You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #37: How so? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
37. How so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -About the religious protections in the NY same-sex marriage bill. MineralMan  Jun-25-11 09:58 AM   #0 
  - Reserving church-owned property for some people but not everybody is unconstitutional.  yardwork   Jun-25-11 10:21 AM   #1 
  - Actually, the First Amendment pretty much protects  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 10:23 AM   #3 
  - I think that you are missing my point. See my post downthread.  yardwork   Jun-25-11 10:25 AM   #5 
     - Thanks for expanding.  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 10:37 AM   #10 
        - Well, I don't agree that it would foolish. Constitutional challenges aren't foolish.  yardwork   Jun-25-11 05:50 PM   #39 
  - You edited that in good time  dipsydoodle   Jun-25-11 10:27 AM   #6 
     - I realized that I wasn't being clear.  yardwork   Jun-25-11 10:28 AM   #7 
     - but would a Catholic Church  Mz Pip   Jun-25-11 10:38 AM   #11 
        - Good question, but it's not really enough  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 10:43 AM   #12 
           - I agree it shouldn't be worth the risk  Mz Pip   Jun-25-11 11:36 AM   #19 
  - Good points, MM  classof56   Jun-25-11 10:21 AM   #2 
  - There are plenty of churches that perform same-sex marriages. Finding them is no problem.  yardwork   Jun-25-11 10:25 AM   #4 
     - like reserving water fountains for whites only ?  dipsydoodle   Jun-25-11 10:29 AM   #8 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-25-11 11:46 AM   #22 
     - Cute move which doesn't wash.  dipsydoodle   Jun-25-11 12:27 PM   #31 
        - Excuse me. Why was my post offensive?  yardwork   Jun-25-11 05:53 PM   #40 
     - How so?  yardwork   Jun-25-11 05:27 PM   #37 
     - Why would one want to get married  quaker bill   Jun-25-11 06:44 PM   #43 
     - I see what you're saying. You may be right.  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 10:31 AM   #9 
     - Oh, no, there will be a challenge, surely. But it will fail on First Amendment grounds instantly.  joshcryer   Jun-25-11 10:56 AM   #14 
        - Yes, most likely it would fail on those grounds. Lots of precedent  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 11:08 AM   #15 
           - Hmm, I did some digging and it's not so clear. Apparently a Lesbian couple sued, and won:  joshcryer   Jun-25-11 11:29 AM   #18 
              - Who is going to do that mandate? The churches? What will require them to do so?  yardwork   Jun-25-11 05:41 PM   #38 
     - This will be trivial to circumvent, all a Church has to do is mandate a clergyman...  joshcryer   Jun-25-11 10:50 AM   #13 
     - Addendum: looks more like if a Church uses facilities for non-religious related activities...  joshcryer   Jun-25-11 11:52 AM   #24 
        - That sound reassuring. If that is the case, then there may be no problems.  yardwork   Jun-25-11 06:02 PM   #42 
     - I see your point...  Chan790   Jun-26-11 11:14 PM   #47 
  - I don't understand how they can write a law that says ...  BattyDem   Jun-25-11 11:10 AM   #16 
  - That really depends on the state's constitution, really.  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 11:24 AM   #17 
  - I could be wrong, but I think inseverability clauses are allowed in any bill regardless of the state  BzaDem   Jun-25-11 12:17 PM   #26 
  - Could well be. I'm not an expert on this at all.  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 12:19 PM   #27 
  - Thanks for the info.  BattyDem   Jun-25-11 03:16 PM   #32 
  - This happens a lot more than you think  customerserviceguy   Jun-25-11 03:52 PM   #36 
     - I never realized that.  BattyDem   Jun-26-11 10:18 PM   #46 
  - If someone is in the clergy, I don't have a problem with that  WolverineDG   Jun-25-11 11:38 AM   #20 
  - It doesn't extend to public employees.  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 11:40 AM   #21 
  - Solemnization is distinct from signing paperwork.  joshcryer   Jun-25-11 11:54 AM   #25 
  - They tried to include a "conscience clause" that would have applied to public employees  yardwork   Jun-25-11 06:01 PM   #41 
     - Good nt  WolverineDG   Jun-26-11 09:17 AM   #45 
  - Something as simple as not dropping cash into the basket regularly rules out a Catholic marriage  NNN0LHI   Jun-25-11 11:48 AM   #23 
  - Churches do as they please in these matters.  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 12:23 PM   #29 
  - Does it apply to anything beyond services or facilities?  starroute   Jun-25-11 12:22 PM   #28 
  - I didn't get that from my reading.  MineralMan   Jun-25-11 12:25 PM   #30 
  - Religious protections were a way to give cover to legislators who wanted to vote yes.  EFerrari   Jun-25-11 03:21 PM   #33 
  - Before gay marriage was even on the radar, religious institutions always had the right  Lydia Leftcoast   Jun-25-11 03:36 PM   #34 
  - Quakers  quaker bill   Jun-25-11 06:48 PM   #44 
  - Here's why I think those provisions were put in there  customerserviceguy   Jun-25-11 03:46 PM   #35 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC