Standing In The Courthouse Door
Roy Moore, the chief justice of Alabama's state supreme court, is making a stand in the courthouse door. This is not literally happening, the way it did back in 1963 when Alabama's Governor George Wallace made a similar stand in the schoolhouse door. But the motivation is similar; a classic standoff between states' rights and federal legal supremacy over state law. In both Moore's and Wallace's cases, high Alabama officials are defying federal civil rights legal orders -- and the United States Supreme Court -- to preserve the state's ability to legally discriminate against a segment of its population.
Wallace was defying both the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas and an order by a federal judge that three black students were to be admitted to the state-run University of Alabama. In his inaugural speech earlier in 1963, Wallace had infamously proclaimed: "I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," so it's pretty easy to see where his heart was, when he stood in the door of a university auditorium in an attempt to physically block the three African-American students the judge's order covered. Federal marshals, a Deputy Attorney General, and the Alabama National Guard were required to move Wallace aside so the students could successfully register. Alabama schools were finally integrated, a full nine years after the Brown decision.
Moore is likewise decrying federal "tyranny" by defying a federal judge's order that Alabama begin marrying gay couples today. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to issue a stay of the judge's order, or to otherwise block or delay marriage equality from coming to Alabama. The state is now the 37th to allow gay marriages to happen. The Supreme Court, later this year, will hear a final case in this legal drama, where everyone fully expects them to bring marriage equality to every state, no matter what state laws remain on their books on the subject. In fact, the court's refusal to stay the Alabama decision is a strong indicator of how they're preparing to rule on the issue in June.
Before the marriages were to begin this morning, Moore wrote a note to all the state officials who issue marriage licenses. In it, he states that any of these officials who follow the federal judge's ruling and begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples could be disciplined by the state government. Since Moore doesn't issue these licenses himself, he is directing others to make their own "stands in the courthouse door." As of this writing, in at least eight Alabama counties, officials are refusing to marry gay couples (most are reportedly just refusing to issue any marriage licenses, which dodges the issue somewhat).
It remains to be seen how the federal judiciary will react (again, that's "as of this writing"... there may be recent developments in this fast-moving showdown). The federal judge who issued the ruling could begin holding state officials in contempt of court. Roy Moore himself seems to be courting a direct confrontation, and the federal judge may well grant him his wish. Moore is no stranger to federal/state confrontation, as he was previously removed from office as the state's chief justice in 2003, when he refused to remove a stone monument to the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building. Moore was then subsequently re-elected to his post, showing he's at least in tune with most of Alabama's voters (who voted to ban gay marriage by a whopping 81 percent, it bears mentioning).
The argument over the division between states' rights and federal law is as old as our country. The U.S. Constitution was created because the Articles of Confederation was so heavily slanted towards states' rights, in fact. Many, however, thought the new Constitution went too far in the other direction, and we've been fighting about the issue ever since in various ways (the Civil War being merely the most prominent example). In the past 75 years (at least) , the fiercest of these battles have been waged over civil rights.
This brings up a much wider question, though. Where do one person's civil rights begin and another's end? The classic answer to this question is: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." But that's a little simplistic, because "my nose" can be rather hard to define, in the abstract.
It seems almost self-evident these days that marriage equality should become the law of the land everywhere, at least to its proponents. But it wasn't that long ago when this wasn't true. It really wasn't that long ago, historically, that interracial marriages were still banned in many states. That one took a Supreme Court case to resolve, and it is now almost impossible to picture a county clerk refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple "for reasons of conscience."
This is precisely what Moore is arguing for, however. It's not just in Alabama, either. Other state governments have toyed with the idea that individual marriage officials should be able to "opt out" of performing gay weddings, because of the religious beliefs of the official. This, however, is unconstitutional on the face of it, if the Supreme Court soon rules that marriage is a basic civil right. Officials of the state are not allowed to discriminate. Period.
But while that one's pretty easy to parse, the whole nose/fist dividing line is not as strong in other cases. Pharmacists in many states are legally allowed to refuse to fill certain prescriptions they do not morally agree with -- all of them having to do with women's sexual health. Pharmacists can refuse to sell birth control pills, morning-after pills, and abortion pills. If you are a woman who lives in a small town in the West, and your local pharmacist (the only one in town) refuses to fill a legal prescription, you may have to drive hundreds of miles to find another pharmacist so you can get what you need. Pharmacists, however, are licensed by the state. So why are they allowed to discriminate based solely on their own religious beliefs? The Hobby Lobby case moved this argument into a different arena, when the court ruled that private corporations can indeed have their own "religious conscience" when it came to birth control and women's health. Women who work for such companies are allowed to be discriminated against, and their right to health insurance is not the same as other women workers in America.
The biggest moral/legal grey zones exist around abortion, of course. Doctors are also licensed by the state. For doctors who do perform abortions, many states have been making it ridiculously hard for them to even operate. This has all gathered steam in the past few years, in fact. But there are issues on the other side of the coin as well -- very few people (for instance) would insist that all doctors be forced by the state to perform abortions. Or even all obstetricians or gynecologists. But, as seen in the case of pharmacists, this can put incredible burdens on women seeking health care. The question of abortion gets even more complex -- should a state require all doctors who get certified to have learned how to perform an abortion safely? Should it be a mandatory part of their training? Even if you limit this one to just OB/GYNs, it seems like a reasonable requirement on practical grounds (if an emergency abortion were needed, it would be nice to know that any doctor present could perform the operation to save the mother's life, for instance). But the ethics of such a requirement are a bit more nebulous.
