Political Wrinkles

Political Wrinkles (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/)
-   Civil Rights & Abortion (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civil-rights-abortion/)
-   -   Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civil-rights-abortion/36031-hawaii-senate-passes-gay-marriage-bill.html)

saltwn 11-13-2013 06:19 AM

Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
Ticket sales are going up as we speak :D

Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill

Quote:

HONOLULU (AP) — The state Senate passed a bill Tuesday legalizing gay marriage, putting Hawaii a signature away from becoming a same-sex wedding destination.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who called lawmakers to a special session for the bill and has vocally supported gay marriage, said in a statement that he will sign the measure. It will allow thousands of gay couples living in Hawaii and even more tourists to marry in the state starting Dec. 2.
Pack your trunks, Deary, we's gonna party! :party

Joe Shoe 11-13-2013 10:24 AM

Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
Experts say Hawaii?s gay marriage bill worst at protecting religious freedom | Hawaii Reporter

foundit66 11-13-2013 11:47 AM

Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
From the article:
While SB1 protects religious clergy from liability for refusing to solemnize a same sex marriage, the legislation offers no exemption to non-clergy members, such as judges, Hochberg said.
It should not offer such protection. :no
If a judge (state official) decides he doesn't want to officiate for a gay wedding or an interracial wedding or a Jewish wedding and states "religious reasons" as his justification, then he is putting his religion above his actual job.
Might as well say that a Jewish person can claim exemption at a job that includes pork tasting.
SB1 also fails to protect religious organizations from liability if they decline requests to use their properties for same sex celebrations, Hochberg said, because to qualify for the protection, a church must “not make its facilities or grounds available to the general public for solemnization of any marriage celebration for a profit.”
Again, this is actually as it should be.
If they use the facilities or grounds FOR A PROFIT (non-religious reasons), then they have stepped outside the bounds of their religion. :yes
They can easily use the property SOLELY for religious reasons and have protection.

The thing that kills me about such issues is we are not re-inventing the wheel on such issues.
People have previously claimed religions reasons for being against interracial marriage. Whether or not you agree it is justified is only relevant if you agree to a standard whereby the public gets to judge your religious reasons. I really don't think people of religion want to set that precedent... :no
As such, have we or do we currently provided ANY of these protections for anybody who doesn't want to do other types of marriages?
:no

Religion shouldn't get special protections for THIS issue. Same policies as established in the past should apply.

Joe Shoe 11-13-2013 11:55 AM

Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
From the article:
"Five noted law professors told Hawaii lawmakers this week they agree SB 1 will infringe on religious liberties, and the bill should be amended. While the professors expressed support for same-sex marriage, they warned careless or overly aggressive drafting could create a whole new set of problems for the religious liberty of those believers who cannot conscientiously participate in implementing the new regime. “The gain for human liberty will be severely compromised if same-sex couples now force religious dissenters to violate their conscience in the same way that those dissenters, when they had the power to do so, used to force same-sex couples to hide their sexuality,” the law professors wrote. The professors said the challenge for any bill is to “equalize civil marriage while preserving religious control over religious marriage”, and they said SB 1 “has not yet accomplished the task.” “A bill that addresses only solemnization would do less to protect religious liberty than any other state that has enacted same-sex marriage by legislation,” the professors wrote."

foundit66 11-13-2013 12:01 PM

Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Shoe (Post 617134)
From the article:
"Five noted law professors told Hawaii lawmakers this week they agree SB 1 will infringe on religious liberties, and the bill should be amended. While the professors expressed support for same-sex marriage, they warned careless or overly aggressive drafting could create a whole new set of problems for the religious liberty of those believers who cannot conscientiously participate in implementing the new regime. “The gain for human liberty will be severely compromised if same-sex couples now force religious dissenters to violate their conscience in the same way that those dissenters, when they had the power to do so, used to force same-sex couples to hide their sexuality,” the law professors wrote. The professors said the challenge for any bill is to “equalize civil marriage while preserving religious control over religious marriage”, and they said SB 1 “has not yet accomplished the task.” “A bill that addresses only solemnization would do less to protect religious liberty than any other state that has enacted same-sex marriage by legislation,” the professors wrote."

You (predictably) fail to address the central question.
This situation is not new. People have had religious objections to all sorts of marriages in the past. :yes
Interracial marriages. Other religion marriages, etc, etc...

