world

Gay marriages resume in California after 5-year hiatus

36 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Paster showed no respect for the beliefs of the methodists and forced a lawsuit and a judgement against them. You cannot post that Ms. Bernstiein and Ms. Paster could not have just respected their position to not perform a gay wedding ceremony on their property based on their conscientious objection on religious grounds and deeply held beliefs and be able to find a myriad of other locations that would have zero issue with it at all in New Jersey.

Oh please. You've already been explained what this case was about in earlier posts. We don't need to cover again what you've misunderstood and are, essentially, misrepresenting yet again. Please re-read, carefully. Harm was clearly done to the plaintiffs. Courts will decide.

As stated before: The harm is forcing people to consent to this by court order decree in a manner that would make a dictatorship proud and makes a mockery of democracy.

As stated before: hyperbole. Americans, gay and straight, have the right to challenge harm done to them in a court of law. You cannot claim as harm Americans exercising their rights. That's just plain ridiculous.

In fact this particular angle of trying to demonstrate harm the harm caused by recognizing same-sex marriage is really weak. Because whether the state recognized the civil union of the couple from NJ or really had no bearing on the case. Y

Strawman, she is not being sued for a

No, not a strawman. Simply looking to establish whether there's a point at which you feel services provided by a business can be denied for religious reasons.

there is zero evidence

Obviously there IS evidence

..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"If mixed marriages were against her religion would it be okay for [her] to withhold service from mixed race couples, or interfaith couples, or other faith couples?"

Strawman, she is not being sued for any of the above and there is zero evidence that she is a person who practices discrimination at all. She previously sold flowers to the gay couple in question many times for uses other than a wedding ceremony with all its religious connotations..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You've already made it quite clear that you believe that a conscientious objector should be forced to bow to the authority of the state and serve anyway .........or as you stated " or to sin against the authority of the state." so I do understand why it would be difficult for you.

A far greater authority than this person spoke of rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. I have not read anywhere where a C.O. should be exempt from having to apply for a business license when wanting to open up a business. (It's what Caesar requires.) Once deciding to open a business to the public, the individual is not free to discriminate -- in violation of the law -- against members of that public being served.

There are plenty of examples of C.O.'s who were drafted and served in the U.S. military, but in strictly non-combat roles, such as medics. Still, there's no way I can fit the C.O. argument as a response to the question yet to receive an answer: "If mixed marriages were against her religion would it be okay for [her] to withhold service from mixed race couples, or interfaith couples, or other faith couples?"

The harm is forcing people to consent to this by court order decree in a manner that would make a dictatorship proud and makes a mockery of democracy.

No. That's the way it might be in Bizarro-World, but in the real world it's 180 degrees opposite. The state that would license a business or other entity as being open to the public and then defend the discriminatory practices of an owner would be making a mockery of its own laws and contract obligations. It's actually the state that would bend its own, clear laws to protect a discriminatory practice that does a dictatorship proud. It's just as utterly bizarre to claim that a person is victimized for being compelled to obey the laws they have consented to obey when they applied for their business license, or their land-use contract to seek a tax exemption.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ironically, while it's pretty clear you haven't been able to demonstrate why same-sex marriage would harm heterosexuals in any way, your own link illustrates the harm is being done to gay folk.

To wit:Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster

Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Paster showed no respect for the beliefs of the methodists and forced a lawsuit and a judgement against them. You cannot post that Ms. Bernstiein and Ms. Paster could not have just respected their position to not perform a gay wedding ceremony on their property based on their conscientious objection on religious grounds and deeply held beliefs and be able to find a myriad of other locations that would have zero issue with it at all in New Jersey.

As stated before: The harm is forcing people to consent to this by court order decree in a manner that would make a dictatorship proud and makes a mockery of democracy.

Had a hard time trying to fit the conscientious objector angle into that one.

You've already made it quite clear that you believe that a conscientious objector should be forced to bow to the authority of the state and serve anyway .........or as you stated " or to sin against the authority of the state." so I do understand why it would be difficult for you.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But I think you didn't quite understand the question.

To wit: "If mixed marriages were against her religion would it be okay for [her] to withhold service from mixed race couples, or interfaith couples, or other faith couples?"

Had a hard time trying to fit the conscientious objector angle into that one.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Okay... Thank you for the info on Conscientious Objectors that's rather ah, helpful of you. But I think you didn't quite understand the question.