The recent outbreak of measles in California has prompted a national conversation about vaccinating children. The obvious divide is between those who think the government should require any child attending school to be fully vaccinated (or provide a valid medical excuse), but the question becomes more difficult when it comes to the doctors currently being interviewed on the airwaves, both pro and con. Should anti-vaccine doctors be brought up before their state's medical board and stripped of their license? Conversely, should doctors be allowed to refuse care to children whose parents don't vaccinate them, as several pro-vaccination doctors are now doing? Where does the conscience of the doctor come into conflict with established medical standards?
An even larger battle looms, getting back to the subject of marriage equality. It's one thing to discuss the legal requirements for a state official charged with marrying people. It's quite another to allow businesses to discriminate along the same lines. The opening skirmishes in this fight were over professionals who provide services to weddings, such as photographers and commercial bakers of wedding cakes. Several cases are winding their way through the court system now. Again the core issue is where the customer's rights end and the businesses' rights begin. Should all businesses be banned from discriminating, and be forced to offer the same services to gay weddings as they offer to straight? That seems pretty obvious to many, however one interesting twist in this fight has already happened. A customer tried to buy a cake from a bakery with an anti-gay message written on top of it. The baker refused to write the message, although extra icing was offered, so the person could write their own message. Where does this fall in the argument? Should a business be forced to offer a racist or bigoted cake? How is this different than a devoutly religious baker refusing to offer a gay wedding cake? All of these questions are going to grow in prominence in the next few years, as state governments are already considering creating "conscience clause" legislation to protect businesses' right to discriminate against whomever they wish. This is going to be the last battlefield for the marriage equality movement, and it will be somewhat of a desperation holding action by gay marriage opponents -- a last-ditch effort to stem the tide of gay marriage after the Supreme Court rules on it.
Sometimes it is easy to see which way the moral arc of the universe is next going to bend. Roy Moore is grandstanding politically on marriage equality in Alabama in the same fashion that George Wallace did over 50 years ago. Looking from the outside in, it's pretty easy to see that it's a losing battle. No matter how it happens or how long the standoff takes to resolve, gay couples everywhere in Alabama are soon going to be able to exercise their rights equally. Wallace's stand in the schoolhouse door remains a historical footnote as one of the biggest examples of the defense of segregation during the Civil Rights era. Moore's may similarly go down in history as the most prominent defiance of the federal government on marriage equality.
But winning this fight in Alabama isn't going to be the end of the road for the marriage equality movement. Even if the Supreme Court rules in June that gay marriage is the law of the land everywhere, it will likely not be the final battle in this fight for equal rights. It has been over 40 years since Roe v. Wade was decided, and the anti-abortion forces have been whittling away at this right for almost that entire period. Look for the anti-marriage equality forces to continue fighting on other fronts, always insisting that their religious rights are the ones being infringed. There are still 13 states without gay marriage, and even in the 37 states that now allow it, there are plenty of people who do not agree that it should be happening. The question of where one person's civil rights end and one person's religious rights begin is not going to be settled by forcing all officials in Alabama to marry gay couples, or even all states to do so. Because, as Roy Moore personifies, there are a whole lot of people who are not going to accept societal change without fighting it as hard as they know how. And that fight could take longer than anyone now expects.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It's going to get worse. Across the country, state level "revenge bills" are emerging aimed at punishing LGBTs with bureaucratic barriers and enshrining a "freedom to discriminate" in law.
The mistake made by you, and many, is in conflating actions of the State with individual actions and individual rights. I know of no judge vowing not to issue any licenses. A few are refusing to marry anyone. The former would clearly be unconstitutional. The latter gets closer to the conflict of individual rights, except for one vital distinction.
The problem is that you've a right to follow your conscience and invoke your right to self-determination, as long as you're willing to pay the price such action may entail. What we see here, and elsewhere, is people claiming that the exercise their rights entitles them to accommodation by others, whether those others agree or not, and to violate the rights of others.
And I don't mean by gays seeking to marry. Marriage is nothing more than an agreement, a contract, between two people. Traditionally all marriage contracts, or any other contracts, needed to be valid were witnesses to attest to the agreement.
As society became more litigious the State began to require documentary proof, and for more routine contracts, like marriage, that often result in litigation both documentation and registration with the State are required to facilitate any subsequent litigation.
Marriage licenses aren't State authorization to marry. The State doesn't control personal contracts. Marriage licenses are registrations of marriage contracts required by the State in order to obtain State enforcement of marriage contracts.
So the myths here are:
1.) That couples cannot marry without a license. Not true. The State has no power to stop people marrying. That's why misogyny laws were stricken. The State has no compelling interest in, or authority to control, who chooses to marry.
2.) Denying licenses is just refusing to recognize and enforce marriages. It doesn't prevent or prohibit them. That's why its a violation of Due Process and Equal Protection. Religious objections of conscience have nothing to to with it. Denying licenses is the State selectively refusing some citizens State services. Individual rights, indeed individuals, are not even involved, except as State Agents. And their is no individual right to deny others State services acting as an agent of the State. You've a right to act as either an individual, or as an agent, but not both.
3.) Individuals who feel, as a matter of conscience, that they cannot be involved in facilitating gay marriage have every right to refuse to participate in gay marriages. But marriage licenses are only about registering marriages with the State. Blocking the ability of people to infirm the State I their marriages in order to prevent people from realizing the full benefits of their marriage is not an individual right enjoyed by anyone. No matter what the dictates of their conscience may be.
