Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Heterosexual marriage still unthreatened in all 50 states

Heterosexual marriage still unthreatened in all 50 states

Last updated on: June 25, 2014 at 4:20 pm by Fred Clark

Heterosexual marriage still unthreatened in all 50 states 2014-06-25T16:20:48-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Today turns out to be kind of newsy — and *good-*newsy at that:

1. “Indiana’s Marriage Ban Struck Down; Marriages Can Begin Immediately”

Federal District Judge Richard Young has ruled that Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. And because Judge Young didn’t issue a stay, his ruling takes effect immediately. The county clerk in Indianapolis (Marion County) has already announced that they are issuing marriage licenses.

2. And in Utah: “10th Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage”

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states outlawing same-sex marriage are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

By upholding a Utah judge’s decision, a three-member panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver became the first appeals court in the nation to rule on the issue, setting a historic precedent that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process.

But the court immediately stayed the implementation of its decision, pending an anticipated appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So let’s update the marriage map. Before today’s rulings, the big map showed that the health of “traditional” opposite-sex marriages was being threatened by legal marriage equality in zero states. Add in today’s news from Indiana and Utah and we get this:

The number of states in which legal equality for same-sex couples threatens the marriages of opposite-sex couples is still zero.

Brian Tashman takes a closer look at the 10th Circuit Court ruling in Utah and finds bad news for the Manhattan Declarers and others who have been desperately trying to argue that civil rights for same-sex couples is somehow a threat to their own “religious liberty.” Here’s the part of the ruling dealing with that claim:

Appellants acknowledge that a state may not “invoke concerns about religious freedom or religion-related social strife as a basis for denying rights otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution.” But they argue that the social and religious strife argument qualifies as legitimate because a fundamental right is not at issue in this case. Because we have rejected appellants’ contention on this point, their fourth justification necessarily fails.

We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today’s decision relates solely to civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 (“[T]he court notes that its decision does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.”). Plaintiffs must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and traditions as they see fit.

I’ve bolded that last bit because it highlights the silliness of this “religious liberty” argument. No-fault divorce laws did not mandate that Catholic priests had to start sanctifying remarriages. The repeal of Prohibition did not mean that Southern Baptists had to start drinking. Marriage equality does not ask or require anything of Catholics and Southern Baptists either. Their insistence on pretending that somehow it does is, at a very basic level, just weird.

The 10th Circuit Court was also not impressed with the appellants variation of N.T. Wright’s argument — that legal equality for LGBT people constitutes a “redefinition” of marriage, ergo, Nazi Commie Satan.

Appellants’ reliance on the modifier “definitional” does not serve a meaningful function in this context.

The appellants’ argument here rests on their using big words that they don’t seem to understand. The fact that one such big word is “definitional” just makes it funnier.

To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so. One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage. But “neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577-78 (quotation omitted); see also Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 239 (1970) (“[N]either the antiquity of a practice nor the fact of steadfast legislative and judicial adherence to it through the centuries insulates it from constitutional attack . . . .”); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 451 (Cal. 2008) (“[E]ven the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions.”)

That last sentence cuts to the hollow core of opposition to marriage equality. The court’s are correcting “an unfairness and inequality” that affects one segment of the population. Righting that wrong does not affect the rest of the population at all. Righting that wrong does not affect the opponents of that correction at all.

Utah’s appeal, like the growing number of other losing attempts to construct a legal argument against marriage equality, failed because the state was unable to make the case that legal same-sex marriage would in any way harm anyone else. We keep seeing such appeals making creative arguments in the hopes of concocting some such harm where none exists, and at some level I just don’t get that.

Opponents of same-sex marriage suffer no harm when LGBT couples are recognized as having the same legal and human rights as the rest of us have. And opponents of same-sex marriage enjoy no benefit from preventing LGBT couples from access to their rights. So if the status quo offers no benefit to you, and correcting “an unfairness and inequality” does you no harm, why oppose it? Why involve yourself in this at all?

As New Zealand MP Maurice Williamson said about marriage equality in his country, “This is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.”:

All we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognized by way of marriage. That is all we are doing. We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign state. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agriculture sector forever. We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognized, and I can’t see what’s wrong with that for love nor money, sir. I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed. … I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill, right now. I give you a watertight, guaranteed promise. The sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back with you as if she knows everything. Your mortgage will not grow. You will not have skin diseases or rashes, or toads in your beard, sir. The world will just carry on.

Previous Post

June 25, 2014

Don't even speak of the beat menace

Next Post

June 26, 2014 Charitable fundraising: wise as serpents, innocent as doves

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the name "Adam" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Firstborn Man Breath of Life Earth