CO Couple Thinks They Can Overturn SCOTUS Marriage Ruling

Some of the attempts by Christian right bigots to get out of the Supreme Court’s recent marriage ruling are cracking me up. Texas thinks they can just defund the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples (wrong!) and now a couple in Colorado are trying to pass a state constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling.

A proposed ballot initiative filed Thursday would redefine same-sex marriages in Colorado as civil unions. A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.

Keeping gay marriage out of Colorado could be difficult, if not impossible, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26 that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide…

Both ballot questions were filed by Gene Straub and D’Arcy Straub, both of Littleton. D’Arcy Straub is a lawyer. He could not be reached Friday, and his voice message said he was on a mountain-climbing trip. Gene Straub did not immediately return a phone call…

The proposed constitutional amendment states, “A marriage is recognized as a form of religious expression of the people of Colorado that shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief.”

Any same-sex couple married before the proposed amendment takes effect or in another state would have their relationship redefined as a civil union, which carries some but not all of the legal rights of marriage.

D’Arcy Straub thinks this would actually overturn the Supreme Court ruling? Where did she get her law degree, Billy Bob’s Law School and Bait Shop? If it were to pass, and I doubt it would, it would take about 30 seconds for a federal district court to strike it down. This is just ignorance-fueled desperation.

"We're slipping in the polls. Time to kills some foreigners in their own homes."

Republicans Refuse to Defend Trump on ..."
"Issuing trading stamps?! I'd like to know the story behind that one.Raise your hand if ..."

USCIRF Releases Report on Blasphemy Laws
"It wasn't completely meaningless. We're not exclusively talking about how Trump loves Nazis. So Mission ..."

Trump’s Meaningless ‘Shift’ in Afghanistan Policy
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Deacon Duncan

    They *do* realize they’re proposing an amendment to outlaw state recognition of Christian marriage, right?

  • Deacon Duncan

    They *do* realize they’re proposing an amendment to outlaw state recognition of Christian marriage, right?

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    Remember those halcyon days, when even conservative lawyers actually understood how the law works?

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    Remember those halcyon days, when even conservative lawyers actually understood how the law works?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    A proposed ballot initiative filed Thursday would redefine same-sex marriages in Colorado as civil unions.

    You people redefined our Traditional Marriages to bring The Gays in. It’s only fair that us Values Voters get to redefine them out.

     

    A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.

    I have a closely-held Religious Belief to not support so-called “gay” so-called “marriages”, but me accepting your homomoney then paying someone else to do the work is fine.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    A proposed ballot initiative filed Thursday would redefine same-sex marriages in Colorado as civil unions.

    You people redefined our Traditional Marriages to bring The Gays in. It’s only fair that us Values Voters get to redefine them out.

     

    A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.

    I have a closely-held Religious Belief to not support so-called “gay” so-called “marriages”, but me accepting your homomoney then paying someone else to do the work is fine.

  • Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy

    “In opposition or agreement with any religious belief,” if construed literally, probably covers not just any definition of marriage–including but not limited to those prescribed or solemnized by any religion–but most other human activities. Do they even read what they write?

  • Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy

    “In opposition or agreement with any religious belief,” if construed literally, probably covers not just any definition of marriage–including but not limited to those prescribed or solemnized by any religion–but most other human activities. Do they even read what they write?

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    If I understand that word salad, wouldn’t what they’re proposing outlaw all marriages?

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    If I understand that word salad, wouldn’t what they’re proposing outlaw all marriages?

  • John Pieret

    A marriage is recognized as a form of religious expression of the people of Colorado that shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief

    I don’t know what they intended, but that would strip religious marriages of any of the normal benefits of that status, such as tax breaks, automatic inheritance, right to determine an incapacitated spouse’s healthcare, etc., etc. Recognizing those marital rights in statutes would be defining a marriage in opposition or agreement with various particular religious beliefs.

    a civil union, which carries some but not all of the legal rights of marriage

    That is an apparent non-starter on its face, but since they are doing away with marital benefits for religious marriages, anyone who wants to have those benefits would also have to have a civil union, so it might survive equal protection scrutiny.

    Billy Bob’s Law School and Bait Shop

    … would probably deny any connection with these two.

  • John Pieret

    A marriage is recognized as a form of religious expression of the people of Colorado that shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief

    I don’t know what they intended, but that would strip religious marriages of any of the normal benefits of that status, such as tax breaks, automatic inheritance, right to determine an incapacitated spouse’s healthcare, etc., etc. Recognizing those marital rights in statutes would be defining a marriage in opposition or agreement with various particular religious beliefs.

    a civil union, which carries some but not all of the legal rights of marriage

    That is an apparent non-starter on its face, but since they are doing away with marital benefits for religious marriages, anyone who wants to have those benefits would also have to have a civil union, so it might survive equal protection scrutiny.

    Billy Bob’s Law School and Bait Shop

    … would probably deny any connection with these two.