4.) State officials are employed to perform state functions. If their conscience precludes them from doing so they've a right to resign. There is no right to agree to perform functions for pay and then refuse to perform them and still expect to be employed. There is no right to take oath to uphold the law and the constitution in order to be vested with the authority of an agent of the State and then claim the discretion to decide what laws, policies, and procedures of the State that you will follow. The choice is either be a State agent and follow all legal State dictates, or not be a State agent.
Similarly in the private sector, as with the bakers refusing to bake a cake for a day wedding, there's no right to advertise general services and then selectively refuse them to specific individuals without penalty. They've a right to refuse if they wish. If that's what their conscience dictates. But the people refused have rights also. And they've a right to just compensation for the inconvenience, insult, and humiliation of such a refusal.
Gays don't need anyone's assistance or permission to marry. The reality is that objectors want to interfere with those marriages. This isn't about people of conscience being "forced" to participate or condone something they object to. This is about people of prejudice attempting to deny others their rights by refusing to recognize and accept legal contracts made by others, and concerning others, which they have no interest in, or control over.
It isn't people exercising rights. It's people trying to deny others rights. They're simply trying to validate and justify their heinous actions by misrepresenting them.
As for anti-vaccine doctors; doctors are certified by the state as medical professionals by licensing. If, for any reason, the state believes them not to be providing sound medical advise the state has a responsibility to rescind their license.
Unlike marriage licenses medical licenses are state authorization to practice, having demonstrated such practice meets minimum standards and poses no danger to the public. Anti-vaccine doctors do pose a public danger and do not meet minimum standards. The state does not, and should not, be endorsing their actions. Medical licenses are not entitlements of doctors, they're a state service to protect, and inform, the public.
Similarly unvaccinated kids pose a danger, As such protecting others from contact with them, and exposure to them is appropriate. The choice not to support vaccination, like all choices, may entail consequences.
Our Imaginary Friend who art in Sky-Heaven, hallowed be Thy multiple names and personalities.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in Alabama as it is in Uganda.
Give us this day our Leviticus cherry-picking and forgive us our state-mandated cake baking and we will never forgive those who gay-marry against us.
And lead us not into gay wedding photography, but deliver us from critical thinking.
For Thine is the English word “marriage” and the persecution fantasies and the cognitive dissonance forever and ever.
Or else.
And, now, I may retire for the evening with a big ole smile on my face. Thanks for that!
Just to correct one point (speaking as a retired OB/Gyn): all OB/Gyns are trained to perform suction dilatation and curettage for incomplete or missed abortion (what in lay terms would be called miscarriages) whether or not they choose to participate in elective abortions (what are called abortions by the general public). Should someone later decide to perform an elective abortion, she would have no difficulty in doing so. For the more rare, later term abortions, similar techniques are used for delivering IUFDs (Intrauterine Fetal Demise), also learned/performed by everyone. There is no conflict in terms of requiring training for abortion. Where it becomes problematic is when the Catholic medical schools teach nothing about birth control to their students, not even its medical uses. I can't speak to what their hospitals do in their residency programs, having only dealt with knowledge gaps in residents graduated from their medical schools, although I do know of Catholic FPs who refused to prescribe OCP even for medical purposes.
LewDan [2] -
Whew! OK, here goes.
I did include a line:
most are reportedly just refusing to issue any marriage licenses, which dodges the issue somewhat
which touched on the issue of refusing to issue any licenses. This is done for constitutional reasons, since states can either accomodate everyone or nobody, but they cannot pick and choose. The first I heard of this legal issue was when (quite a while back) a KKK organization in (?) Missouri wanted to join in the "highway trash pickup" program, where groups promise to keep certain stretches of road clean -- but the sticking point was they got official sanction by way of a sign posted stating: "this part of route 42 is kept clean by..." and the name of the group. The state balked at printing up a sign thanking the KKK, so they just ended the whole trash pickup program. School districts that don't approve of gay/lesbian support groups also have done this -- gone with NO extracurricular activities for all groups, rather than letting a group in they didn't like. The officials in Alabama are taking this route currently, but this is an unsubstainable course the longer it goes on (as more and more straight couples are affected). I didn't want to go into all that in the article, but you're correct, the only constitutional answer for any government agency in such a quandary is either "all" or "nothing" -- because anything in between would be nothing more than institutional discrimination.
Interesting point on licenses versus marriages. So what you're saying, in essence (I think), is that anyone can get married, but if they're not registered with the state they may not be considered legally married in a court of law (or, to put it another way, a polygamous marriage could take place, but without being registered may not be considered legal by the state when you fill out your taxes, for instance).
Good point in (2) re: individuals versus state agents. As for the rest, I do wonder how you are defining "marriages" -- a ceremony that happens between two people, whether religiously celebrated or just a legal contract? Your definition doesn't seem to include the state at all, which is why I ask.
But this ignores some of the stickier points in the article. Is a pharmacist a State Agent, in your eyes? Or a State-licensed professional, or what? Would the same limitations as you put on State Agents apply to them? What about doctors? Would the guy who wanted to buy the cake with an anti-gay message also be entitled to compensation?
[3] -
OK, that covers doctors. Should doctors who are going to specialize in OB/GYN be required to learn how to perform a safe abortion? And what about the pharmacists?
Personally, I agree with you wholeheartedly -- I think even pharmacists with moral qualms about providing birth control pills have a clear choice: either provide ALL legal prescriptions, or choose another career. But I'd be interested to hear your take on the other questions.
The way I see it, it opens the door to an ambulance (EMT) guy claiming he's got religious problems with transfusions of blood -- and that is decidedly NOT who I want showing up at my house in an emergency.
