Dudes, for religious freedom to apply, you have to be a recognized religion.
I've always taken issue with this. Recognized by whom? The government doesn't "accredit" religious institutions, so wouldn't it just be up to the believers?
Dudes, for religious freedom to apply, you have to be a recognized religion.
I've always taken issue with this. Recognized by whom? The government doesn't "accredit" religious institutions, so wouldn't it just be up to the believers?
The IRS.
From what I can find, the IRS criteria are:
a distinct legal existence,
a recognized creed and form of worship,
a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,
a formal code of doctrine and discipline
a distinct religious history,
a membership not associated with any other church or denomination,
an organization of ordained ministers,
ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies,
a literature of its own,
established places of worship,
regular congregations,
regular religious services,
Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young,
I received the following e-mail from NYS Senator Onorato in response to my e-mail to all of the NYS Senators that voted against allowing gay marriage in NY. Any emphasis added is my own:
Thank you contacting me regarding same sex marriage.
While I continue to support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.
In the months leading up to the vote, I heard frequently from constituents on both sides of the debate, and I believe my district is split on this issue.
Over the years, I have voted in favor of other legislation of importance to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, including the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) and the hate crimes law. I continue to support the Dignity for All Students Act and the Gender Identification Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), and I hope they will be brought up for a vote in the new legislative session. While I do not support same-sex marriage, I would vote in favor of civil union legislation as a way to broaden legal protections and rights for same-sex couples. I deeply respect the views of the LGBT community on same-sex marriage, and I have appreciated the candid and almost universally respectful dialogue we have had on this issue.
1) He only based this on his personal beliefs. 2) Calling it a "civil union" is fine, but calling it "marriage" isn't? Is he scared of particular words?
Calling it a "civil union" is fine, but calling it "marriage" isn't? Is he scared of particular words?
I hear this a lot. When someone puts that toward me, I always use the "Separate but equal = fail" argument. Also, would they be exactly the same, and would heterosexuals be able to use them and gain the same benefits? If the state is going to "marry" people, it should have the same contract regardless of the pairing. Either you get rid of all state recognized "marriage" in favor of a civil union for all, or you let everyone have the same name for the governmental institution referring to this type of legal binding of two people.
I hear this a lot. When someone puts that toward me, I always use the "Separate but equal = fail" argument. Also, would they be exactly the same, and would heterosexuals be able to use them and gain the same benefits? If the state is going to "marry" people, it should have the same contract regardless of the pairing. Either you get rid of all state recognized "marriage" in favor of a civil union for all, or you let everyone have the same name for the governmental institution referring to this type of legal binding of two people.
I'm still thinking that getting the term Marriage out of the federal government is the way to go.
It probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. But then you'd need to explain to pretty much every religious married couple that they're still married, but also joined by a state-recognized civil union...and things could get ugly.
I'm still thinking that getting the term Marriage out of the federal government is the way to go.
I'm in this camp too. Unfortunately religion has completely hi-jacked the word, and it'd be easier to just change the terminology. But, even if you did that, the religious right would still object to gay couples getting the same rights as them, particularly when it comes to children.
This is probably old news, but I feel the fact that the Justice Department's claims aren't helping at all.
Dan Savage is awesome. Been a fan of "Savage Love" for a while now.
To be fair to the Obama administration, the man has been in office for less than a year. You can't really expect someone to come along and change everything in less than a year.
Cool! Also, fuck those to members of the Council that voted against it.
One of them was former mayor Marion Barry, a man who was caught smoking crack cocaine during a police sting. Not to mention his tax evasion, stalking, and traffic violations.
Since today my home country Austria recognizes Civil Unions of homosexual couples. Well technically since January 1st but today was the first non-holiday of the year. They still don't allow adoption and forbids artificial insemination to same sex partners, but I guess it's a step in the right direction.
Since today my home country Austria allows for Civil Unions for homosexual couples. Well technically since January 1st but today was the first non-holiday of the year. They still don't allow adoption and forbids artificial insemination to same sex partners, but I guess it's a step in the right direction.
Do they allow single people to adopt and get artificial insemination? If so, there is a major loophole to be exploited. It certainly isn't the ideal, but it is an option.
Wow, a conservative media watchdog group actually tries to paint the opposition to the Ugandan bill as christian-bashing. How dare they try and tell christians that they shouldn't kill people... Picked apart by Ed Brayton.
Also, the federal court case about Prop. 8 has started.
1-- Has anybody been keeping up with the Prop 8 trial? The defense has been floundering, the plaintiffs are pushing forward evidence and rational ideas, and Judge Walker seems quite intelligent. Right now the defense is trying to prove that the gay community has made a lot of gains in civil rights and has political power...as if that would make it okay to restrict our rights in marriage. They keep trying to get Walker to refuse evidence that shows our lack of power, particularly in comparison with religious establishments that campaigned against our rights. I feel optimistic so far, but I know it'll just get appealed, whatever the outcome. I'd like to discuss this.