  • whheydt

    Re: Deacon Duncan @ #1…

    Time to think back about 50 years to when an attempt was made in California to pass a stringent law banning the distribution of obscene materials. One of the provisions would have permitted private suits against distributors of such material. During the campaign, a group was formed that said that, should it pass, they were going to sue the Gideon Society under that provision. It was known as the “Clean Amendment” and it went down in *flames*.

  • whheydt

    Re: Deacon Duncan @ #1…

    Time to think back about 50 years to when an attempt was made in California to pass a stringent law banning the distribution of obscene materials. One of the provisions would have permitted private suits against distributors of such material. During the campaign, a group was formed that said that, should it pass, they were going to sue the Gideon Society under that provision. It was known as the “Clean Amendment” and it went down in *flames*.

  • raven

    Why don’t they just pray? Ask god, the controller of the universe he made himself?

    In their magic book, it says prayer can do anything. Including move mountains.

    I’m getting the impression that they really don’t believe their own religion.

  • raven

    Why don’t they just pray? Ask god, the controller of the universe he made himself?

    In their magic book, it says prayer can do anything. Including move mountains.

    I’m getting the impression that they really don’t believe their own religion.

  • themadtapper

    If I understand that word salad, wouldn’t what they’re proposing outlaw all marriages?

    Hilariously worse than that, if someone were to declare that their religion doesn’t believe in marriage at all, it would create a situation where the state could not recognize any form of marriage (because every form is going to be either accepted or opposed by some religion or another), but they also can’t recognize NOT having a form of marriage. This is basically the fundy equivalent of passing a law forcing the state to divide by zero.

  • themadtapper

    If I understand that word salad, wouldn’t what they’re proposing outlaw all marriages?

    Hilariously worse than that, if someone were to declare that their religion doesn’t believe in marriage at all, it would create a situation where the state could not recognize any form of marriage (because every form is going to be either accepted or opposed by some religion or another), but they also can’t recognize NOT having a form of marriage. This is basically the fundy equivalent of passing a law forcing the state to divide by zero.

  • dingojack

    A marriage is recognized as a form of religious expression of the people of Colorado that shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief.” [Take as been written in yellow Comic Sans].

    So… ‘marriage’ is recognised as religious expression – but that expression can not be abridged by any law that agrees or disagrees with the definition of ‘marriage’ by any kind of religious group, either implicitly or explicitly…

    Yes, in practical terms, I can see that working an absolute treat.

    Larry Klaymation is gonna need to step-up his game to keep ahead of that little gem*.

    @@

    Dingo

    ———

    * or, if you will, Straub Berry

  • dingojack

    A marriage is recognized as a form of religious expression of the people of Colorado that shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief.” [Take as been written in yellow Comic Sans].

    So… ‘marriage’ is recognised as religious expression – but that expression can not be abridged by any law that agrees or disagrees with the definition of ‘marriage’ by any kind of religious group, either implicitly or explicitly…

    Yes, in practical terms, I can see that working an absolute treat.

    Larry Klaymation is gonna need to step-up his game to keep ahead of that little gem*.

    @@

    Dingo

    ———

    * or, if you will, Straub Berry

  • marcus

    These two assholes are from my own home state. So. Proud.

    Good luck assholes, you pathetic dumbasses.

  • marcus

    These two assholes are from my own home state. So. Proud.

    Good luck assholes, you pathetic dumbasses.

  • http://skepticalimerick.blogspot.com/ Rich Stage

    Don’t you dare knock Billy Bob’s. That’s where I got my GED in law!

  • http://skepticalimerick.blogspot.com/ Rich Stage

    Don’t you dare knock Billy Bob’s. That’s where I got my GED in law!

  • dingojack

    So who wants to open the Colorado Church of TEH BIG GHEY?

    First order of business — ALL marriages must be gay marriages, any other kind of marriage is BLASPHEMY. The offenders against THE ASS-HOLY SACRIMENT of the big fat GHEY wedding should be publically glitter-bombed at the stake, followed by the hanging, drawing and parting of the very fashionable and fabulous sequined drapes…

    @@

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    So who wants to open the Colorado Church of TEH BIG GHEY?

    First order of business — ALL marriages must be gay marriages, any other kind of marriage is BLASPHEMY. The offenders against THE ASS-HOLY SACRIMENT of the big fat GHEY wedding should be publically glitter-bombed at the stake, followed by the hanging, drawing and parting of the very fashionable and fabulous sequined drapes…

    @@

    Dingo

  • roggg

    Something doesn’t add up. The article calls it an attempt to overturn marriage equality, but the only quote they provide suggests it’s about getting out of marriage entirely, which should be in play I should think? I’m going to withhold my scorn until I see the actual text of the ballot initiative(s).

