The legislative onslaught continues (exemptions, law, legal)

[WesternPilgrim]

The assault on marriage and family in California never ends these days. Between the legislature, the courts, and policy-making bureaucrats there's a new attack every week. But I've got to hand it to the Lavender Brigade: they're getting mighty clever.

SB-1140 is couched in the language of religious liberty: “no member of clergy will be required to perform a marriage that is contrary to his or her faith.” Ah, but what it giveth with one hand, the other hand taketh away! The law would make a sharp distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage, paving the way for gender neutrality on the civil side.

"SB 1140 would also define marriage, in California's Family Code, as 'a personal relation arising out of a civil, and not a religious, contract.' ...

In an April 27 statement released by Catholics for the Common Good, May said the bill was 'a deception,' using the language of religious freedom in an effort 'to redefine marriage … and eventually remove from the law any public institution that unites kids with their moms and dads.'"

[nullgeo]

Now where's that link about people who are obsessed with homosexuality? I know I just saw it somewhere this morning ... You know, the one about people who fear their own homosexuality are often those obsessed with railing against it. Well, I'm sure it will turn up sooner or later, because .........

[nslander]

Keep your religious nonsense out of my law.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Now where's that link about people who are obsessed with homosexuality? I know I just saw it somewhere this morning...

Axe and ye shall receive:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/op....html?src=recg

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

"SB 1140 would also define marriage, in California's Family Code, as 'a personal relation arising out of a civil, and not a religious, contract.' ...

Last time I checked, literally, almost 20 years ago, the Family Code defined marriage as a fiduciary relationship.

Leno is the author. What else is new?

[BayAreaHillbilly]

This is actually heading in the right direction but does not go all the way.

What's needed is a clear civil construct, called a domestic partnership contract and a clear traditional civil-religious one called marriage.

The former would be geared toward financial rights, care decision rights, hospital visitation, benefits, etc.

The latter would be geared toward procreation, custody, and prevention of incest, bestiality, polygamy, etc.

I know many gays would still oppose this because they want kids (but without a normal procreation process) but sometimes one must give a little to get a lot.

By the way what I've written here is informed by French law.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

This is actually heading in the right direction but does not go all the way.

What's needed is a clear civil construct, called a domestic partnership contract and a clear traditional civil-religious one called marriage.

The former would be geared toward financial rights, care decision rights, hospital visitation, benefits, etc.

The latter would be geared toward procreation, custody, and prevention of incest, bestiality, polygamy, etc.

I know many gays would still oppose this because they want kids (but without a normal procreation process) but sometimes one must give a little to get a lot.

By the way what I've written here is informed by French law.

That would actually be an improvement over the present dismal situation in California in which same-sex "partnerships" are already treated like real marriages when it comes to children's issues. I'd probably favor that as a step towards restoring marriage in civil law.

Of course, the problem with that is that it continues to give legal sanction to something that wants to be marriage, but isn't. It's still a kind of legal fiction. Thinking Californians need to get away from the idea that the law creates realities rather than responds to realities.

[jaypee]

"Assault on marriage" ... lol. It reminds me of a Louis CK bit:

It doesn't have ANY effect on your life. What do you care?! People try to talk about it like it's a social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show and say, ""How am I supposed to explain to my children that two men are getting married?"" ... I dunno, it's your s**tty kid and you f**kin' tell 'em. Why is that anyone else's problem? Two guys are in love but they can't get married because you don't want to talk to your ugly child for five f**kin' minutes?

[WesternPilgrim]

In reading over the text of SB-1140, one can't help but be impressed at its legal shrewdness. In granting that "clergy shall not be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith", it essentially concedes that officials in the other seven categories may be required to solemnize a marriage that is "contrary to the tenets of his or her faith".

This is the new normal. Religious motivations for action are granted narrow "exemptions" by an increasingly hostile state. Except when they're not.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by jaypee

It doesn't have ANY effect on your life.

LOL. If it didn't have any effect on my life, you wouldn't need a boatload of new laws to force me to do things your way.