It's Not refuse to serve AS a soldier, but refuse to provide services (sell flowers, hamburgers, or golf clubs) TO soldiers, folks of other ethnic groups, faiths, etc. .. (no)

Ironically, while it's pretty clear you haven't been able to demonstrate why same-sex marriage would harm heterosexuals in any way, your own link illustrates the harm is being done to gay folk.

To wit:Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If war were against this florist's beliefs would it be okay for her to refuse to serve soldiers and veterans?

Based on the almost universally recognized concept of a Conscientious Objector when it comes to not performing military service after being called by the country they live to serve in their armed forces, Yes, as there is solid 100 percent legal precedent for it based on strong religious belief and convictions.

To wit:

The international definition of conscientious objection officially broadened on March 8, 1995 when the United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/83 stated that "persons performing military service should not be excluded from the right to have conscientious objections to military service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Molenir

I refuse to condone societal acceptance of this behavior. This is not about marriage, is about accepting homosexuality as 'normal'.

I refuse to condone societal acceptance of Hinduism. This is not about freedom of religion, it is about accepting Hinduism and its many false gods as 'normal'.

See the absurdity? Here's to beating a dead horse.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Tell me this Sailwind,

If war were against this florist's beliefs would it be okay for her to refuse to serve soldiers and veterans? If mixed marriages were against her religion would it be okay for to withhold service from mixed race couples, or interfaith couples, or other faith couples? Or is it just gay folk that this florist is singling out? Could any business open to the public cloak themselves with religious mantle to refuse service. A golf club catering to everyone except Catholics, Sikhs and gays?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now your the expert authority on how christians should practice their beliefs, Got it.

Scripture is the ultimate authority. Everything else is subject to correction. (A professed believer will welcome it.) Anyone who thinks they understand that authority is free to explain how Stutzman's actions -- which clearly demonstrated contempt for the anti-discrimination laws established for businesses, as well as a lack of compassion for the party she refused to serve -- are more in accordance with the teachings than the course of action I suggested.

Because someone believes a homosexual person engages in sin, that does not provide them an excuse to actively sin against the the homosexual, or to sin against the authority of the state.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A real Christian's response would be to refuse to make a penny's profit from the flowers, selling them at cost, explaining that one's faith required that course. This would have met the scriptural requirements of obedience to authority and love for one's neighbor.

Now your the expert authority on how christians should practice their beliefs, Got it.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

"She's a very nice lady and doesn't have a discriminatory bone in her body

Of course she does. She just proved it.

she doesn't want to be forced to participate in an event that she doesn't believe in.

Sheer inanity. So, anyone who comes in to her shop to buy flowers for any purpose is "forcing" her to participate in those purposes?

Stutzman told him she could not serve him "because of (her) relationship with Jesus Christ,"

Did Jesus sign her business license? Or was it a representative of the people in accordance with the laws of the state? Scripture is very clear about submitting to governmental authority.

A real Christian's response would be to refuse to make a penny's profit from the flowers, selling them at cost, explaining that one's faith required that course. This would have met the scriptural requirements of obedience to authority and love for one's neighbor.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Inane hyperbole.

(Reuters) - A Washington state florist who refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding has been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union, in the second legal action accusing the vendor of discrimination.

Florist Barronelle Stutzman already faced a consumer protection lawsuit over the incident filed against her last week by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. She maintained her Christian beliefs prevented her from selling the flowers for the same-sex wedding, according to court papers.

When Ingersoll entered Stutzman's store in March to buy flowers for his upcoming wedding to Freed, Stutzman told him she could not serve him "because of (her) relationship with Jesus Christ," according to the lawsuit filed last week by the attorney general.

Stutzman's attorney, Justin Bristol, said forcing his client to sell flowers for a gay wedding violated her constitutional rights of freedom of speech, association and religious exercise.

"She is one of the few people left today willing to stand by her convictions rather than compromise her beliefs," Bristol said. "She's a very nice lady and doesn't have a discriminatory bone in her body, but she doesn't want to be forced to participate in an event that she doesn't believe in."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-usa-gaymarriage-washington-idUSBRE93I08820130419

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@gcbel

Nobody's forcing churches to abandon religious beliefs - deeply held or other.

You are correct on this, and for pointing out the inane, irrational hyperbole so often engaged in by the opponents of the basic human rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation. The salient facts of the Ocean Grove United Methodist Church case bear mentioning.