  • roggg

    Something doesn’t add up. The article calls it an attempt to overturn marriage equality, but the only quote they provide suggests it’s about getting out of marriage entirely, which should be in play I should think? I’m going to withhold my scorn until I see the actual text of the ballot initiative(s).

  • Larry

    Hopefully, this will all take place before god brings down the big, Monty Python-style boot on the US for allowing SSM.

  • Larry

    Hopefully, this will all take place before god brings down the big, Monty Python-style boot on the US for allowing SSM.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    @Tabby Lavalamp #5 – If I understand that word salad, wouldn’t what they’re proposing outlaw all marriages?

    Many religions accept, even encourage, polygamy. So here we have the predictable situation of the same people who S C R E E C H E D about how marriage equality would pave the way towards polygamy actually working to make polygamy legal.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    @Tabby Lavalamp #5 – If I understand that word salad, wouldn’t what they’re proposing outlaw all marriages?

    Many religions accept, even encourage, polygamy. So here we have the predictable situation of the same people who S C R E E C H E D about how marriage equality would pave the way towards polygamy actually working to make polygamy legal.

  • D. C. Sessions

    I could have sworn that I saw that same language being proposed in Texas.

    Is this going out on Jesusnet or something?

  • D. C. Sessions

    I could have sworn that I saw that same language being proposed in Texas.

    Is this going out on Jesusnet or something?

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    @4:

    In the peculiar way in which the fundamentalist brain works, “religion” means only the stuff that they believe. Other religions aren’t really religions as far as they’re concerned, so they can redefine the word at will. See also: “faith”, “values”, etc.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    @4:

    In the peculiar way in which the fundamentalist brain works, “religion” means only the stuff that they believe. Other religions aren’t really religions as far as they’re concerned, so they can redefine the word at will. See also: “faith”, “values”, etc.

  • arakasi

    I know that to Roman Catholics, a marriage must be performed by a consencrated priest in order to be considered religiously valid. I’m pretty sure that Mormons also require marriages to be performed by church official. So would all CO marriages be joint RCC/Mormon services? Because I don’t think that is likely to happen.

  • arakasi

    I know that to Roman Catholics, a marriage must be performed by a consencrated priest in order to be considered religiously valid. I’m pretty sure that Mormons also require marriages to be performed by church official. So would all CO marriages be joint RCC/Mormon services? Because I don’t think that is likely to happen.

  • marcus

    roggg @ 14 This is a new strategy the Christofascists have “evolved”. Since government has defiled the meaning of marriage… THE GOVERNMENT MUST GET OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS!

    See, this is why we can’t have nice things like marriage, the homosexuals have broken it!

  • marcus

    roggg @ 14 This is a new strategy the Christofascists have “evolved”. Since government has defiled the meaning of marriage… THE GOVERNMENT MUST GET OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS!

    See, this is why we can’t have nice things like marriage, the homosexuals have broken it!

  • abb3w

    A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.

    OK, that’s stupid per se. Contrariwise, for services rather than venues, that might be within reasonable accommodation, and withstand court challenges. (Except for venues; “Canyon View Chapel” seems likely a noncomparable substitute for “Meadowbrook Green Space Weddings”.) Nohow, the law should make clear that the business is responsible for providing the service to all customers whether or not they are able to find a religiously amenable subcontractor.

  • abb3w

    A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.

    OK, that’s stupid per se. Contrariwise, for services rather than venues, that might be within reasonable accommodation, and withstand court challenges. (Except for venues; “Canyon View Chapel” seems likely a noncomparable substitute for “Meadowbrook Green Space Weddings”.) Nohow, the law should make clear that the business is responsible for providing the service to all customers whether or not they are able to find a religiously amenable subcontractor.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Area Man @18 – In my experience arguing with many, many Christians is that they don’t consider Christianity a religion. It’s a faith and a “personal relationship”. It’s all those other belief systems that are religions.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Area Man @18 – In my experience arguing with many, many Christians is that they don’t consider Christianity a religion. It’s a faith and a “personal relationship”. It’s all those other belief systems that are religions.

  • Die Anyway

    Ok, new solution. We play with the words.

    If you ‘marry’ someone you are ‘married’ but with this definition you do not have a ‘marriage’. Being ‘married’ is achieved by visiting your local government establishment and filling out the requisite forms. A ceremony or party is optional. Any two people can do this with very few restrictions (e.g. no siblings). You get all of the regular governmental rights and responsibilities.

    ‘Marriage’ is a religious ritual like baptism or bar mitzvah. It carries weight only within your church/synagogue/mosque. If you undergo a ‘marriage’ or ‘wedding’ ceremony you are ‘marriaged’ or ‘wedded’ but NOT ‘married’. The government doesn’t know about it, doesn’t care about it, and doesn’t attach any rights or privileges to it. If you want that stuff you have to separately go and do the government thingie so that you can check the ‘Married’ box on various forms.

    It’s a very small change in wording that saves ‘marriage’ for the religious but allows everyone else to be ‘married’.

