Could this be considered religious discrimination?

[Sinti]

Marriage is basically a contract - it has no "spiritual" basis other than that given to it by believers. To the law it should simply be a contract, as far as I can see. Maybe I'm not looking far enough.

Couldn't the states be sued for religious discrimination for allowing referendums to appear on the ballot such as they have? Technically, it looks like religious discrimination to me. We are being discriminated against, i.e., denied the right of contract, because we do not share their religious beliefs. Any other social fabric excuse they bring up is total BS, gay people live together already, the contract is the only real change. Is it legal to have widespread discrimination codified in law because of the discriminator's religion? I don't know that there's any case law for or against, then again I haven't researched this much, it's just a thought.

No one is demanding any given church "marry" them - we simply want the right of contract. Catholic churches, at least back in the day, wouldn't marry a mixed couple that was Catholic and Protestant - but they could still get married before a judge. This seems to sit on the same grounds.

Would it be possible to have a class action lawsuit on this kind of basis? I'm pretty sure it violates the Establishment Clause in a hair on fire kind of way. These things are not to put up to the capricious judgment of popular vote, they are guaranteed rights for all human beings. Unless they want to decide we are not human beings - I think their hand should be forced on this.

[Taverner]

1. Interesting - I would love to hear what some of the Lawyers say

[get the red out]

2. That's good!

I hope some clever lawyer takes that thought and runs with it.

[Jokerman]

3. How about "equal protection under the law"?

Shouldn't that negate all gender and sexual orientation based restrictions?

Of course, that would require the courts to do their job without bias.

[LeftHander]

4. I believe this line is being addressed in Cali prop 8 legal challenge.

That will be working through Federal Courts.

[Sinti]

7. I hope they can get down to the real issue

in an unapologetic way - I am a human being also, and as stated above should have equal rights, and equal protection under the law. Granted, I live in Idaho so...

It seems such an obvious thing, even a failure would force the members of the court to show their true position and would actually roll the boulder down the road as any such opinion would ultimately lead to a reversal, given the real context of the problem - or of course they could just be on the right side of history and it's a win. They would have to consider what they were saying in a much broader context, and what a horrible blight it would be if that kind of thinking were brought out into the sunshine, stripped of the blinders, if you will.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. I have wanted the issue to be challenged fro YEARS --

on that argument! I think it is a valid legal challenge -- being forced against your will to be governed by a religious doctrine not your own is an argument being made right now by "christian" doctors and pharmacists against having to dispence birth control etc.

What's good for the goose... :evilgrin:

[madrchsod]

6. you can`t get a legal divorce in a church....

[Deep13]

8. It is plainly religious bigotry...

...in imposing religious rules on those who do not subscribe to them.

Yes, churches discriminate. The Catholic church still requires the non-Catholic partner to convert to be married in the church. They still discriminate against women and homosexuals. Most of the Protestant churches aren't much better. I don't know about the Orthodoxy, but I doubt they have either female or openly gay priests or that they allow gay marriage. Unfortunately, religions are allowed to flout anydiscriminations standards because of their freedom of bigotry--er,--I mean freedom of belief.

I dispute that marriage is merely a contract. I think it is its own thing and not a subcatagory of any other legal concept. Legally, you are probably right, but I think it is a fiction.

[skygazer]

9. Marriage has been a civil contract for a very long time

While churches marry people, for a marriage to be legal, it has to be registered with the state and it's been that way for a long time. Because of that, I don't think the argument would fly - while many if not most of the opponents of gay marriage have a religious bias, marriage laws themselves are fairly secular.

I think the equal protection angle is much more promising. And it ties into your third paragraph with the comparison to mixed race couples - the argument that was ultimately successful there was one of equal protection.

I agree something must be done and it must be done through the courts. It is going to happen but the pressure cannot let up.

[Sinti]

10. Equal protection is the likely angle they'll take.

I think the court needs to be forced to state if gay people are human, too, and therefore have the full complement of rights afforded to human beings. It's not just mixed "race" couples that the church won't (or wouldn't) marry. Back in the old days a Catholic church would not marry a couple where one of them was a Protestant - also they had to go to the justice of the peace, or whatever. I don't know if this is still true, but it was for my parents.

I really think it is religious discrimination, only they are discriminating because of their religion, rather than being discriminated against due to their religion. Allowing religious groups to put a referendum on the ballot that is forcing the view of their religion on the wider secular society, in my mind, is a huge violation of the establishment clause, much more so than some decorative stone with words on it sitting outside a courthouse. The latter is merely symbolic, the former affects real people every day.

If they can get away with this, what else can they do? Religions are ambitious organizations that desire to mold the world as they see fit. I think we're all glad The Holy Roman Empire finally fell, I sure don't want to bring something that even hints of that back.

Fingers crossed, I hope something good comes out of the anger over this.

[donco6]

11. No church has EVER been forced to marry anyone.

And never will.