Have we ever granted this level of protection in the past?

cnredd 11-13-2013 12:03 PM

Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
Quote:

If a judge (state official) decides he doesn't want to officiate for a gay wedding or an interracial wedding or a Jewish wedding and states "religious reasons" as his justification, then he is putting his religion above his actual job.
Might as well say that a Jewish person can claim exemption at a job that includes pork tasting.
But there's a problem with your analogy...

The Jewish person gets a job with an understanding that there will be no pork tasting whatsoever, and then, years later, pork tasting at the job becomes mandatory...

In other words, the religion exemption was never needed until AFTER the decision to take the job was established...

I wouldn't necessarily agree, but would understand if there was, at least, a grandfather law in place where PRESENT judges can be exempted...I pity the 30-year judge that spent his life as a benevolent judiciary only to be told to go f*ck himself based on his beliefs...:(

foundit66 11-13-2013 12:30 PM

Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd (Post 617140)
But there's a problem with your analogy...
The Jewish person gets a job with an understanding that there will be no pork tasting whatsoever, and then, years later, pork tasting at the job becomes mandatory...
In other words, the religion exemption was never needed until AFTER the decision to take the job was established...
I wouldn't necessarily agree, but would understand if there was, at least, a grandfather law in place where PRESENT judges can be exempted...I pity the 30-year judge that spent his life as a benevolent judiciary only to be told to go f*ck himself based on his beliefs...:(

I have limited sympathy for him, but who the heck gets hired in this world with guarantees that the job won't change?

On this front, I think there could be some discretion of the "employer", but the employer is responsible for ensuring that the job gets done in an equal manner.
If the judge doesn't want to do it and there's an alternate judge that's doing the same job in another location in the same building? So be it.
If the judge doesn't want to do it and the couple has to wait until an alternate venue can be lined up, that's not acceptable.

Regardless, shouldn't judges be putting the state law above their religion?
Applying the law equally? Justice is blind?
They swore an oath to uphold the law. They didn't swear an oath to uphold the law unless it violates their religion. They didn't swear an oath to uphold the law unless it changes. :no

If a judge can't do a gay marriage, then isn't it also recognizable that they would conceivably bring their religion into play in other ways? For example, if they had a ruling on gays wouldn't that demonstrate a potential incapability to be impartial, with a possibility of putting their religion before the constitution?
There should be a recognition that there is a more fundamental issue at play. Any judge who from the start wants to put his religion first when it is in conflict with the state law, then that guy should never have been a judge in the first place.

Or, if we're fine with that, then if a Muslim judge wants to put his religion above the state law then I guess that's all fine and dandy too... :thumbsup

PT Again 11-13-2013 12:50 PM

Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66 (Post 617150)
I have limited sympathy for him, but who the heck gets hired in this world with guarantees that the job won't change?

On this front, I think there could be some discretion of the "employer", but the employer is responsible for ensuring that the job gets done in an equal manner.
If the judge doesn't want to do it and there's an alternate judge that's doing the same job in another location in the same building? So be it.
If the judge doesn't want to do it and the couple has to wait until an alternate venue can be lined up, that's not acceptable.

Regardless, shouldn't judges be putting the state law above their religion?
Applying the law equally? Justice is blind?
They swore an oath to uphold the law. They didn't swear an oath to uphold the law unless it violates their religion. They didn't swear an oath to uphold the law unless it changes. :no

If a judge can't do a gay marriage, then isn't it also recognizable that they would conceivably bring their religion into play in other ways? For example, if they had a ruling on gays wouldn't that demonstrate a potential incapability to be impartial, with a possibility of putting their religion before the constitution?
There should be a recognition that there is a more fundamental issue at play. Any judge who from the start wants to put his religion first when it is in conflict with the state law, then that guy should never have been a judge in the first place.

Or, if we're fine with that, then if a Muslim judge wants to put his religion above the state law then I guess that's all fine and dandy too... :thumbsup

Pure and simple...he constitutional rights trump state laws................

rivrrat 11-13-2013 01:53 PM

Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PT Again (Post 617163)
Pure and simple...he constitutional rights trump state laws................

what constitutional right is that?

saltwn 11-13-2013 02:19 PM

Re: Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
 
While SB1 protects religious clergy from liability for refusing to solemnize a same sex marriage, the legislation offers no exemption to non-clergy members, such as judges, Hochberg said.

I don't see the problem. Judges do not judge based on their religion, neither should they preform duties based on same. :shrug


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0