Churches urge high court to act on gay marriage

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Original poster
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Mormon church and four religious organizations are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and settle once and for all the question of whether states can outlaw gay marriage.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a statement Friday, said it joined a friend-of-the-court brief asking the high court to hear Utah's marriage case.

Also taking part in the filing were The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Each teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"The time has come to end the divisive national debate as to whether the Constitution mandates same-sex marriage," the brief states.

Multiple organizations and governmental entities on both sides of the debate have filed similar briefs asking the court to take up the issue.

The religious groups urged the Supreme Court on the basis of tradition and religious freedom to uphold a state's right to not allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.

"Legal uncertainty is especially burdensome for religious organizations and religious believers increasingly confronted with thorny questions," the brief says. "Is their right to refrain from participating in, recognizing or facilitating marriages between persons of the same sex, contrary to their religious convictions, adequately shielded by the First Amendment and other legal protections? Or is further legislation needed to guard religious liberties in these and other sensitive areas?"
Imagine how burdensome it is for the those of us who are being denied our rights? :rolleyes:

I've said over and over that I have no issue with religion - a line is drawn in the sand, however, when they actively pursue the denial of rights based on personal beliefs.

The fact that these guys are still trying to so hard makes every victory we've had in court this year so much sweeter.
 

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,109
3,749
The religious groups urged the Supreme Court on the basis of tradition and religious freedom to uphold a state's right to not allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.
Yes, because your groups have a complete monopoly over religious freedom. Forget those churches and synagogues that don't have problem with gay marriage... :rolleyes:
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,440
United Kingdom
The religious groups urged the Supreme Court on the basis of tradition and religious freedom to uphold a state's right to not allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.
Sounds like the church wants the court to rule that the U.S. Constitution specifically gives the state the right to pass laws that give favourable treatment to the views of the religious establishment, which is strange given that it explicitly forbids this kind of legislative behaviour.

I really don't understand their issue. Pass a law that permits gay people to get married but nothing that forces churches to marry people they don't want to marry. Simple, what the heck is their problem?

Sounds like more whining from the religious establishment.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
The religious groups urged the Supreme Court on the basis of tradition and religious freedom to uphold a state's right to not allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.


The Court held that tradition, no matter how old, cannot be a legal basis to justify discrimination, reasoning: “there are bad traditions that are historical realities… and traditions that are neither good nor bad.” Either way, they argued, tradition cannot justify what they called discrimination against same-sex couples.

The Court also rejected the States’ argument that the marriage laws would protect procreation through marriage, calling it “so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.”

Judge Richard Posner, writing for the Court, went on to say “homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world.”
Good luck with that.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
I'm not understanding the religious freedom argument. What do civil marriage contracts have to do with their religious freedom? Even to someone who opposes same sex marriage, this can't possibly make any sense.
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
I'm not understanding the religious freedom argument. What do civil marriage contracts have to do with their religious freedom? Even to someone who opposes same sex marriage, this can't possibly make any sense.
It's the only way left they can say "we're bigoted *******s who think other people don't deserve equal civil rights" without saying it straight-up.

"Religious freedom" is a crock of ****. There is no way possible that anyone with any shred of logical reasoning whatsoever would think denying civil rights to a large group of the population was "religious freedom". But then again, why would anyone expect logic when dealing with the religious?
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
It's the only way left they can say "we're bigoted *******s who think other people don't deserve equal civil rights" without saying it straight-up.

"Religious freedom" is a crock of ****. There is no way possible that anyone with any shred of logical reasoning whatsoever would think denying civil rights to a large group of the population was "religious freedom". But then again, why would anyone expect logic when dealing with the religious?
I've been told (by a prominent leftie member) recently in another thread that marriage is not a civil right.
 

adroit

macrumors 6502
Sep 28, 2005
271
132
Victoria, BC
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, . . .
. . . The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
Reads like a list of hate groups.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
I've been told (by a prominent leftie member) recently in another thread that marriage is not a civil right.
And neither is a job. Yet if I refused to hire somebody based on my religious beliefs, I'd be setting myself up for a lawsuit.

"The time has come to end the divisive national debate as to whether the Constitution mandates same-sex marriage," the brief states.
I can answer that one. There is no mandate for same-sex marriage. There's just no mandate against it. There's also no legal basis for denying it.
 

kingalexthe1st

macrumors 6502
Apr 13, 2013
469
164
The religious groups urged the Supreme Court on the basis of tradition and religious freedom to uphold a state's right to not allow gay and lesbian couples to wed
It's stuff like this that makes my blood boil. That people with a belief can exercise some sort of 'right' and 'freedom' to reduce the freedom and equality of others is wrong on every level. Why this kind of thinking wasn't stamped out decades ago is beyond me.