Your religious tenets are sacred, to you. But you should check BEFOREhand if those tenets are going to conflict with your chosen career. If they are, and if it is a requirement of the job, then choose another career. It's that simple. At least to me.
But I tried to keep my own views on the subject out of the article, as much as possible, in order to spur conversation.
LizM -
:-)
Check your email.
DisabledDoc -
Aha! A voice of experience! I welcome you to the conversation....
I was relying on memory, which is always a faulty thing, when writing this article. But I could have sworn there were moral/political/ethical debates in certain states about whether learning such things as d-n-c were to be mandatory for a medical license, or whether doctors-to-be could opt out of such training (whether because "I'm going to be a plastic surgeon, I'm never going to need to know this" or "I am morally opposed to learning this technique").
Now, this was quite some time ago (again, from my faulty memory). It could have been as long ago as the 1980s, and I didn't follow up on the issue, just heard about it in passing. It may even have been (I am fully willing to admit) an issue raised in fiction I read (Cider House Rules, most likely).
If you're right, and that is still currently the standard of practicing medicine in all US states, then it does make me feel a lot better. Whether or not a doctor chooses to ever perform one, he or she should know medical techniques (like, say, amputating a limb) just in case he or she ever faces an unexpected medical emergency. Even if that emergency is a late-term abortion.
It seems to me to be a basic question of competence and necessary experience to qualify for a medical license. But then I am no doctor (nor do I play one on the internet).
As for Catholic hospitals, pretty much the only one around me is indeed Catholic, and I have had many (female) friends complain about being patients there because you are supposed to turn over all medicines to them when you are a patient (so they can regulate their dosages while you're under their care), but they refuse to do so for birth control pills. So female patients have to hide them in a drawer and sneak them while the nurse isn't looking. That seems wrong, to me, somehow, when this hospital is pretty much the only choice for anyone in my region. If you get in a bad car accident, this is where you end up -- you have no other choices.
Anyway, my $0.02. But I do thank you for chiming in on the issue, and for lending the conversation some professional expertise.
-CW
That's what I like about coming here..
For the most part, CW lays out the issue fairly... He mentions the OTHER side of an issue.
In this case, the bakers who are being targeted by pro-gay zealots...
Should a baker be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple even if said baker has a moral objection??
The entirety of the Left, of course, would scream, "Hell yea!!"
The Left would do that because it suits the partisan agenda in play.. The rights of the baker, the discrimination against the baker and his/her religious beliefs or moral beliefs are pushed to the back, determined to be inconsequential..
So, let me ask this..
Should a black baker be forced to bake a cake for a KKK party/celebration??
Should a muslim baker be forced to create a pork/bacon cake for a redneck party/celebration??
Ahhhhh, now the crickets come out.. Now, all of the sudden, the issue is not so black and white, eh??
So, let's call a spade a spade..
The issue isn't discrimination. The entirety of the Left doesn't mind discrimination. They just want to make sure that the RIGHT people are discriminated against... Pun intended :D
If there is a religious baker who won't bake a cake for a gay couple, watch out!! The Liberal Police will force you out of business..
If there is a black baker who won't bake a cake for a KKK group?? The Left will swoop to their protection..
So, let's steer that particular conversation along the lines of reality...
The issue isn't discrimination. The issue is making sure the right people are discriminated against... NO pun intended, this time. :D
As to the whole marriage equality thing?? It's the Hillary Clinton of marriage.. A big yawn fest... Zealots on both sides of the issue making mountains out of mole hills...
It used to be people believed, "I don't need a piece of paper to know that I love someone and want to spend my life with that person"...
Now people get so hysterical about that little piece of paper..
yaawn...
Michale
CW,
OK, that covers doctors. Should doctors who are going to specialize in OB/GYN be required to learn how to perform a safe abortion? And what about the pharmacists?
Personally, I agree with you wholeheartedly -- I think even pharmacists with moral qualms about providing birth control pills have a clear choice: either provide ALL legal prescriptions, or choose another career. But I'd be interested to hear your take on the other questions.
The way I see it, it opens the door to an ambulance (EMT) guy claiming he's got religious problems with transfusions of blood -- and that is decidedly NOT who I want showing up at my house in an emergency.
Your religious tenets are sacred, to you. But you should check BEFOREhand if those tenets are going to conflict with your chosen career. If they are, and if it is a requirement of the job, then choose another career. It's that simple. At least to me.
So, let me do what I do best.. Play Lucifer's Advocate.. :D
First, we must stipulate that being gay is a choice. Like being a WOB or some other lifestyle choice..
With this stipulated, let me ask you what your feelings are about alleged discrimination against gay people..
What I mean is, it was their choice to enter a lifestyle that they know has a likely chance of causing them grief and making things difficult for them..
Would you agree that they should check before hand and if they feel they can't endure the conflict, they should choose another lifestyle??
Michale
"I know of no judge vowing not to issue any licenses."
The order issued by Roy Moore specifically mentions withholding marriage licenses. Now to be fair, I don't know if any vowing is going on, but marriage licenses are not being issued by some judges in Alabama.
CW,
Haven't heard of anyone refusing to issue licenses to anyone. I don't think that's an option. Refusing to recognize any marriages would have to include existing marriages as well as new applications to be nondiscriminatory. And since many state and federal initiatives are allocated based on marital status refusing to recognize any marriages would be both discriminatory and violations of hundreds of laws.
What some are doing, though, is refuse to perform marriage ceremonies. They'll issue the license but they won't officiate any ceremonies.
