Measure submitted to dump California gay marriage ban

[snopes]

A group is pushing ahead with a campaign to repeal California's same-sex marriage ban, even though some other gay rights organizations think it's too soon for another expensive ballot fight.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

[PallasAthena]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, anything that would get rid of prop 8 has me jumping for joy.

On the other hand, it seems obscenely stupid to have to have a legal measure stating that churches won't be forced to marry gay people. Churches aren't forced to marry any straight couple that comes walking through the doors, so the same is true for any couple. I think having a measure spelling this out just gives validity to that ridiculous argument.

[MapleLeaf]

This is one of those things where my ideology bows to practicality. If it will make the fundies and idiots STFU for 5 seconds so gay people can get married I'm happy to throw them a stupid bone like this one that affects nothing, even if it gives legitimacy to their stupidity.

[Tom o' Bedlam]

Originally Posted by PallasAthena

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, anything that would get rid of prop 8 has me jumping for joy.

On the other hand, it seems obscenely stupid to have to have a legal measure stating that churches won't be forced to marry gay people. Churches aren't forced to marry any straight couple that comes walking through the doors, so the same is true for any couple. I think having a measure spelling this out just gives validity to that ridiculous argument.

Might it be to prevent the application of any anti-discrimination laws? I don't know how the law applies to churches and marriage ceremonies as it is, but would it be legal for a church to maintain a policy of refusing to marry, say, black people?

[PallasAthena]

Originally Posted by Tom o' Bedlam

Might it be to prevent the application of any anti-discrimination laws? I don't know how the law applies to churches and marriage ceremonies as it is, but would it be legal for a church to maintain a policy of refusing to marry, say, black people?

I doubt that any church that would refuse to marry black people would have any black members. Since typically one must be a church member in order to get married, this sort of negates that whole arguement.

And realistically, yeah. A church is free to be a racist bastard if it really wants to. Aren't there white supremacist churches that already do this sort of thing? Sure it's douchy. Sure it's wrong. But there are churches that do wrong stuff all the time. Like preaching about murdering the president. And encouraging violence against abortion providers. And abusing gay kids into thinking that they're actually straight and being gay is a disease.

[Tom o' Bedlam]

Originally Posted by PallasAthena

I doubt that any church that would refuse to marry black people would have any black members. Since typically one must be a church member in order to get married, this sort of negates that whole arguement.

Of course I was speaking hypothetically. Maybe I should have suggested "interracial couples" instead, to make it more plausible that either or both members of the couple could already be part of the church.

And realistically, yeah. A church is free to be a racist bastard if it really wants to.

That's essentially what I was wondering. I wasn't sure whether or not churches were subject to any form of discrimination laws in terms of whom it will marry or accept as members.

[snopes]

Nearly a year after California voters overturned same-sex marriage, voters in three other states will weigh in this fall on whether to reverse gay rights initiatives ranging from anti-discrimination measures to marriage benefits.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

[IlGreven]

Originally Posted by Tom o' Bedlam

Might it be to prevent the application of any anti-discrimination laws? I don't know how the law applies to churches and marriage ceremonies as it is, but would it be legal for a church to maintain a policy of refusing to marry, say, black people?

No. That would be a blatant First Amendment violation. On the other hand, it could be argued that preventing gays from being legally married on purely moral grounds (i.e. the chief argument is "It's a sin before the Lord") is also a blatant First Amendment violation, so...

[Roadie]

Originally Posted by IlGreven

No. That would be a blatant First Amendment violation. On the other hand, it could be argued that preventing gays from being legally married on purely moral grounds (i.e. the chief argument is "It's a sin before the Lord") is also a blatant First Amendment violation, so...

The First Amendment doesn't apply to churches.

ETA: I mean, they can't violate it.

[Ben_Who]

It's funny. Maine's gay marriage law specifically excludes churches. That is to say, gay marriage is entirely a civil matter, and it's up to individual churches to decide whether or not to provide the service. What's more, the state can't deny benefits against any church on the basis of its stance on gay marriage.

Which means that 95% of the argument against gay marriage being codified in Maine law has pretty much been erased, and that the effort to repeal the law is based almost entirely on its detractors really, REALLY hoping their followers don't notice. So you STILL see the advertisements where teh gayz are shackling hand and foot the efforts of churches to provide desperately needed services for indigent Mainers. Once you point out that churches aren't involved in civil marriage law, they tend to sort of go "Um, er, ah," and resort to the "It'll cause a complete breakdown in the fabric of Western civilization!" and "Think about the children!" arguments.

If I weren't 100% sure that the law is going to be repealed anyway, it would be hilarious to watch.

Love, Who?