, does not cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

Page Pate, a legal analyst who has studied the legislation, offered the example of the wedding cake baker who refuses the business of a gay couple.

“This law doesn’t give that person any more rights than they currently have under Mississippi law and the United States Constitution,” Mr. Pate said. “So from their perspective — ‘We need this law to protect our religious freedom’ — Uh, no you don’t.”

So, Mississippi, feels that this is the way to go about it, and people are protesting that the people of Mississippi are being discriminated against.

Here is the key section from the bill that the governor signed.

SECTION 3. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral
78 convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction
79 that:
80 (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of
81 one man and one woman;
82 (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a
83 marriage; and
84 (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an
85 individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by
86 anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

So, essentially, it's religious and state protected bigotry. Hurrah.

[Jordie]

Things have recently happened here in Australia.

Our PM has announced the initial details of a plebiscite to be held on whether the government should consider having a parliamentary vote to amend our Marriage Act to enable marriage equality.

Yes, a public opinion poll on whether or not they should do their jobs.

My favorite part:

In a fiery performance, the Prime Minister objected to critics' accusations about subsidising bigotry. He argued Australians could oppose same-sex marriage not because they did not respect gay people, but because of "a deeply-felt conscience". Such people should not be branded homophobes, he said.

And later, predictably, one of his National MPs (who are holding his leash at present) went out of his way to equivocate homosexuality with pedophilia. Neither the legislation Mr. Sack of Shit Christensen is commenting about or the prior media coverage of it says anything about 50 year old men fucking children, that was all his doing.

And of course our PM still believes we're going to have a civil and respectful debate about the "issue".

[FaxModem1]

CNN

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Updated 11:21 AM EDT, Mon June 04, 2018


(CNN) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, who cited his beliefs as a Christian, but leaves unsettled broader constitutional questions on religious liberty.


"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination.

The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of the term and was considered by some as a follow up from the court's decision three years ago to clear the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. That opinion, also written by Kennedy, expressed respect for those with religious objections to gay marriage.

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," he wrote Monday.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who represented Phillips, praised the ruling.

"Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs," Waggoner said in a statement. "Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment."

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the opinion.

"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," Melling said in a statement.

Because Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part, the judgment of the court on the case was 7-2 but the opinion on the rationale was 6-2.

Religious tolerance
Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.

"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."


"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," the opinion states.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that "when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding -- not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings -- and that is the service (the couple) were denied."

Baker emphasizes Christian beliefs
Phillips opened the bakery in 1993, knowing at the outset that there would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs.

"I didn't want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith," he said in an interview with CNN last year, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween.

In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig asked Phillips to bake a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.

"The Bible says, 'In the beginning there was male and female,'" Phillips said.

He offered to make any other baked goods for the men. "At which point they both stormed out and left," he said.

Mullins and Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law. Phillips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that requiring him to provide a wedding cake for the couple violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. The court held that the state anti-discrimination law was neutral and generally applicable and did not compel Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop to "support or endorse any particular religious view." It simply prohibited Phillips from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation.

"This case is about more than us, and it's not about cakes," Mullins said in an interview last year. "It's about the right of gay people to receive equal service."

The Trump administration sided with Phillips.

"A custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian," Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. "Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write."

Well, here's the loophole they've been waiting for. There is now legal precedent that helping someone different from you offends your beliefs, that someone doesn't have to be served by you.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Plessy v. Ferguson for the new millenium. Next will be enforcement of bigotry on businesses who put customer service above small-mindedness.

[TheFeniX]

That's a bit insulting considering not only the narrow decision here as it pertains to what people consider "artistic" good and services versus denying minorities access to public utilities and other necessities. If this is the new millennium version (after the supreme court struck down anti-gay marriage laws) then it's extremely watered down and could honestly be looked at as a step forward.

This is the "best" they can do: "we won't make someone create a specialty product for something they don't agree with."

I half agree and half don't agree, but let's be realistic here when you read something like:

"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."

[TimothyC]

Plessy v. Ferguson for the new millenium. Next will be enforcement of bigotry on businesses who put customer service above small-mindedness.

Nope. This decision was exceedingly narrowly worded, and the Court ruled on a procedural issue while leaving the broader issue (Religion/Speech vs Accommodation) undecided. What SCOTUS found here was that the way the Colorado Civil Rights Commission managed the case ignored the first amendment rights of the Baker in their ruling which was the basis of the litigation. The opinions look to be a "You screwed up and we have to find in favor of the baker. Don't screw up again."

To quote from the SCOTUSBLOG commentary:

"One version of the question presented in Masterpiece is: "Does the Constitution give wedding cake bakers a right to refuse service to homosexual couples on the basis of a religious objection, even if a State generally prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation." That is the "Right not to bake a cake" version. The Court does not answer that question. Instead it holds that the way the Colorado commission considered Mr. Phillips' case showed substantial hostility toward religion. That preserves the possibility that a State could enact a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexual couples and constitutionally apply it to a baker who refused service to a gay couple."

[Patroklos]

That leaves out the fact that Kennedy explicitly called out the three othe baker cases the Colorado board handled where they allowed them to refuse to put generic Christian and anti-same sex marriage messages on cakes.

This ruling clearly makes in precedent that regulations of this sort can’t be applied unequally, and you can’t elevate sexual orientation over religious free expression or visa versa.