The Methodist church owned the pavilion, but the pavilion was not an exclusive part of the church, nor attached directly to it. It was open to the public, and members of the public often used it for wedding ceremonies that were not part of the Christian faith. Think of it this way: A church might also own a restaurant or hotel and occasionally use those facilities for church purposes. But they would not be within their rights to discriminate, if the facilities are open to the public, on the basis of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, etc.

Local taxpayers were subsidizing the church in its ownership of the property -- roughly $500,000 per year -- in exchange for the property being made available to the public. The church failed to live up to its part of that agreement.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Setting aside the rather offensive slant that the pursuit of equality in marriage by the gay community as a whim and perpetrated by more militant gay faction.

The harm is forcing churches to abandoned deeply held religious beliefs under the threat of being sued for discrimination and losing.tax exempt status.

Pfff... Nobody's forcing churches to abandon religious beliefs - deeply held or other.

"Since the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association regularly offered the pavilion to the broader public, it was bound by the state Law Against Discrimination from barring civil unions, division director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo ruled. Because its action was voluntary, he added, use of the discrimination statute does not impair the association's "free exercise of religion.""

The tax-abatement was withdrawn because the OGCA didn't make the the facility available to all on equal basis.

The harm is forcing people to consent to this by court order decree in a manner that would make a dictatorship proud and makes a mockery of democracy.

Inane hyperbole.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Nonsense. There's no whim here. Please demonstrate the harm.

The harm is forcing churches to abandoned deeply held religious beliefs under the threat of being sued for discrimination and losing.tax exempt status. The harm is forcing people to consent to this by court order decree in a manner that would make a dictatorship proud and makes a mockery of democracy.

To wit:

Synopsis of the Ocean Grove New Jersey Methodist Church lawsuit for the use of their privately owned pavilion that was used for religious rites by the church.

Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree. Judge Solomon Metzger ruled Ocean Grove had to allow such marriages then went one step further and revoked Ocean Groves tax-exempt status on the pavilion and surrounding grounds. The tax-exempt status has since been re-instated for most of the grounds after the church re-filed for the exemption.

More details about this case and others that are at the forefront of were all this is going to be headed in the next years, recent court cases and lawsuits at the NPR link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Sounds just like a civil union but apparently that's wasn't good enough for the the more militant gay factions.

Not just for the more militant gay factions. Normal people. You just don't get it do you?

Made marriage nothing more than whatever whims society deems to be now politically correct as to what it will be considered as a marriage now.

Nonsense. There's no whim here. Please demonstrate the harm. Feel free to use concrete examples. Because I can certainly explain the harm done to gay men and women in a very concrete manner.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Also how many people are when divorce was introduced and when, where and how. Christian marriage used to be 'till death parts us'

It's a great point: When divorce became easy, so did the decision to enter into marriage. If society chose to defend marriage by making divorce extremely difficult to obtain, fewer people would enter into it lightly, and almost certainly fewer same-gender couples would want to enter into it at all.

For those whose concept of marriage is based on religious beliefs, there is no reason why that concept would have to change for members of a given sect. Interestingly, in all of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, there is no direction whatsoever for what constitutes a ceremony or ritual of marriage. The OT goes on at great length and in great detail about all kinds of other rituals performed by the priests, but nothing about what constitutes a wedding ceremony. People have been essentially free to make it up as they go along.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Same commitment, same concept of two loving adults who love each other committing to each other for life,

Sounds just like a civil union but apparently that's wasn't good enough for the the more militant gay factions.

But, again, how does it impact YOUR marriage? ANYONE'S marriage.

Made marriage nothing more than whatever whims society deems to be now politically correct as to what it will be considered as a marriage now.

Do you have any guesses what would be consider a marriage is twenty years from now? I can't anymore.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I am with gcbel.

Also how many people are when divorce was introduced and when, where and how. Christian marriage used to be 'till death parts us'. Hmmm.

Things change and the only constant is change.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

By changing the concept of marriage that had been molded by thousands of years of tradition throughout all cultures to something now it never was intended to be.

Nope. Sorry the "end sum of thousands years of tradition" simply doesn't cut it . Same commitment, same concept of two loving adults who love each other committing to each other for life, just a change of gender of one of the actors. One can just as well as argue that it strengthens the concept. In fact, we could argue it's one more phase of molding then.