  • Die Anyway

    Ok, new solution. We play with the words.

    If you ‘marry’ someone you are ‘married’ but with this definition you do not have a ‘marriage’. Being ‘married’ is achieved by visiting your local government establishment and filling out the requisite forms. A ceremony or party is optional. Any two people can do this with very few restrictions (e.g. no siblings). You get all of the regular governmental rights and responsibilities.

    ‘Marriage’ is a religious ritual like baptism or bar mitzvah. It carries weight only within your church/synagogue/mosque. If you undergo a ‘marriage’ or ‘wedding’ ceremony you are ‘marriaged’ or ‘wedded’ but NOT ‘married’. The government doesn’t know about it, doesn’t care about it, and doesn’t attach any rights or privileges to it. If you want that stuff you have to separately go and do the government thingie so that you can check the ‘Married’ box on various forms.

    It’s a very small change in wording that saves ‘marriage’ for the religious but allows everyone else to be ‘married’.

  • Scientismist

    Area Man @18:

    ..so they can redefine the word at will. See also: “faith”, “values”, etc.

    Also “family”, especially as part of the name of an organization.

  • Scientismist

    Area Man @18:

    ..so they can redefine the word at will. See also: “faith”, “values”, etc.

    Also “family”, especially as part of the name of an organization.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    I live in CO, too. It’s a good thing that Denver’s, Boulder’s, and Ft. Collins’s populations combined make the state more blue than red. Having said that, I could get behind a law that abandons marriage, in favor of civil unions, as long as civil unions have all the same rights and responsibilities as marriages enjoy now. As Die Anyway says, and as is confirmed by the language in the OP, marriage is a religious ritual. The government never should have been involved with marriage in the first place. If you want to get married, go to church. If you want the protections and obligations of the law, run down to the clerk’s office and sign the papers creating a civil union (essentially, a partnership specially defined by law).

    If partners in a civil union wish to end that union, the legislature might provide for that in statutes related to contracts, or simply redefine current divorce statutes to apply to civil unions, only. Also, bigamy laws need to be modified to refer to entering two or more civil unions rather than marriages. So, if the RCC won’t grant you a dissolution of your marriage, even though the state grants a dissolution of the civil union, well, f@$k ’em.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    I live in CO, too. It’s a good thing that Denver’s, Boulder’s, and Ft. Collins’s populations combined make the state more blue than red. Having said that, I could get behind a law that abandons marriage, in favor of civil unions, as long as civil unions have all the same rights and responsibilities as marriages enjoy now. As Die Anyway says, and as is confirmed by the language in the OP, marriage is a religious ritual. The government never should have been involved with marriage in the first place. If you want to get married, go to church. If you want the protections and obligations of the law, run down to the clerk’s office and sign the papers creating a civil union (essentially, a partnership specially defined by law).

    If partners in a civil union wish to end that union, the legislature might provide for that in statutes related to contracts, or simply redefine current divorce statutes to apply to civil unions, only. Also, bigamy laws need to be modified to refer to entering two or more civil unions rather than marriages. So, if the RCC won’t grant you a dissolution of your marriage, even though the state grants a dissolution of the civil union, well, f@$k ’em.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Both ballot questions were filed by Gene Straub and D’Arcy Straub, both of Littleton. D’Arcy Straub is a lawyer.”

    Is she as smart as Orly Taitz?

    I was talking to my brother a week or two back (he lives in Littleton–but on the Firestone side of I-25 (it’s like Mercury and Jupiter) and I asked him if he was still living in Weld County or if it had become Weldystopia–the Teabaggists tried to secede from Colorado in the last election. He laughed.

    I will be in Firestone at the end of the month, prior to going up to Omaha with him and his family for a few days. I may have to partake of some recreational cannabis before going out and talking to his neighbors.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Both ballot questions were filed by Gene Straub and D’Arcy Straub, both of Littleton. D’Arcy Straub is a lawyer.”

    Is she as smart as Orly Taitz?

    I was talking to my brother a week or two back (he lives in Littleton–but on the Firestone side of I-25 (it’s like Mercury and Jupiter) and I asked him if he was still living in Weld County or if it had become Weldystopia–the Teabaggists tried to secede from Colorado in the last election. He laughed.

    I will be in Firestone at the end of the month, prior to going up to Omaha with him and his family for a few days. I may have to partake of some recreational cannabis before going out and talking to his neighbors.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.”

    Wow. I see a real “Win-Win AND poke a needle in 900′ Baby Jesus with the frikkin’ lazerbeam eyes”. Say the idiocy survives to become a ballot initiative and actually winds up on the books. I see every teh GAY cook, baker and candlestick maker printingup some business cards and being willing to suffer the cooties of abomination for the filthy lucre–but not tellin’ the KKKristians until the check clears the bank..

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.”

