- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/14079/argentine-judge-opens-the-door-to-marriage-equality
Meanwhile, in the US...
Meanwhile, in the US...
Argentina's turn...to allow gay marriage
- Thread starter BenPanced
- Start date
Argentina has to convince its one legislature. We have to either convince one giant legislature to do it, which would be awesome, or a bazillion smaller ones.
Okay, there are only fifty states, but still.
But that is neither here nor there. Go Argentina! USA, get your fucking ass in gear.
Okay, there are only fifty states, but still.
But that is neither here nor there. Go Argentina! USA, get your fucking ass in gear.
Zoombie, we shouldn't have to convince anybody of anything. "Equal protection under the law" should have solved the issue long ago. I really don't understand how basic civil rights became a beauty contest.
If a country like Argentina, which is 70% Catholic and willing to allow gay marriage in the face of undoubted opposition from Rome, can do this, I really think other countries are running out of religious excuses. I don't know what percentage of opposition to gay marriage is religion-based, but I'm willing to bet it's high.
Add to the list of "religious" countries, Spain which is 75% Catholic and legalized same-sex marriage in 2005.
Actually, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Spain are fairly secular compared to the rest of the Spanish-speaking countries. Spain is embittered because of the Church's connections with Franco (Opus Dei, anyone?) and Uruguay, Chile and Argentina had a heavier influence from Europe than the central and northern region of South America (that were more influenced by United States)
Civil unions have been in effect on Uruguay since last year
Civil unions have been in effect on Uruguay since last year
Last edited:
That's interesting about Spain, especially considering its history as one of the most religiously zealous nations on earth. Quite an evolution from the Holy Inquisition to gay marriage. The other countries where same-sex marriage is legal--Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and South Africa, do all seem to fit the secular model of those nations not overly influenced or controlled by religion.
US history is filled with groups struggling to gain the civil rights guaranteed by our constitution--rights which become more imaginary with every supreme court decision. Free exercise of religion no longer exists, and the fourth amendment has become a joke. The only right going the other way is the right to pack a pistol, so I'm surprised that gays have made any progress at all.
Just curious, not being snarky, but how are religious rights being restricted?
I have some ideas, but I'm curious about what you mean by "free exercise of religion no longer exists...".
Free exercise of religion hasn't existed in this country since Reynolds v. US in 1878, when the supreme court decided that the first amendment didn't mean what it plainly said. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) was a rare blip in the other direction.
Polland went the other way around, it became from a communist state where religion was restricted to one of the European states with largest religious population.
What's the lesson? Don't shove religion nor secularism through people's throat because they will end up moving away.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,562
- Reaction score
- 5,327
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Alabama -my home sweet home.
Would you care to elaborate on those decisions for those of us who don't know every court decision in the land. I know I could google it but I think it would be nice if you clarified, since you brought it up. I know I would appreciate it.
I just looked them up.
The first one was about a mormon who married two women and was convicted over it, the court said that religious duty wasn't an excuse to commit a crime.
The second one were people who sacrified animals and the court overturned that no law could ban their right to do religious service (sacrify animals)
I'll take the liberty Sass. I googled the cases b/c I'd asked the question that generated this response.
Reynolds vs. US 1878 was a supreme court case that ruled religious duty an inappropriate defense in a criminal case.
Reynolds had been charged with bigamy, but he argued that b/c he's a mormon man he had only been following his religious duty. The supreme court disagreed.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) ruled that an ordinance in Florida was unconstitutional. The ordinance forbade animal sacrifice in public or private for ritual or religious purposes. The law was put into effect after a church that practiced Santeria was going to move to the area.
In Reynolds, the court held that "free exercise" protected belief but not action. So if a state wanted to ban Mormon polygamy (or Jewish circumcision, or the drinking of wine on Sundays by a Catholic priest) it could do so, the only restriction being that the law was of general applicability--ie, no one can drink wine in public on Sundays. In those days, there was no requirement that the law be rational, or that a religion not be unduly burdened--a far cry from free exercise!--while since then the legal winds have blown both ways insofar as the burdening issue. But Reynolds has never been overturned, and Americans have no right to "free exercise" of religion according to the plain meaning of the phrase. In fact, Americans have no right to even promote a religious tenet if that tenet is against the law. Thus mainstream Mormons now practice polygamy only in the afterlife, as the laws haven't been extended that far. Not yet, anyway.
In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the court found that a law was written specifically to ban animal sacrifice by a religious group, while it did not ban the killing of animals for other purposes, such as for food, so it was found unconstitutional. This is a precedent that will no doubt impact gay marriage and fundamentalist polygamy, for the act of living together and raising children without marriage is legal in both cases, only the marriage is prohibited, and only for those specific groups, thus, the laws are not of general applicability. Futher, such laws would seem to violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. Of course, the court may avoid the issue altogether by deciding that it's a state issue.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,562
- Reaction score
- 5,327
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Alabama -my home sweet home.
Spain also has nationalized/universal health care and essentially, a very socialist leaning. It may take the "socialist kind" of liberalism to embrace gay marriage. I don't know. It just seems to me, speaking strictly of western countries - and I could be wrong - but the more socialist the country, the more tolerant socially. Not communist now, but socialist. . . .
Or maybe universal health care leads to equal rights. . . .
I theorize it was because US didn't had a traumatic "break" unlike the European nations. See, one could easily divide European mentality in the last century through before-WWII and after WW-II, essentially, WWII was a break with the past, with the tradition and a door to rebuild the society as such, a Tabula Rasa, you may called it or a necessary revolution. It's simply a necessity of renewal, some countries got it first and some not so fast.
United States has been more gradual, though, never had the need of a real revolution to survive as the Europeans did, the Establishment did fairly well and reforms came from time to time during the 60's with protests and Martin Luther King Jr. and some people changed and without counting having Tricky Dicky manslauthering the American dream. So, as a mere expectator, I consider that US never had a traumatic break with tradition, so it's something that goes with baby steps...
I'm inclined to agree with you, yet there are countries who fit the socialist/progressive model who have yet to legalize same-sex marriage, such as Denmark, Finland, Great Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland and New Zealand. Maybe it's only a matter of time before they come on board, but it is surprising that they weren't first in line to confer equal rights to their gay and lesbian citizens.