Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[kentonio]

::shrug:: My faith is the primary reason for my advocating for a more comprehensive health care system, a greater welfare system for the poor, and strong protections for people against overreaching businesses. I would have thought you'd have liked those policies .

None of those policies require religious belief to support them. If you start advocating that no-one can eat fish on a friday, or that all women must cover their heads then that's a very different story.

[kentonio]

Actually Snoopy just put it far better than I did.

[MichaeltheGreat]

My preferred outcome for these cases is that DOMA falls as a violation of federalism and the Prop 8 challenge falls as not being an issue of proper federal jurisdiction where the judges shove it back to the CA State courts where it belonged in the first place.

Equal Protection Clause has already been applied to the states for several decades, as has the Due Process clause.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Establishment Clause.

Oh how Cute. MtG wants to pick up an argument that was already losing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I take it your version omits the free-exercise clause. Which, btw is why the Constitution protects Catholics from being forced to pay for abortion and contraception.

[snoopy369]

::shrug:: My faith is the primary reason for my advocating for a more comprehensive health care system, a greater welfare system for the poor, and strong protections for people against overreaching businesses. I would have thought you'd have liked those policies .

All of that is totally acceptable to me - as long as your arguments for passing laws relating to these things stem from nonreligious bases. You can of course argue (to passers by, or the Poly version thereof) that these things are good on religious grounds; and you can believe these things are good on religious grounds. But when you start arguing that we should pass laws based on these things, you need to make a secular argument for that.

This is not to say that you can't make a secular moral argument - religion has no place in political debate, but that's not to say morality doesn't. You can certainly argue it is moral to prevent people from starving or have equal access to health care. Again, that argument has to be something beyond "GOD says so", but morality plays a very significant part in our legal system, and rightfully should.

[Ben Kenobi]

civil marriage != ecclesiastical marriage. Go to Saudi.

Take it up with Fun who believes this. I believe that sacramental marriage > civil marriage.

So who is married to who?

They remain married to each other. Remarriage, adultery, etc.

[snoopy369]

Do I win anything for successfully predicting the result of this thread, btw? Given the opinions of others on the matter I ought to get pretty good odds. 1:150?

[Ben Kenobi]

This is not to say that you can't make a secular moral argument - religion has no place in political debate, but that's not to say morality doesn't. You can certainly argue it is moral to prevent people from starving or have equal access to health care. Again, that argument has to be something beyond "GOD says so", but morality plays a very significant part in our legal system, and rightfully should.

Snoopy - do you believe that the argument that families in general and particularly for childrearing and having children - that the ideal of a husband and wife in marriage is sufficient secular motivation for the state to restrict marriage to one man and one woman? The state does do better as a whole with fewer broken families.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do I win anything for successfully predicting the result of this thread, btw? Given the opinions of others on the matter I ought to get pretty good odds. 1:150?

You were fortunate this came up when it did. I wouldn't put money on my availability.

[MRT144]

The ideal of a husband and wife is not secular in the least.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the line is that if the argument is "GOD said {a}, so our law must be {a}", it is invalid for US political debate. The argument can be based on religious principles, but not based exclusively on tenets of religion themselves. If you say "I base my political stances on 'Do Unto Others'", I'm okay with that; that's religious philosophy, and clearly has non-religious relevance. So, if you think homosexuality is a sin, the argument "GOD said it is a sin" is not relevant for political debate (in the US); the argument "Homosexuality encourages bad behavior such as child abuse" could be relevant [if you could support it], even though it derives from religious tenets.

Certainly there's no objection in my court from basing what you argue _for_ on religious tenets; so, if your religion says that GOD says homosexuality is a sin, then basing your opposition to homosexuality on that is absolutely fine. It's just the arguments for the political debate must not be based explicitly on religious tenets - you have to go find some rational argument rather than solely religious.

I think that's kind of splitting hairs. You can come up with post-hoc rationalizations of anything if you wanted, and of course those rationalizations can be code for religious beliefs as well, obviously.

[Ben Kenobi]

The ideal of a husband and wife is not secular in the least.

Kids with married mother and father do better in school, are more likely to graduate, etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All of that is totally acceptable to me - as long as your arguments for passing laws relating to these things stem from nonreligious bases. You can of course argue (to passers by, or the Poly version thereof) that these things are good on religious grounds; and you can believe these things are good on religious grounds. But when you start arguing that we should pass laws based on these things, you need to make a secular argument for that.

I don't really need to do that all if I can convince enough people to vote on a certain thing based on religious principles.

This is not to say that you can't make a secular moral argument - religion has no place in political debate, but that's not to say morality doesn't. You can certainly argue it is moral to prevent people from starving or have equal access to health care. Again, that argument has to be something beyond "GOD says so", but morality plays a very significant part in our legal system, and rightfully should.

What if I believe morality is from God? Wouldn't saying it is moral to do X basically mean the same as God says to do X?

Like I said, splitting hairs.

[kentonio]

Kids with married mother and father do better in school, are more likely to graduate, etc.

More likely than a single parent. Please provide a comprehensive study on how children fare when raised by married gay couples and families with more than two married parents.

[kentonio]

I don't really need to do that all if I can convince enough people to vote on a certain thing based on religious principles.

Sure you do, because otherwise you're trampling on the rights of people of other or no religion. Freedom of religion is protected for a very good reason.