That I've no problem with. Marriage ceremonies are a tradition, not a necessity. And you can always find someone, else and go somewhere else, if you want one. Anyone who witnesses people exchanging vows can attest to that fact by signing the marriage license as a witness.
With regards to any professional services:
If its licensed, certified, or regulated by government the government endorsement must only be issued to those willing to serve the public at large. All citizens gave a right to expect government to protect their interests with licensing, certification, and regulating. Government cannot assist in promoting discrimination. Government serves the general public not individuals. Government cannot choose to accommodate individuals at the expense of the general public.
Every business has the prerogative to serve only a select private clientele. But a business that is open to the public must either serve all or is fraudulent in its claim of being open to the public. And anyone injured through fraud has a right to seek compensation.
That I've no problem with. Marriage ceremonies are a tradition, not a necessity. And you can always find someone, else and go somewhere else, if you want one.
Well said, LD!!
I completely, unequivocally and wholeheartedly agree with you...
Michale
Every business has the prerogative to serve only a select private clientele. But a business that is open to the public must either serve all or is fraudulent in its claim of being open to the public. And anyone injured through fraud has a right to seek compensation.
AND
What some are doing, though, is refuse to perform marriage ceremonies. They'll issue the license but they won't officiate any ceremonies.
That I've no problem with. Marriage ceremonies are a tradition, not a necessity. And you can always find someone, else and go somewhere else, if you want one. Anyone who witnesses people exchanging vows can attest to that fact by signing the marriage license as a witness.
These two statements directly contradict each other..
If you have a public business that performs marriage ceremonies and they refuse that service to a gay couple, then said gay couple could, in your OWN words, "find someone else or go somewhere else"...
This applies to bakers as well. If a christian baker does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, then said gay couple can go elsewhere..
Just as if a black baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a KKK celebration, the celebrators can go elsewhere..
The right to refuse service is ALWAYS the right of a business...
If I have a customer who is being a prick in my shop, I can show them the door. Whether they be black, white, pink, purple, Klingon, Romulan, Cardassian or whatever.
What ya'all want to do is regulate acceptance and punish thought crimes...
Michale
What ya'all want to do is regulate acceptance and punish thought crimes...
Let me amend that to say, "What the Left wants to do is regulate acceptance and punish thought crimes."
My bust...
Michale
Michale,
Being gay is a choice the same way being male or female is a choice. Anyone can get sex reassignment surgery. If all it takes is the theoretical ability to "choose" then, thanks to modern science, nearly everything about a person is a "choice."
A definition that broad, however, ceases to have any utility. If everything is a "choice" just how significant is having "chosen?"
So the issue remains, what gives anyone else the right to make that choice?! Or to punish anyone who does make it? Parents, peers, coworkers, government, pastors, and society included. Being a choice is no justification for discrimination.
People's rights are not dependent on the choices they make regarding their personal life unless they affect public safety or the rights of others.
"What I mean is, it was their choice to enter a lifestyle that they know has a likely chance of causing them grief and making things difficult for them..
Would you agree that they should check before hand and if they feel they can't endure the conflict, they should choose another lifestyle??"
So anyone who chose to be Jewish in Nazi Germany deserved whatever happened to them because they chose to be Jewish knowing what could happen?
That line of bullshit is predicated on a right of abusers to be abusive, and places responsibility for abuse on the victim for failure to accommodate their abuser.
It also justifies terrorists as well as rapists and child molesters. Are you sure you want take that position, Michale?
So anyone who chose to be Jewish in Nazi Germany deserved whatever happened to them because they chose to be Jewish knowing what could happen?
Are you really comparing baking a wedding cake to the Holocaust??
REALLY???
It also justifies terrorists as well as rapists and child molesters. Are you sure you want take that position, Michale?
The position you are saying I am taking is most decidedly NOT the position I am really taking..
The position I am taking is the same position that CW is taking above.
Towhit... If one chooses to enter into a profession or a lifestyle that has some repercussions and/or side effects, then said one bears some responsibility for the conflicts that may ensue...
For example, if one takes up skydiving, it would be ridiculous for them to whine and complain that they are afraid of heights...
Another example. If one becomes a cop, it would be ridiculous to complain and say they don't like guns..
Another example. If one voluntarily enlists in the military, it would be ridiculous for them to claim conscientious objector status when they are deployed to combat...
If one chooses to participate in a lifestyle, knowing they might be discriminated against, then they bear some responsibility for the consequences of their choice..
Finally, if you insist on making the discussion about me instead of about the topic, please don't bother because I won't play your silly game any longer...
Michale
"The right to refuse service is ALWAYS the right of a business...
If I have a customer who is being a prick in my shop, I can show them the door. Whether they be black, white, pink, purple, Klingon, Romulan, Cardassian or whatever."
You have a right to reject anyone who is a danger, disruptive, or even looks like a poor prospect in the interest of your personal safety and business.
You do not have a right to refuse service simply because you are a bigot. We amended our Constitution to make it clear to everyone that that behavior is neither a right, acceptable, or legal. And that we, as a society, will punish it.
So, aren't people facing bankruptcy due to the penalty attached to their choice to discriminate solely responsible for their losses. Since they knew, before the chose to discriminate, that discrimination is not acceptable in our society?
"The position you are saying I am taking is most decidedly NOT the position I am really taking..
Charlie Hebdo knew that publishing inflammatory cartoons of the prophet Muhammad would incense Muslims and incite violence in Muslim extremists. So, by your reasoning, they are to blame for the murders perpetrated upon them."What I mean is, it was their choice to enter a lifestyle that they know has a likely chance of causing them grief and making things difficult for them..