    Wow. I see a real “Win-Win AND poke a needle in 900′ Baby Jesus with the frikkin’ lazerbeam eyes”. Say the idiocy survives to become a ballot initiative and actually winds up on the books. I see every teh GAY cook, baker and candlestick maker printingup some business cards and being willing to suffer the cooties of abomination for the filthy lucre–but not tellin’ the KKKristians until the check clears the bank..

  • RickR

    As Die Anyway says, and as is confirmed by the language in the OP, marriage is a religious ritual. The government never should have been involved with marriage in the first place.

    Except that isn’t true. Marriage was a civil institution long before any churches got involved in it.

  • RickR

    As Die Anyway says, and as is confirmed by the language in the OP, marriage is a religious ritual. The government never should have been involved with marriage in the first place.

    Except that isn’t true. Marriage was a civil institution long before any churches got involved in it.

  • freemage

    abb3w says

    July 8, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.

    OK, that’s stupid per se. Contrariwise, for services rather than venues, that might be within reasonable accommodation, and withstand court challenges. (Except for venues; “Canyon View Chapel” seems likely a noncomparable substitute for “Meadowbrook Green Space Weddings”.) Nohow, the law should make clear that the business is responsible for providing the service to all customers whether or not they are able to find a religiously amenable subcontractor.

    Yeah, that’s kinda bizarre. A venue might be able to use the distinction to hire a subcontractor to provide services (such as catering, janitorial services, or whatever) that they themselves would feel somehow constituted an endorsement of the same-sex event, I suppose. But as you note, they would not be able to either charge more for the service, nor provide an inferior one, in any case.

    So, yes, homophobes, you can take a cut in your profit margins by subcontracting out, if that’s what it takes to make you not afraid to step on holy ground the next Sunday.

  • freemage

    abb3w says

    July 8, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.

    OK, that’s stupid per se. Contrariwise, for services rather than venues, that might be within reasonable accommodation, and withstand court challenges. (Except for venues; “Canyon View Chapel” seems likely a noncomparable substitute for “Meadowbrook Green Space Weddings”.) Nohow, the law should make clear that the business is responsible for providing the service to all customers whether or not they are able to find a religiously amenable subcontractor.

    Yeah, that’s kinda bizarre. A venue might be able to use the distinction to hire a subcontractor to provide services (such as catering, janitorial services, or whatever) that they themselves would feel somehow constituted an endorsement of the same-sex event, I suppose. But as you note, they would not be able to either charge more for the service, nor provide an inferior one, in any case.

    So, yes, homophobes, you can take a cut in your profit margins by subcontracting out, if that’s what it takes to make you not afraid to step on holy ground the next Sunday.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    A venue might be able to use the distinction to hire a subcontractor to provide services (such as catering, janitorial services, or whatever) that they themselves would feel somehow constituted an endorsement of the same-sex event, I suppose. But as you note, they would not be able to either charge more for the service, nor provide an inferior one, in any case.

    This sounds distinctly like the doctrine “separate but equal”, and we all know how that ended.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    A venue might be able to use the distinction to hire a subcontractor to provide services (such as catering, janitorial services, or whatever) that they themselves would feel somehow constituted an endorsement of the same-sex event, I suppose. But as you note, they would not be able to either charge more for the service, nor provide an inferior one, in any case.

    This sounds distinctly like the doctrine “separate but equal”, and we all know how that ended.

  • footface

    But, but… Can’t a bakery, say, or a florist hire someone to bake a cake or create a flower arrangement? I mean, without any special new law, isn’t that completely and unremarkably legal? Do these people think The Gays are going around saying, “That one! We want that one to make the cake! It has to be him, the one who hates gay people”? (And do they think current laws or judicial rulings care whose hands make the cake or arrange the flowers?

  • footface

    But, but… Can’t a bakery, say, or a florist hire someone to bake a cake or create a flower arrangement? I mean, without any special new law, isn’t that completely and unremarkably legal? Do these people think The Gays are going around saying, “That one! We want that one to make the cake! It has to be him, the one who hates gay people”? (And do they think current laws or judicial rulings care whose hands make the cake or arrange the flowers?

  • eric

    A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.

    Great! So if some ultraconservative couple comes into my photography business to hire a wedding photographer, I (a straight pro-gay rights guy) get to subcontract the work out to Gary’s Fabulously Flaming Foto Business? I’m so glad I can ensure their money can go to a good cause.

  • eric

    A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples.

    Great! So if some ultraconservative couple comes into my photography business to hire a wedding photographer, I (a straight pro-gay rights guy) get to subcontract the work out to Gary’s Fabulously Flaming Foto Business? I’m so glad I can ensure their money can go to a good cause.

  • thebookofdave

    Sure, footface, but current law doesn’t express passive-aggressive outrage against a hated group who now have some legal protection from discrimination. Nor is it likely to entertain future bathroom readers in a book of bizarre proposals actually passed into law.

