3 ms·

I am likely a minority voice on HN on this topic and with so many strong feelings about this I will likely be down-voted for these arguments, but in the spirit

I am likely a minority voice on HN on this topic and with so many strong feelings about this I will likely be down-voted for these arguments, but in the spirit of bringing out another side to the debate so that a full discussion can happen, I'd like to bring up a few thoughts against the court-ruling. I rarely hear about how state-approved same-sex marriage will impact freedom of religion. Personal feelings aside, religous groups should have the freedom to practice their religion according to their conscience. They each have a right to preach their interpretation of right and wrong, and shouldn't be forced into the current policially correct view. For example, I could see a pastor or rabbi or other religous leader feeling uncomfortable about marrying 2 people of the same sex, and then being sued for a civil rights violation with the full force of the state to back up the couple's lawsuit. Another example that comes to mind is religous colleges that offer married student housing being forced to let a same-sex couple live in the housing; in this situation the school could be sued for discrimination and potentially lose tax-exempt status unless they comply. These 2 examples are compelling to me because they are realistic scenarios post-today's ruling and they represent a power-grab by the government over a religion's conscience-driven decisions about what is right and wrong. We shouldn't hand over these religious decisions to bureaucrats. It seems that by officially sanctioning same-sex marriage, we are heading towards a collision course between church and state, which is troubling from a religious-freedom perspective. In an ideal world, marriage wouldn't be a state-driven issue at all, but left to the religions themselves to define. Obviously this isn't an option; at the very least we should be careful about how much more power we want to give the government about our individual conscience-driven religous choices.

brandon 16y ago
Fact 19 from the findings of the court, emphasis mine: "Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law." How this fits in with college housing, for example, I could not say. I will say, though, that the situation you're describing sounds awful discriminatory.
ubernostrum 16y ago
No religious organization is being forced to recognize same-sex marriage. No religious organization will be required to endorse same-sex marriage. The case is solely concerned with the question of whether the state of California in its capacity as a state of the United States has grounds to refuse such recognition. And, under the 14th Amendment, it does not. That's the whole thing. As to college housing and other situations, the real question is whether such colleges accept government funding. That puts you in the same situation as accepting any funding: the entity providing the funds has the right to attach conditions, and you have the right to accept or refuse (and if you refuse, you don't get the money). And the US government and state governments are constitutionally barred from providing funding to any entity which engages in certain types of discrimination, so that's the condition attached to the funding.

brandon 16y ago

Fact 19 from the findings of the court, emphasis mine: "Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law." How this fits in with college housing, for example, I could not say. I will say, though, that the situation you're describing sounds awful discriminatory.

ubernostrum 16y ago

No religious organization is being forced to recognize same-sex marriage. No religious organization will be required to endorse same-sex marriage. The case is solely concerned with the question of whether the state of California in its capacity as a state of the United States has grounds to refuse such recognition. And, under the 14th Amendment, it does not. That's the whole thing. As to college housing and other situations, the real question is whether such colleges accept government funding. That puts you in the same situation as accepting any funding: the entity providing the funds has the right to attach conditions, and you have the right to accept or refuse (and if you refuse, you don't get the money). And the US government and state governments are constitutionally barred from providing funding to any entity which engages in certain types of discrimination, so that's the condition attached to the funding.