Would you agree that they should check before hand and if they feel they can't endure the conflict, they should choose another lifestyle??"
The "lifestyle" Charlie Hebdo chose was to mock and slander religious icons others consider sacred. By your "logic" you certainly do justify terrorism.
"Towhit... If one chooses to enter into a profession or a lifestyle that has some repercussions and/or side effects, then said one bears some responsibility for the conflicts that may ensue..."
So if one chooses to open a public bakery one must be willing to serve anyone in the public. Because failure to do so can result in lawsuits.
Glad to see that we agree.
The "lifestyle" Charlie Hebdo chose was to mock and slander religious icons others consider sacred.
Once again, you are comparing the mundane with the atrocious...
Let's confine the discussions to realistic scenarios that don't result in death or dismemberment..
You simply cannot compare a wedding cake to the Holocaust or to the massacre...
By your "logic" you certainly do justify terrorism.
I am also constrained to point out that that wasn't MY logic. But, at the time of the Hedbo massacre, that was your logic...
But now you seem to be changing your mind.. Before you said that Hedbo does not have the right to mock religions and, if they did, they have to accept the fact that they would be attacked..
Now you seem to be saying just the opposite..
Michale
Every business has the prerogative to serve only a select private clientele. But a business that is open to the public must either serve all or is fraudulent in its claim of being open to the public. And anyone injured through fraud has a right to seek compensation.
AND
What some are doing, though, is refuse to perform marriage ceremonies. They'll issue the license but they won't officiate any ceremonies.
That I've no problem with. Marriage ceremonies are a tradition, not a necessity. And you can always find someone, else and go somewhere else, if you want one. Anyone who witnesses people exchanging vows can attest to that fact by signing the marriage license as a witness.
"These two statements directly contradict each other.."
No they do not. If you're a baker unwilling to serve everyone you are free to close your bakery. If you are unwilling to marry everyone you are free to stop performing marriages.
So if one chooses to open a public bakery one must be willing to serve anyone in the public. Because failure to do so can result in lawsuits.
What some are doing, though, is refuse to perform marriage ceremonies. They'll issue the license but they won't officiate any ceremonies.
That I've no problem with. Marriage ceremonies are a tradition, not a necessity. And you can always find someone, else and go somewhere else, if you want one. Anyone who witnesses people exchanging vows can attest to that fact by signing the marriage license as a witness.
I am glad to see we agree.. :D
Michale
No they do not. If you're a baker unwilling to serve everyone you are free to close your bakery. If you are unwilling to marry everyone you are free to stop performing marriages.
That's not what you said.
You said "That I've no problem with. Marriage ceremonies are a tradition, not a necessity. And you can always find someone, else and go somewhere else, if you want one."
That also applies to wedding cakes. Your own words, they "can always find someone else, go somewhere else"..
Michale
You said "That I've no problem with. Marriage ceremonies are a tradition, not a necessity. And you can always find someone, else and go somewhere else, if you want one."
Wedding cakes, like Marriage ceremonies, are a tradition, not a necessity...
Michale
"But now you seem to be changing your mind.. Before you said that Hedbo does not have the right to mock religions and, if they did, they have to accept the fact that they would be attacked.."
I never said that.
I said they had to accept the fact that they might be attacked. Not that they must "accept the fact that they would be attacked.." First, that they would be attacked was never a certainty. Second, when actions have likely possible outcomes its a person's responsibility to prepare for those outcomes unless they are willing to "accept" them.
I never said the attack wad acceptable. I said it wad understandable, predictable.
If you choose to jump off a height and break your arm. You don't have to "accept" the broken arm but you will lose a great deal of my sympathy.
No one has a right to murder others because they don't like what they do. But the fact is that people will murder others if what they do is sufficiently offensive.
While others don't have an obligation to appease others to avoid conflict, as you suggest. They do have a responsibility to prepare for conflict when they choose to attack others. In which case they most certainly do share the blame for any conflict.
In short, everyone has to deal with reality, not what they imagine is "right."
If you choose to jump off a height and break your arm. You don't have to "accept" the broken arm but you will lose a great deal of my sympathy.
Again, we completely agree..
And, along those same lines, if you choose a lifestyle that may result in discrimination, then one mustn't expect a great deal of sympathy when discrimination happens..
In short, everyone has to deal with reality, not what they imagine is "right."
Once again, 1000% agreement...
Michale
"And, along those same lines, if you choose a lifestyle that may result in discrimination, then one mustn't expect a great deal of sympathy when discrimination happens.."
No according to the Constitution. Not according to the law.
You argument that victims are responsible for their abuse is nonsense. A persons "lifestyle" is no ones business but their own as long as they don't involve others. Bigots can discriminate all they want, until they harm others.
Being responsible for your actions means being responsible for what you do. Not for what others do which is why Charlie shares responsibility. They're responsible for their part, not the terrorists part. Charlie chose to attack people. They knew their actions harmed others. That was their intent. They have to accept responsibility for that.
The response was unacceptably disproportionate, not unwarranted. The terrorists bear sole responsibility for choosing murder as their response. But that doesn't make Charlie an innocent victim with no responsibility. Charlie is responsible for provoking the attack. Had the terrorists restricted their attack to acceptable means, only Charlie would have been responsible.
"Choosing" to be gay is no different than choosing not to be gay. It's a personal choice that affects no one else. That's what "lifestyle" means. It's about how they choose to live their lives. No one else gets a vote. If you don't want to associate with others, for any reason, its up to you to remove yourself. You do not have a right to remove them. So you can quit baking, you cannot remove customers.