  • thebookofdave

    Sure, footface, but current law doesn’t express passive-aggressive outrage against a hated group who now have some legal protection from discrimination. Nor is it likely to entertain future bathroom readers in a book of bizarre proposals actually passed into law.

  • Nemo

    @Die Anyway #23:

    It’s a very small change in wording that saves ‘marriage’ for the religious

    I don’t get why I should want it saved for the religious. I get that they want that. But I don’t see why I should agree to concede that.

    Here’s my proposal: As far as the law goes — which is all we’re really concerned with — marriage is a purely secular arrangement. No second-class “civil union” bullshit, and no “solemnization” by ordained ministers, like we often have now — no legal recognition of religious rites in any way. You go through the procedures to get what we nowadays call a license, but instead, that’s the actual marriage.

    At the same time, under the First Amendment, the religious can define “marriage” however they like, for their own purposes, just as they always have. But their definitions have no legal standing. If they think that’s not good enough — if they want a special word to distinguish their “marriages” from ours — then let them take on a new term. The rest of us shouldn’t have to. Because, no, “marriage” isn’t intrinsically religious, and never has been.

    I’ve posted essentially this same comment before, and I guess I’ll do so again, if I see this terrible, pointless-compromise “civil union” proposal made again. Seriously, we’ve already won this. Stop trying to surrender.

  • Nemo

    @Die Anyway #23:

    It’s a very small change in wording that saves ‘marriage’ for the religious

    I don’t get why I should want it saved for the religious. I get that they want that. But I don’t see why I should agree to concede that.

    Here’s my proposal: As far as the law goes — which is all we’re really concerned with — marriage is a purely secular arrangement. No second-class “civil union” bullshit, and no “solemnization” by ordained ministers, like we often have now — no legal recognition of religious rites in any way. You go through the procedures to get what we nowadays call a license, but instead, that’s the actual marriage.

    At the same time, under the First Amendment, the religious can define “marriage” however they like, for their own purposes, just as they always have. But their definitions have no legal standing. If they think that’s not good enough — if they want a special word to distinguish their “marriages” from ours — then let them take on a new term. The rest of us shouldn’t have to. Because, no, “marriage” isn’t intrinsically religious, and never has been.

    I’ve posted essentially this same comment before, and I guess I’ll do so again, if I see this terrible, pointless-compromise “civil union” proposal made again. Seriously, we’ve already won this. Stop trying to surrender.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    In my experience arguing with many, many Christians is that they don’t consider Christianity a religion. It’s a faith and a “personal relationship”. It’s all those other belief systems that are religions.

    Christianity is a religion when it’s necessary for the purposes of advancing their interests via the 1st amendment (given their bizarrely expansive view of the 1st amendment, in which they think they can ignore any law that they don’t like). Otherwise, there would be no point in these guys putting the word “religion” in their initiative. Note also that “religious liberty” is now a term of art among the Right, which the rest of us would more properly read as “bigoted Christians get unique privileges”. Annoyingly, conservatives now regard themselves as the true champions of “religious liberty”.

    It’s not a religion when the proscriptive parts of the 1st amendment apply, such as not allowing them to enforce their beliefs on other people via state laws. Or when faced with the pejorative connotations of religion, e.g. ignorance and inflexible orthodoxy. Then it becomes a “personal relationship” or whatever.

    No one accuses them of consistency. It’s just whatever it takes to rationalize their belief in their own supremacy, and to force their shit on the rest of us.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    In my experience arguing with many, many Christians is that they don’t consider Christianity a religion. It’s a faith and a “personal relationship”. It’s all those other belief systems that are religions.

    Christianity is a religion when it’s necessary for the purposes of advancing their interests via the 1st amendment (given their bizarrely expansive view of the 1st amendment, in which they think they can ignore any law that they don’t like). Otherwise, there would be no point in these guys putting the word “religion” in their initiative. Note also that “religious liberty” is now a term of art among the Right, which the rest of us would more properly read as “bigoted Christians get unique privileges”. Annoyingly, conservatives now regard themselves as the true champions of “religious liberty”.

    It’s not a religion when the proscriptive parts of the 1st amendment apply, such as not allowing them to enforce their beliefs on other people via state laws. Or when faced with the pejorative connotations of religion, e.g. ignorance and inflexible orthodoxy. Then it becomes a “personal relationship” or whatever.

    No one accuses them of consistency. It’s just whatever it takes to rationalize their belief in their own supremacy, and to force their shit on the rest of us.

  • John Pieret

    The numbnutz seem to be groping for the European system where the legally effective marriage is done at a clerk’s office and the religious one, if any, is done at a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. I would find that acceptable, as long as everyone in the civil marriages gets the same rights, benefits and responsibilities regardless of gender.

    The business of hiring a subcontractor to perform services once the provider finds out it is for a SSM is problematical. Presumably, I hire a photographer or baker or florist based on some familiarity with their work. If I wanted my portrait painted by Michelangelo and he sent some kid with finger paints as a substitute, I’d have one hell of a breach of contract suit. The reluctant service provider would have to make sure the subcontractor had equal experience and artistic abilities and would have to be prepared to defend that amorphous standard in court.