But, again, how does it impact YOUR marriage? ANYONE'S marriage. This, as always, you fail to explain.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It seems more than a bit absurd to equate "changing a concept" with actual harm. Still, I find it fascinating in trying to imagine how enabling two same-gender people to tie the knot forces me to somehow lessen the importance I attach to my marriage. The only parallel I can draw is to the days when marriage between the races was outlawed. There were plenty of religious people using Scripture to justify that condition, claiming it was never intended. And, when the laws started to get overturned, there were people claiming that allowing the races to mix also threatened the concept of marriage.

I think most can understand how a racist person will not like two other people of different races getting married. After all, the racist's concept of marriage is expressed as a much narrower view of what is acceptable. However, what is very evident by how attitudes towards same-sex marriage have changed over time in the US, a growing majority of Americans are willing to expand their concept -- which is truer to the original meaning of the word -- to the joining of two parties. The vast majority of these people will not allow their feelings towards their own union to be affected at all.

Therefore the claim of "harm" seems irrational and based on emotion.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

How does same-sex marriage harm heterosexual unions?

By changing the concept of marriage that had been molded by thousands of years of tradition throughout all cultures to something now it never was intended to be. Might as well just call it now nothing more than getting a piece a paper that you get at the courthouse.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

What is absolutely ludicrous is the concept that two men or two women marrying each other somehow threatens heterosexual unions. It's ludicrous because harm is claimed without a single iota evidence proving it.

Indeed. Didn't expect any kind of reasoned response to that fundamental point. How does same-sex marriage harm heterosexual unions?. Unsurprisingly, you didn't get any.

For the record, Christians fall on both sides of the issue, extremists (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?) on both sides. Argue the issue. And, for Pete's sake spare us the ridiculous "we're the victims here" dodge, it's laughably silly.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Its both sad and pathetic, to hear those who claim to espouse tolerance, rant against anyone who dares disagree, with their beliefs. Indeed, there is nothing more hate-filled, then a self-righteous, anti-christian bigot.

Amen to that.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I've heard this argument before. It's the idea that we should tolerate bigots who dislike people who do them absolutely no harm, or otherwise we are bigots too. Sorry, but that is just dumb reasoning. Just think about who is causing whom the harm here. Gay couples getting married doesn't hurt anyone; denying them their preference does.

This idea that you cannot tolerate anyone who has a different viewpoint, is really nonsense. I do not espouse anything happening to homosexuals. Indeed, I agree, what happens between consenting adults, is really none of my concern. All I say, is that marriage is between a man and a woman. And yet, this viewpoint, is ridiculed, and demonized. yabits rants about zero-tolerance policies. And why is this? Because homosexuals are somehow being denied the right to engage in their deviant behavior? No. Its because I refuse to condone societal acceptance of this behavior. This is not about marriage, is about accepting homosexuality as 'normal'.

Its both sad and pathetic, to hear those who claim to espouse tolerance, rant against anyone who dares disagree, with their beliefs. Indeed, there is nothing more hate-filled, then a self-righteous, anti-christian bigot.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

There might be a lot of "behavior" carried out by heterosexuals in the privacy of their bedroom that some might consider deviant. I don't allow my mind to dwell on it, because it is private.

It is. And even mentioning it is an indication of 'dwelling on it' as is the reference to sexual relations between members of the same gender being a sin. A bond between two humans, whether of the same or a different gender is not just about what happens in the bedroom. It's about love, sharing, giving, tolerance, compassion. All the same principles that form a basis for a heterosexual bond. Which individual, which religion, which belief justifies themselves to deny these bonds?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Oh, they may be intolerant, but nowhere near as intolerant as those who hate them. Indeed, the biggest bigots, and haters seem to be those who are in favor of this.

There are some things in a secular society like the United States that there should be Zero Tolerance for -- or as close to zero as possible. Those things might best be identified as stuff that blocks a person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, it is more likely that the generally more-tolerant liberal will dig in their heels and fight those things for which our society should have zero tolerance for. Laws directed against people on account of their sexual preference are simply not to be tolerated.

As soon as an anti-liberal starts engaging in this "We're actually more tolerant and humble than you are," they've lost the game as soon as they've started it. One poster called it "dumb reasoning." I would call it "twisted."

If someone is serious about wanting to "defend marriage," then try enacting laws which make divorce next to impossible to obtain.

So why is it then Yabits, that supporters are so desperate to get marital status for homosexuals?

Speaking for myself and quite a few others I know, the best way to strengthen an institution is by allowing more members into it, not less. A second motivation is to help create a more perfect union by ridding our nation of discriminatory laws -- laws designed out of hatred and disgust for the targeted class of people.

