[jerryr]

I'm gay, and I would classify my feelings towards Eich more as fear than hatred. Eich very directly donated towards a cause that was bent on restricting my rights. Though fear often breeds hatred, I truly don't bear Eich ill will. I'm not happy to see him lose his job--on the contrary, I share your sadness that a talented, qualified man lost his job. However, I am relieved that a man who feels that I should not be allowed to marry is no longer in a very influential position at an influential company.

Now, whether or not OkCupid should have been casting stones is another matter. But that seems to have been thoroughly discussed, so I'll end this here.

[baddox]

I'm seeing a lot of disagreement over the facts of Proposition 8. Several people are saying that homosexual couples in California already had a legal partnership with all the same rights as "married" heterosexual couples.

[jerryr]

Okay, let's take the facts in question off the table and say that there are absolutely no differences between marriage and domestic partnerships besides the name. At best then, Prop 8 kept us "separate but equal". History has shown that doctrine to be discriminatory and oppressive. There's an inherent inequality in my inability to say that I'm married.

[baddox]

I don't think it's appropriate to invoke separate but equal if the only difference is the legal term used. Separate but equal was about separate physical facilities. And as far as I know, it was never illegal for any couple to claim that they were married. It's just that the official legal term would not be "marriage."

[bluntly_said]

And I think the separate but equal problem is a very compelling reason to remove rights from marriage entirely. Codifying religious beliefs into law shouldn't be accepted. Trying to redefine religious beliefs in law stirs up more controversy than it should.

Amending the law to force all couples to get the equivalent of a civil unions satisfies both camps.

Further, once marriage holds no rights, the government cannot stop a gay couple from getting married if a nice tolerant church wants to marry them (of which there are plenty). The issue is solely religious at that point. And "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Just like the government can't force a church to marry someone, or force a very intolerant religious community to accepting that marriage.

[bane]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a secular and a religious "marriage". Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Quite a few religions and religious factions have provide same-sex marriages long before it was ever explicitly allowed in law.

When most people get a regular 'ol marriage, it's actually two events. Their religious marriage, as recognized by their faith, and the civil "marriage" as defined and recognized by law. You can get one without the other if you wish. Just get a religious marriage, and don't bother with the legal licensing and registration, or conversely, just get a legal marriage and don't bother with the religious aspects of it. I can't say it's always been this way, but it's basically always been this way.

The problem comes from the simply face that there's a very large body of law that required people to enter into an agreement specifically called "marriage" for those laws to apply to them. More importantly SCOTUS has recognized "marriage" as a fundamental right.

In theory, same-sex couple always had the right to get married, legally and religiously (if their religion allowed), and should have had those laws apply to them. But it was only recently when same-sex couples tried to enforce the application of those laws on themselves that the legal hypocrisy became apparent and government attempted to separate those people from their legal right.

If law had used the word "quijibo" instead of "marriage" it wouldn't have mattered any. People could have gotten religiously married, then filed for their quijibo. The word choice is irrelevant, other than the legal inertia that's already behind the word.

[baddox]

> Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit.

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong [0], but it seem that a New Jersey court ruled in 2012 that a religious facility could not deny usage to homosexual couple for civil union ceremonies. From my quick Googling, it seems this is a big concern for Christian groups in the US, but I don't know how credible their concern is.

[0] http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf

Edit: with a bit more Googling, it seems fairly common for state governments to prohibit discriminating based on sexual orientation for the sale of goods and services, which would (I assume) apply to churches being used for ceremonies. There have also been court cases involving wedding cakes, flowers, and photography.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-wedding-flowers...

Proposed city law in Kansas: http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-ch...

[bane]

It is a major fear for religious groups that belong to a religion that won't recognize/perform same-sex marriages.

But it won't likely happen (or won't be upheld on challenges up to SCOTUS if it does happen at a local level). Religious freedom includes religions that sometimes hold beliefs that may not be popular.

For example, most Zoroastrian organizations forbid conversion to Zoroastrianism and won't permit marriages to outsiders. However, it's highly unlikely a law would be passed stopping this kind of ethnic discrimination. Many Christian preachers go on about the evils of paganism, but outlawing speech against Wicca or Hinduism or whatever is unlikely to happen as would a law forcing believers in those religions to convert to an acceptable non-Pagan religion.

> which would (I assume) apply to churches being used for ceremonies.

Churches or other houses of worship have a special protected status different from that of businesses. They're kind of like a private club. They aren't free from all laws, human sacrifice is not permitted for example.

More importantly, people are free to leave and join other religions as they see fit (or no religion), or spin out their own sect that allows for whatever they want as they wish.

This was seen as important enough that it's actually the first part of the first amendment, before speech, press and assembly.

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.

It'd be very hard to pass such a law and not have it run afoul of this.

[pessimizer]

It's become a big issue in Britain - but that's mostly because they have a state church. It's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility, but I've heard of mixed race marriage ceremonies being explicitly denied by churches in the US, and don't ever remember any recourse that the couples had other than the court of public opinion.

[pessimizer]

I'm entirely against state marriage, religious or otherwise. If you want to pool your finances, form a joint partnership - and feel free to do it with anybody willing to sign the documents. If you want to figure out who gets to visit someone in the hospital, use something else.

Let Jeremy Irons marry his son.

[jerryr]

I completely agree with that idea. I'd be all in favor of separating a legal partnership from a religious marriage.