2-- We all know that Senator Brown is not good for health care or gay marriage on the national level. Does anybody think that Senator Brown will push against gay marriage in his own state?
I still think that they should push it as a gender issue as well.
Technically, gays have the same rights as straights: they can all marry a member of the opposite sex. This legal right is granted to a person regardless of sexual orientation. This is pretty much the opposition's strongest legal point.
The only way that it's solidly unconstitutional seems to be the gender discrimination framing: A man can enter into a marriage contract with a woman, so why can't a woman? They are denying me the same rights that a man has when they say that I can't marry a woman. Likewise, why can a woman enter into marriage with a man, but a man can't enter into marriage with a man? THAT'S STATE-SPONSORED GENDER DISCRIMINATION!
Oooh, very nice Nuri. Right now the gay community is being pushed as a minority suffering from denied civil rights, but the opposing side only sees us as a minority when it's convenient. Adding the gender discrimination viewpoint could bolster us.
One thing the plaintiffs pushed for today was proving that homosexuality is something inherent, something that is not a lifestyle choice. That is necessary if we want to be recognized as a minority protected by the 14th amendment. If we only went for gender discrimination, we wouldn't really be acknowledging ourselves, homosexuals, as a minority in our own right. We need that recognition.
There are day-by-day records of the trial here. I'm actually pretty interested in what you and other legal types think of it all, Nuri.
Huh, I thought they added sexual orientation as a protected class not too long ago. Plus, religion isn't inherent. It's a lifestyle choice. So there's always that argument; religion is a protected class, and it is more of a choice than sexual orientation.
The fact remains that even if you are recognized as a minority, you're not technically being denied any rights that other people have, and any intelligent lawyer is going to bring that up. Our side needs to have a counter to that argument, which is where the gender discrimination comes in. The only people who CARE about this particular type of gender discrimination are same-sex couples and their supporters, so it hasn't been addressed before this fight.
I'm afraid I don't have the eye power to keep up with the court goings-on right now. School started this week, and I'm reading my eyes out already. Trying to give them a break whenever I can so as not to get terrible pain and accelerated vision loss.
Comments
Dudes, for religious freedom to apply, you have to be a recognized religion.
From what I can find, the IRS criteria are:
- a distinct legal existence,
- a recognized creed and form of worship,
- a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,
- a formal code of doctrine and discipline
- a distinct religious history,
- a membership not associated with any other church or denomination,
- an organization of ordained ministers,
- ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies,
- a literature of its own,
- established places of worship,
- regular congregations,
- regular religious services,
- Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young,
- school for the preparation of its ministers.
(Totally stolen from here, a paper that may or may not be worth reading.)Since 1993, the IRS has recognized Scientology as a religion...so it can't be that hard to get.
2) Calling it a "civil union" is fine, but calling it "marriage" isn't? Is he scared of particular words?
This is probably old news, but I feel the fact that the Justice Department's claims aren't helping at all.
To be fair to the Obama administration, the man has been in office for less than a year. You can't really expect someone to come along and change everything in less than a year.
Picked apart by Ed Brayton.
Also, the federal court case about Prop. 8 has started.
I feel optimistic so far, but I know it'll just get appealed, whatever the outcome. I'd like to discuss this.
2-- We all know that Senator Brown is not good for health care or gay marriage on the national level. Does anybody think that Senator Brown will push against gay marriage in his own state?
Technically, gays have the same rights as straights: they can all marry a member of the opposite sex. This legal right is granted to a person regardless of sexual orientation. This is pretty much the opposition's strongest legal point.
The only way that it's solidly unconstitutional seems to be the gender discrimination framing: A man can enter into a marriage contract with a woman, so why can't a woman? They are denying me the same rights that a man has when they say that I can't marry a woman. Likewise, why can a woman enter into marriage with a man, but a man can't enter into marriage with a man? THAT'S STATE-SPONSORED GENDER DISCRIMINATION!
There are day-by-day records of the trial here. I'm actually pretty interested in what you and other legal types think of it all, Nuri.
The fact remains that even if you are recognized as a minority, you're not technically being denied any rights that other people have, and any intelligent lawyer is going to bring that up. Our side needs to have a counter to that argument, which is where the gender discrimination comes in. The only people who CARE about this particular type of gender discrimination are same-sex couples and their supporters, so it hasn't been addressed before this fight.
I'm afraid I don't have the eye power to keep up with the court goings-on right now. School started this week, and I'm reading my eyes out already. Trying to give them a break whenever I can so as not to get terrible pain and accelerated vision loss.
Cool.