When you choose to inflict harm on others, no one but you bears the full responsibility for the harm that you cause. No one us required to do, or not do, anything to prevent you from causing harm.
Michale,
Since your so fixated on wedding cakes, you should note that no one forced anyone to bake a cake. The damages awarded for the harm caused by refusing to bake a cake put them out of business.
When you exercise your "rights" you have to accept the consequences. Having a "right" to do something doesn't mean you get to do it without consequence. Having a right to choose to act means having a right to choose what consequences you're willing to accept. "Reality" means actions have consequences.
It also means that if you find consequences unacceptable you can try to change them. Gays are fighting for marriage equality. Others are fighting for the right to discriminate without penalty.
As it happens, being discriminated against is not a consequence of being gay in a growing number of places. You, and others, would like it to be, and it once was. But it is not now. And is unlikely to ever be again.
You argument that victims are responsible for their abuse is nonsense. A persons "lifestyle" is no ones business but their own as long as they don't involve others.
By forcing others to do things in the service of said lifestyle, that IS "involving others"...
"Choosing" to be gay is no different than choosing not to be gay. It's a personal choice that affects no one else. That's what "lifestyle" means. It's about how they choose to live their lives. No one else gets a vote. If you don't want to associate with others, for any reason, its up to you to remove yourself. You do not have a right to remove them. So you can quit baking, you cannot remove customers.
But that's not what you claimed above..
You said above that people can just go elsewhere or look elsewhere.
NOW you are saying that people can force businesses to adhere THEIR lifestyle..
It simply cannot be both ways..
As you said, a wedding cake is NOT a necessity..
When you choose to inflict harm on others, no one but you bears the full responsibility for the harm that you cause. No one us required to do, or not do, anything to prevent you from causing harm.
So what about the harm inflicted on religious people being forced to do things they consider immoral..
That is as "harmful" as the alleged "harm" that gay people experience by not "going elsewhere"...
What's the justification for that harm??
Why is it OK to discriminate against religious people, but it's not OK to discriminate against people who choose the gay lifestyle??
Michale
So, you would agree that it's perfectly acceptable to force a black baker to bake a cake for a KKK celebration. If they refuse, they should be forced out of business...
You would agree that it's perfectly acceptable to force a jewish baker to bake a cake for a NAZI celebration... If they refuse, they should be forced out of business..
Is that your correct position??
Michale
If I am mis-stating your position, please.. By all means.. Correct me. :D
Michale
Let me put it into an even MORE relevant context..
Let's say that CW runs a Political Advocacy Group. His job is to get Politicians elected and he is damn good at what he does. Every client he has signed on has won their election..
CW, being the CW we all know and love :D works ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY with Democrats..
Now, according to the prevailing theory, CW should work with ANYONE, regardless of political affiliation.. If that is his business and it is a public business, then CW MUST take all comers..
So, if Donald Trump walks into CWs office and says, "I want you to run my POTUS campaign and make me President"....
According to the Left, CW would *HAVE* to take Trump on as a client...
CW would have to insure that Trump is our next POTUS...
You see the slippery slope the Left is proposing??
Under the Left's rules, the black baker would HAVE to bake a cake for a KKK party or would have to close down and lose his livelyhood.....
Under the Left's rules, the jewish baker would HAVE to bake a cake for a Nazi Party party or would have to close down and lose his livelyhood........
And, under the Left's rules, CW would HAVE to insure that Donald Trump was our next President or he would have to close his business..
Now, think about that..
Are you SURE you want to live in a country that has those kinds of rules??
Because I sure wouldn't...
Michale
This issue is about 2 things and 2 things only.
Acceptance.....
And
Payback......
Anything else is just politically correct claptrap...
Michale
Michale,
If a black baker solicits orders from the general public and the KKK places a order then of course the baker should fill it.--And I have to say that I've no idea where you get the idea of black people discriminating again the KKK! Another of your historic revisions?
Let me be clear. Anyone in business serving the general public HAS to serve all legitimate customers. If they do not they may face lawsuits and damage awards. Your use of "HAS to" doesn't scare me.
I was in Chicago, Illinois when Nazis marched through neighboring Jewish Skokie, Illinois after courts ordered the town to issue permits, because, yes the Jewish HAD to, were forced to allow it. They didn't like it. I didn't like it. But they, I, and the Left accepted it, and the idea that discrimination is wrong no matter who does it, or why.
If a black baker solicits orders from the general public and the KKK places a order then of course the baker should fill it.--And I have to say that I've no idea where you get the idea of black people discriminating again the KKK! Another of your historic revisions?
I was giving a "What If" scenario that would put the shoe on the other foot..
So, you think a black baker has no moral reason to deny service to a KKK party...
OK... I accept that...
Let me be clear. Anyone in business serving the general public HAS to serve all legitimate customers. If they do not they may face lawsuits and damage awards.
So, CW would HAVE TO insure that Donald Trump is elected President. :D
I was in Chicago, Illinois when Nazis marched through neighboring Jewish Skokie, Illinois after courts ordered the town to issue permits, because, yes the Jewish HAD to, were forced to allow it. They didn't like it. I didn't like it. But they, I, and the Left accepted it, and the idea that discrimination is wrong no matter who does it, or why.
We're not talking about a city or state government. We're talking about a private citizen who is simply wanting the freedom to have THEIR rights respected....
We're talking about a diverse country where, as YOU said, people can just go elsewhere if they are in a place that does not want their business...
No one should be forced to provide service to ANYONE they find morally objectionable...
