Comments on: Marriage Equality and Free Speech

By: mythago

mythago — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

and could include speech reflecting perceived “animus” against homosexuality–such as preaching against gay marriage

He knows this is false. If it were true, it would currently be possible to prosecute people for harassment for making racist statements, or for accusing Catholics of being bad citizens, or saying women ought to be kept barefoot and pregnant.

We already know that such a prosecution would be laughed out of court, because harassment is a specific kind of speech beyond giving an opinion. “Jews are evil and control the world” is not harassment. “You Jews take your filthy bank out of our city or we’ll run you out” may be harassment.

If his analysis were correct, then he should be delighted, because it would mean similar negative comments about heterosexuals would be illegal.

By: Joe Buck

Joe Buck — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Another way around disputes like this is to simply create single-payer health insurance, taking that responsibility out of the hands of employers entirely. For other types of benefits, like life insurance, the employee can already name any person as beneficiary. Maybe religious institutions that have a problem with gay partners could push for that instead. Then everyone would get health care and they wouldn’t have to acknowledge any relationship they don’t like.

Or, they could allow the employee to name any person (say, a mother or a brother or a friend) to receive medical benefits.

By: steve duncan

steve duncan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Another 4 years of Dubya and the same sex marriage debate will be moot. We’ll be discussing whether the corpses of gay people are better disposed of through incineration or burial in trenches. This is truly a gang of evil, vile, murdering thieves we’re saddled with.

By: Echidne

Echidne — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

It’s interesting that because we don’t have civil rights laws about individuals as consumers the religious institutions can and do decide which services should be available for all. Think of Catholic hospitals and their policies about vasectomies and abortions. In fact, it’s sort of curious that the federal laws provide no protection for discrimination when we act in the role of consumers.

Maybe this is what should be corrected, rather than a further reduction of the protections via the manipulation of employment protections?

By: ADS

ADS — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Um, Steve? What’s wrong with you?

By: Dust in the Light

Dust in the Light — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Inadvertent Voting and the Thrust of a Movement
On the Marriage Debate Blog, which is increasingly must-reading material for those interested in the issue of same-sex marriage, a current topic of discussion involves the likely repercussions for religious organizations should same-sex marriage become…