Do you think, perhaps this isn't really about marriage at all, and in fact is about forcing societal acceptance of deviant behavior?

There might be a lot of "behavior" carried out by heterosexuals in the privacy of their bedroom that some might consider deviant. I don't allow my mind to dwell on it, because it is private. The other simple fact is that the intimate sexual relations constitutes just a small fraction of what takes place in the lives of two people living together as a couple.

You want everyone to agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and that anyone who dares believe otherwise, should be demonized, ridiculed, and be made a focus of hate. IE. Christians.

I happen to be of a faith that regards sexual relations between members of the same gender as a sin. But, as an American, I can't allow a matter of personal faith to influence a secular government to essentially enforce my beliefs on other people. That would be an even worse sin.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Molenir

nowhere near as intolerant as those who hate them. Indeed, the biggest bigots, and haters seem to be those who are in favor of this. Heh, you just need to look at the posts that follow, attacking me for my Point of view, as well as the down votes.

I've heard this argument before. It's the idea that we should tolerate bigots who dislike people who do them absolutely no harm, or otherwise we are bigots too. Sorry, but that is just dumb reasoning. Just think about who is causing whom the harm here. Gay couples getting married doesn't hurt anyone; denying them their preference does.

You want everyone to agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and that anyone who dares believe otherwise, should be demonized, ridiculed, and be made a focus of hate. IE. Christians.

Nobody is denying your right to express your opinion. It's right up here on the discussion thread. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone is entitled to disagree with you, including me.

It is only the homophobic camp that is causing damage by legislating the denial of a couple's desire to be joined in marriage. As an expression of their commitment to each other! You call this "deviant"?

Nobody's forcing anything on you. Even though I don't share your Bronze Age beliefs, you're entitled to them as long as you don't keep someone else from their own reasonable pursuits of happiness.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I doubt it, just because it is a law, this will not stop the prejudice against Gays and Lesbians and I am sure there will be violent back lashes too. Californians may say they are open minded etc..but we also have lots of hate, racism etc..if you dig a bit under the surface of so called tolerance, etc..plenty of bigots etc

Couple things. First, I agree that prejudice against homosexuals won't stop just because of law. I will say though, that I don't see a violent backlash at all. Certainly nothing like what was on display, by the oh so tolerant libs, when Prop 8 first passed. Christians, unlike libs in general, don't typically display a lot of hate. Oh, they may be intolerant, but nowhere near as intolerant as those who hate them. Indeed, the biggest bigots, and haters seem to be those who are in favor of this. Heh, you just need to look at the posts that follow, attacking me for my Point of view, as well as the down votes.

What is absolutely ludicrous is the concept that two men or two women marrying each other somehow threatens heterosexual unions. It's ludicrous because harm is claimed without a single iota evidence proving it.

So why is it then Yabits, that supporters are so desperate to get marital status for homosexuals? Is it because they don't see any harm in it, or is it something more, something greater they are really seeking? Do you think, perhaps this isn't really about marriage at all, and in fact is about forcing societal acceptance of deviant behavior? Why don't you guys just come out and admit it. You want everyone to agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and that anyone who dares believe otherwise, should be demonized, ridiculed, and be made a focus of hate. IE. Christians.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

All you can say about this, is that Democracy and the rule of law, is officially dead in California.

LOL!! Perhaps that is all you can say about it. Fine.

However, if a same-sex couple legally marries in New York and wants to move the California, their marriage should also be protected under California law. If it's not, then any local laws contrary to that violate our national principle of equal justice under law.

What is absolutely ludicrous is the concept that two men or two women marrying each other somehow threatens heterosexual unions. It's ludicrous because harm is claimed without a single iota evidence proving it.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

All you can say about this, is that Democracy and the rule of law, is officially dead in California.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Elbuda, the biggest resistance I'm seeing is from religious conservatives. There may be bigotry at work, but it's not rampant.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I doubt it, just because it is a law, this will not stop the prejudice against Gays and Lesbians and I am sure there will be violent back lashes too. Californians may say they are open minded etc..but we also have lots of hate, racism etc..if you dig a bit under the surface of so called tolerance, etc..plenty of bigots etc..sure not as bad as Kansas and all of those godforsaken parts of the world but we have them and of all nationalities, colors and flavors. IMHO

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Liberty, Equality and Justice for ALL!! Hope we can pierce or tatoo this pivotal message into our hearts.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites