Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not remotely possible.

See the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

This. Religious leaders/clergy aren't "required" to perform weddings now. They are authorized (or in some states, licensed) to perform weddings, and are fully able (as DGTess suggests) to refuse to perform a wedding if applicale religious requirements are not met.

What today's decision means is that if a state legally recognizes a marriage, the federal government cannot refuse to recognize it. So for example, if you're a legally-married same-sex couple in, say, New York, the IRS now has to let you file a joint tax return. But under the decisions today, it is still up to each state to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages.

[Tulip86]

Originally Posted by thetalady

MC, does this decision also mean that religious leaders of all faiths will be required to perform same sex marriages? Could they be prosecuted for discrimination if they refuse? or is that an issue coming later down the road?

Interesting question.

I'm currently based in The Netherlands, the first country to allow same-sex marriage over 12 years ago. In the past years there has been a lot of debate on this issue, expanding it to include civil servants. Quite an interesting debate, though the population isn't as religious as the American people are, only about 40% are religious. The main religions are Protestantism and Catholicism.

The Protestant Church here left it up to individual congregations to decide of they wanted to bless same-sex marriages, and most now do. The Roman Catholic Church has not allowed blessings in their churches, but other Catholic movements do.

Legally, all civil servants are required to conduct same-sex marriages, though if they were hired before the law came in to place, they cannot be fired over refusal to do so. What it comes down to is that every municipality has at least one civil servant who conducts same-sex marriages.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by thetalady

MC, does this decision also mean that religious leaders of all faiths will be required to perform same sex marriages? Could they be prosecuted for discrimination if they refuse? or is that an issue coming later down the road?

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. NO. This is NOT a thing. If I walk into a Catholic church and ask the priest to marry me, right now, he's going to say "No, you are Jewish", and I cannot turn around and bring legal action against him. Churches are allowed to discriminate all over the place.

(In fact, I applied for a job at an Evangelical Christian university, and they rejected me on the basis of my faith)

[OPhiAGinger]

If a same-sex couple gets married in a state where their marriage is legal, then later moves to one that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, will the federal government still recognize the marriage? In other words, does the federal government's recognition of the legality of the marriage depend on where they currently live or where they were legally married?

[Psi U MC Vito]

I think that it's based on state of residence. Because remember the couple in this case were married in Canada, not the US.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by thetalady

MC, does this decision also mean that religious leaders of all faiths will be required to perform same sex marriages? Could they be prosecuted for discrimination if they refuse? or is that an issue coming later down the road?

I know this has been answered already, but look at it this way - we have the right to own guns, however, if you tried walking into a nightclub with one, they can turn you around and not allow you inside.

I think what a lot of people don't know (and what I didn't really know until I took my first law class in college) is that the Constitution protects us against the government. It doesn't demand that churches, or businesses, or individuals grant us the same rights in the same way.

In the example I provided above, the government would not be permitted to force that nightclub to admit anyone with a gun, the same way it couldn't force a church to perform a same-sex marriage.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by OPhiAGinger

If a same-sex couple gets married in a state where their marriage is legal, then later moves to one that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, will the federal government still recognize the marriage? In other words, does the federal government's recognition of the legality of the marriage depend on where they currently live or where they were legally married?

The federal government will recognize a legal marriage, whether or not the state does. Therefore, for example, a couple married in Massachusetts who now lives in Virginia will be able to file a married-filing-jointly federal tax return, but not a Virginia return.

Social security is a federal entitlement. Therefore, if the couple is legally married, whether or not the state of residence acknowledges it, SS will be available.

State benefits will not be. I don't have anywhere near a legal enough mind to comprehend yet how federal-state partnerships will work.

[DubaiSis]

To address thetalady's question, I would think (and accept) that any church could participate or not. Currently some (but I think not all) Catholic churches will only perform marriages physically inside the church - no outdoor ceremonies, and I see that as a similar type of policy. I personally see it as freedom to associate, and I have no problem with there being a disconnect between public policy and church policy.

And regarding the federal versus states issue, the big assumption is this is exactly the next battle in this war. Couple from Iowa who has been married for several years moves to Utah. Can their new home really deny them rights (and a lot of the important ones like end of life issues would be state policy)? The most conservative states are going to be bombarded with law suits because of this. But that doesn't mean the churches in those states need to play along.

To me, the next interesting battle will be about plural marriage. And for the record, I have no problem with plural marriage as long as everyone is adult and it is truly consenting among all parties. The Shariah contract would be perfect for this. Can you imagine Utah enacting Shariah Law? In Shariah Law, as it was explained to me in Dubai, is the bride signs off in the contract (basically a REALLY detailed prenup) on whether or not she will allow additional wives, and how many. In modern Islam, the max number of wives is 4. But that's a discussion for another time.

[WCsweet<3]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

To address thetalady's question, I would think (and accept) that any church could participate or not. Currently some (but I think not all) Catholic churches will only perform marriages physically inside the church - no outdoor ceremonies, and I see that as a similar type of policy. I personally see it as freedom to associate, and I have no problem with there being a disconnect between public policy and church policy.

You are correct. Roman Catholic weddings are often indoors, though some priests are willing to perform the ceremony outdoors. It is more of a priest by priest basis on that.

[DubaiSis]

And that's the correlation I was trying to make. It's between you and your priest, as would gay marriage.
And by the way, that was my excuse for NOT getting married in the church. They have the in the church rule and I wanted an outdoor wedding. The real reason was I think annulments, except in the most unusual circumstances, are dumb, and that's what would have been required for my husband to be married in the church.