Alex
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Original poster
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
I've been told (by a prominent leftie member) recently in another thread that marriage is not a civil right.
According to SCOTUS in Loving vs. Virginia, marriage is a right.

And frankly, who cares if it is or not? These churches are confused about the definition of religious freedom.

If you ever have a question about why there are some posters who have a strong bias against the church, or religion in general, please refer back to this thread.
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
According to SCOTUS in Loving vs. Virginia, marriage is a right.

And frankly, who cares if it is or not? These churches are confused about the definition of religious freedom.

If you ever have a question about why there are some posters who have a strong bias against the church, or religion in general, please refer back to this thread.
Exactly.

"Religious freedom" means you can build a church and practice whatever wacky religion you want. It doesn't mean you can use those beliefs to infringe on the rights of others.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Yeah, I don't think freedom of religion ever meant "YOUR legal contract is contrary to MY religious beliefs and should be banned". How does one even stretch their imagination to come up with that absurd "legal argument"?
 

skottichan

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2007
879
901
Columbus, OH
Here's my problem with this. I know for a fact that there are religions from Wiccan to several sects of Christianity, not only accept, but support marriage equality. Why aren't their "Freedom of Religion" rights being respected by the LDS church (and others) in this matter?
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
Christians tend to think they invented marriage. well god invented it. but marriage has been around long before Christianity or Judaism. marriage was about making alliances and making heirs. the bible tried to get some love involved since back in those days wives were just the breeders and caretakers of the house not the lover of the husband.
Really we are seeing is that Christians are really upset that they can't run very ones lives and it is really pissing some of them off. well see megachurch leaders calling for death to the gays death to the muslims death to atheists all in the name of jesus. I can't imagine jesus agreeing to that.
 

Ledgem

macrumors 68000
Jan 18, 2008
1,752
505
Hawaii, USA
According to SCOTUS in Loving vs. Virginia, marriage is a right.
I hope SLC Flyfishing wasn't thinking of me when he referenced a "prominent leftie member" (as I don't think of myself as nor wish to be prominent here, and I don't think I'm a "lefty" or a "righty"), but I recently disagreed with him over his similar interpretation of Loving v. Virginia. Loving was not suing the state of Virginia for the right to be married, as she had already been officially married out of the state. Rather, due to Virginia's laws against interracial relations, she was facing a felony charge and prison time. Her lawsuit was about having her conviction overturned, and it led to a nationwide ban on making such relations and marriages illegal.

The Constitution doesn't talk about marriage, and what people seem to neglect when comparing interracial marriage to other forms of marriage struggle today is the fact that interracial marriage (and relations) was a crime. It isn't just that people were being denied a status and benefits, they were actively being punished.

And frankly, who cares if it is or not? These churches are confused about the definition of religious freedom.
I completely agree. Religious freedom means that the churches are free to practice how they wish. If marrying certain people within their confines or by their pastor offends them and goes against their beliefs, then in my opinion they shouldn't be forced to do it. It would be a rotten and discriminatory thing to do, but it is their beliefs and we should respect that. However, they do not own the term "marriage," nor do they get to define what marriage must mean to the rest of the nation. That oversteps religious freedom and becomes a scenario whereby they are forcing their doctrines on others.
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
Toronto
Dear "believers" - keep your "religion" there where it belongs - out of the lives of others. "Thank you".
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
I support the right of the churches to petition the courts. It's their right to do so, and it will be up to the courts to sort through it all.
 

kingalexthe1st

macrumors 6502
Apr 13, 2013
469
164
Religious freedom means that the churches are free to practice how they wish. If marrying certain people within their confines or by their pastor offends them and goes against their beliefs, then in my opinion they shouldn't be forced to do it. It would be a rotten and discriminatory thing to do, but it is their beliefs and we should respect that.
No. Absolutely not. They believe in something that has no evidence for it, and lots of evidence against it. And if they are going to use the supernatural to discriminate against people in the real world (people in their religion or not) then I for one don't have to respect their decision one iota. It's unacceptable.

Alex
 

Ledgem

macrumors 68000
Jan 18, 2008
1,752
505
Hawaii, USA
No. Absolutely not. They believe in something that has no evidence for it, and lots of evidence against it. And if they are going to use the supernatural to discriminate against people in the real world (people in their religion or not) then I for one don't have to respect their decision one iota. It's unacceptable.
I don't support discrimination, either, but I recognize that these are private institutions that were privately funded. If people don't like it then they are free to find another church that caters to their beliefs, build one themselves, or otherwise try to work from within to change their churches' stance. Just as I dislike the idea of the churches forcing their views on society, I don't like the idea that the majority, through the government, would tell these institutions what they should be believing and how they should be carrying those beliefs out.