  • John Pieret

    The numbnutz seem to be groping for the European system where the legally effective marriage is done at a clerk’s office and the religious one, if any, is done at a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. I would find that acceptable, as long as everyone in the civil marriages gets the same rights, benefits and responsibilities regardless of gender.

    The business of hiring a subcontractor to perform services once the provider finds out it is for a SSM is problematical. Presumably, I hire a photographer or baker or florist based on some familiarity with their work. If I wanted my portrait painted by Michelangelo and he sent some kid with finger paints as a substitute, I’d have one hell of a breach of contract suit. The reluctant service provider would have to make sure the subcontractor had equal experience and artistic abilities and would have to be prepared to defend that amorphous standard in court.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @John Pieret #36

    While they’re heading in that direction, I think the biggest problem for them is simply the word “marriage.” They’re all butt-hurt because that one word is no longer their exclusive thing. That’s what this whole “redefinition of marriage” business is all about. They’re being forced to share their toy with others and they’re throwing tantrums about it.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @John Pieret #36

    While they’re heading in that direction, I think the biggest problem for them is simply the word “marriage.” They’re all butt-hurt because that one word is no longer their exclusive thing. That’s what this whole “redefinition of marriage” business is all about. They’re being forced to share their toy with others and they’re throwing tantrums about it.

  • eric

    Presumably, I hire a photographer or baker or florist based on some familiarity with their work. If I wanted my portrait painted by Michelangelo and he sent some kid with finger paints as a substitute, I’d have one hell of a breach of contract suit

    I think it depends on how the business is set up and whether they regularly use subcontractors or a ‘stable’ of workers or not. For a one-person shop you are right; you are buying that artist’s services and you have every right to expect that artist’s services. However, if a shop already has multiple regular “performers” or regularly subcontracts out its work, and you are hiring “the shop,” then I would say no, a customer doesn’t get to specify which of the regular performers does the work. So if I hire Bob the Photographer, I have every right to expect Bob to show up at my wedding. If I hire Wedding Photos R Us, I cannot demand they send Bob-the-employee but not Sandy-the-employee. Unless of course Wedding Photos R Us regularly allows that sort of selection. Hair salons do; but my local high-end bakery does not let me pick who prepares my cake. And Home Depot will certainly not allow me to pick my own sub-contractor when it comes to buying one of their home improvement deals; the deal requires I use their preferred provider. It really depends on the business in question.

    So I would say that the customer has a right to regularly provided service options. and on the other side of the coin, the company has a right to give only that level of service they normally supply to everyone else. If the company normally allows a customer to specify which employee does the work, then they have to let bigots do that too, even if it sticks in their craw to honor someone’s “no gays” request. If OTOH the company doesn’t normally allow that level of customer control over who does the work, then bigots shouldn’t get the right to specify that they don’t want Bob-the-gay-employee doing the work.

  • eric

    Presumably, I hire a photographer or baker or florist based on some familiarity with their work. If I wanted my portrait painted by Michelangelo and he sent some kid with finger paints as a substitute, I’d have one hell of a breach of contract suit

    I think it depends on how the business is set up and whether they regularly use subcontractors or a ‘stable’ of workers or not. For a one-person shop you are right; you are buying that artist’s services and you have every right to expect that artist’s services. However, if a shop already has multiple regular “performers” or regularly subcontracts out its work, and you are hiring “the shop,” then I would say no, a customer doesn’t get to specify which of the regular performers does the work. So if I hire Bob the Photographer, I have every right to expect Bob to show up at my wedding. If I hire Wedding Photos R Us, I cannot demand they send Bob-the-employee but not Sandy-the-employee. Unless of course Wedding Photos R Us regularly allows that sort of selection. Hair salons do; but my local high-end bakery does not let me pick who prepares my cake. And Home Depot will certainly not allow me to pick my own sub-contractor when it comes to buying one of their home improvement deals; the deal requires I use their preferred provider. It really depends on the business in question.

    So I would say that the customer has a right to regularly provided service options. and on the other side of the coin, the company has a right to give only that level of service they normally supply to everyone else. If the company normally allows a customer to specify which employee does the work, then they have to let bigots do that too, even if it sticks in their craw to honor someone’s “no gays” request. If OTOH the company doesn’t normally allow that level of customer control over who does the work, then bigots shouldn’t get the right to specify that they don’t want Bob-the-gay-employee doing the work.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    Rhetorical question: Wouldn’t it be extremely hypocritical to say “I won’t provide a service for your wedding …” and then follow it up with “… but I will facilitate you finding someone who will.” Even worse if it is a true sub-contractor situation since the original place would have some responsibility for the actions of the sub-contractor.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    Rhetorical question: Wouldn’t it be extremely hypocritical to say “I won’t provide a service for your wedding …” and then follow it up with “… but I will facilitate you finding someone who will.” Even worse if it is a true sub-contractor situation since the original place would have some responsibility for the actions of the sub-contractor.

  • eric

    @39: not necessarily. A number of religions have proscriptions that they sincerely believe only apply to members, not to anyone else. Jews don’t think non-Jews ought to stop eating pork nor do Sikhs get upset about other people getting crewcuts. Now, traditional Christianity doesn’t have anything like this: Catholics and mainline Protestants tend to more take the approach that “God’s rules apply to everyone, period.” But it wouldn’t surprise me too much if we saw a new version or new set of sects come out of 20th century conservative fundamentalism. Anti-poor, anti-welfare, anti-earth-stewardship, unforgiving of gays…they are already pretty far away from mainstream. If they add “I can’t serve gays, but you can” to the list of core beliefs, at what point do we just recognize that we have a new distinct flavor of Christianity on our hands?

  • eric

    @39: not necessarily. A number of religions have proscriptions that they sincerely believe only apply to members, not to anyone else. Jews don’t think non-Jews ought to stop eating pork nor do Sikhs get upset about other people getting crewcuts. Now, traditional Christianity doesn’t have anything like this: Catholics and mainline Protestants tend to more take the approach that “God’s rules apply to everyone, period.” But it wouldn’t surprise me too much if we saw a new version or new set of sects come out of 20th century conservative fundamentalism. Anti-poor, anti-welfare, anti-earth-stewardship, unforgiving of gays…they are already pretty far away from mainstream. If they add “I can’t serve gays, but you can” to the list of core beliefs, at what point do we just recognize that we have a new distinct flavor of Christianity on our hands?

  • marcus

    Nemo @ 34 I’m with you. This actually is a legal and accepted option in Colorado. You both sign the license and return it to the county recorder’s office. Simple, done. (My wife and I didn’t choose it as we had a very close friend perform the “service” as a commemoration, and also so that we could have his signature on our license, but we could of.)

  • marcus

    Nemo @ 34 I’m with you. This actually is a legal and accepted option in Colorado. You both sign the license and return it to the county recorder’s office. Simple, done. (My wife and I didn’t choose it as we had a very close friend perform the “service” as a commemoration, and also so that we could have his signature on our license, but we could of.)

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    I misspoke in a previous comment (first time, EVER, no shit). My brother lives in Longmont, not Littleton. He’s about 50-60 miles away in space and a century or so in time.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    I misspoke in a previous comment (first time, EVER, no shit). My brother lives in Longmont, not Littleton. He’s about 50-60 miles away in space and a century or so in time.

  • Anri

    ArtK @ 39:

    Rhetorical question: Wouldn’t it be extremely hypocritical to say “I won’t provide a service for your wedding …” and then follow it up with “… but I will facilitate you finding someone who will.” Even worse if it is a true sub-contractor situation since the original place would have some responsibility for the actions of the sub-contractor.

    I would tend to think so, but as far as I can tell, the history of mainstream Christianity, and indeed modern non-fundamentalist religion in general, has been an ongoing effort to square a set of often silly archaic commands with an increasingly complex modern world.

    It’s like “Sabbath mode” for modern-day electronic stoves – the presumption being, I suppose, that god will wink and say “Oh ho ho, you managed to keep the letter of my commands while still completely getting around actually following them! Very clever! Kudos!”

    What continues to amaze me, though, is when people are fully willing to go with “Well, god obviously didn’t mean that!” with regards to some of their holy books, but still insist “Well, god obviously means this!” with regards to other bits. Once I started assuming some bits of the bible might not be authoritative, I could never find that supposedly clear line at which to stop making that assumption and start assuming utter universal timeless perfection again.

  • Anri

    ArtK @ 39:

    Rhetorical question: Wouldn’t it be extremely hypocritical to say “I won’t provide a service for your wedding …” and then follow it up with “… but I will facilitate you finding someone who will.” Even worse if it is a true sub-contractor situation since the original place would have some responsibility for the actions of the sub-contractor.

    I would tend to think so, but as far as I can tell, the history of mainstream Christianity, and indeed modern non-fundamentalist religion in general, has been an ongoing effort to square a set of often silly archaic commands with an increasingly complex modern world.

    It’s like “Sabbath mode” for modern-day electronic stoves – the presumption being, I suppose, that god will wink and say “Oh ho ho, you managed to keep the letter of my commands while still completely getting around actually following them! Very clever! Kudos!”

    What continues to amaze me, though, is when people are fully willing to go with “Well, god obviously didn’t mean that!” with regards to some of their holy books, but still insist “Well, god obviously means this!” with regards to other bits. Once I started assuming some bits of the bible might not be authoritative, I could never find that supposedly clear line at which to stop making that assumption and start assuming utter universal timeless perfection again.