To do so violates people rights...
And THAT is what the argument is all about.. People's rights..
But ONLY the people who are politically acceptable to the Left...
If Rush Limbaugh was refused service at a liberal coffee house, the Left would be cheering to high heaven...
Michale
"And, under the Left's rules, CW would HAVE to insure that Donald Trump was our next President or he would have to close his business..
Now, think about that.."
Okay, thought about it. Didn't take long. Damn silly argument. No one can be punished for not making someone else President. No matter how good they are the job is public relations not ballot stuffing!
Second, if you offer services to private clients you are not in business to the general public. Consultants can only represent a limited number of people and certainly get to choose which ones.
But as a general principle, as I've said before, businesses open to the public can only turn people away for legitimate safety related, and business related reasons. Not simply out of personal bias. And certainly not because of age, sex, sexual orientation, or race when there are no legitimate safety or business issues.
Second, if you offer services to private clients you are not in business to the general public. Consultants can only represent a limited number of people and certainly get to choose which ones.
How do you differentiate between a "private" business and a "public" business??
Is there a legal definition that you follow...??
Is a lawyer that serves "private clients" but hangs a shingle outside of an office private or public?
If CW serves political candidates but refuses to serve Republican candidates, can he not have an office as an office would make him "public"???
I am sincerely curious as to how you define "public" and "private" insofar as being able to discriminate or not...
Because that is what it's all about. The Left wants to be free to discriminate against those they deem politically incorrect...
So, let's tie down these definitions that you are working from...
Michale
"We're not talking about a city or state government. We're talking about a private citizen who is simply wanting the freedom to have THEIR rights respected...."
The city of Skokie did, and does, represent its private citizens. That's what government is for. The ruling wasn't just in favor of the Nazis vs the government. It was in favor of the Nazis vs the people of Skokie, and everyone understood that.
Government gets it's authority from the people. If the people cannot do something to someone else collectively, through their government, its a safe bet that they've no right to do it as individual private citizens either.
The point, however, remains, that individuals having a right to the same treatment as the rest of the public, has never been a Right vs Left thing. It has always applied just as much to the Left, and liberals, as to the Right.
It doesn't just protect Blacks and LGBTs, it also protects, Nazis, KKK, and even Al Qaida. It applies to everyone in every public situation. It matters not if you're government or private citizen, all members of the public have a right to equal public treatment.
Michale,
The word "clients" says it all. No lawyer is promising to represent everyone. Everyone knows that to obtain his representation they must negotiate to become a client.
Advertising fixed price services to the general public gives the general public the right to expect you to fulfill your promises to anyone who agrees to meet your price.
If all you've promised is to interview prospective clients to negotiate for services then that's all they're really entitled to.
But all contracts, all business, is based on good faith, and honesty. If your actions in business are detrimental to others, and they can prove you did not act out of legitimate safety or business concerns, that you acted maliciously and in bad faith, then they've every right to seek compensation and damage awards in court.
There is no right of private citizens to choose to punish people whose lifestyle they don't like. Your right to exercise your religion beliefs do not include a right to harm others.
There is no right of private citizens to choose to punish people whose lifestyle they don't like. Your right to exercise your religion beliefs do not include a right to harm others.
Regardless of the harm to those that have the religious beliefs..
As I said.. it all boils down to 2 things..
Acceptance
Payback
You yourself claimed that you have no problem with people having to go elsewhere..
The ONLY reason to sue someone who wouldn't provide you service is for payback...
Awesome discussion, LD!!! I really appreciate it.. :D
Michale
There is no right of private citizens to choose to punish people whose lifestyle they don't like.
It's not a question of "punishment"...
It's simply a question of a moral code that prevents a person from being involved.
Punishment has nothing to do with it..
They are simply choosing NOT to be a part of it..
Which is their right...
Michale
Punishment has nothing to do with it..
They are simply choosing NOT to be a part of it..
Which is their right...
I mean, honestly...
How many here would be thrilled about helping Republicans get elected??
Michale
Michale,
"The ONLY reason to sue someone who wouldn't provide you service is for payback..."
Absolutely correct. Publicly humiliating others is harming them. I don't care what your personal beliefs are or why you have them, you've no right to practice your beliefs on others if it harms them in any way. If you do, and they can prove it, they've every right to seek "payback."
Absolutely correct. Publicly humiliating others is harming them.
Those that were allegedly humiliated CHOSE to make the humiliation public..
I don't care what your personal beliefs are or why you have them, you've no right to practice your beliefs on others if it harms them in any way.
Looking at it that way, forcing a christian to be part of one's gay lifestyle is practicing beliefs on others that harm them..
You say it's all about the rights of the individuals...
But you ONLY care about the rights of one party and completely ignore the rights of the other party...
And, as you yourself have said, you don't have a problem with party A being turned away because they can always go elsewhere...
If it's all about the rights, then it should be about ALL the rights.
Not just the rights of the people found to be politically acceptable...
That's my whole point...
Michale
"It's not a question of "punishment"...
It's simply a question of a moral code that prevents a person from being involved.
Punishment has nothing to do with it.."
Nonsense. People eating your cake doesn't mean you personally are "involved" in anything other than baking. If you've a "moral code" against people eating cakes you bake, all the more reason you shouldn't be a baker!
If your "moral code" is against baking a cake, because it will be part of a celebration of an event you've a "moral code" against because of your "moral code" against a lifestyle it solemnizes, then your "moral code" objections sure as Hell are not to your involvement in that lifestyle, which is nonexistent, but to punish others for their involvement, which is none of your business.
If your "moral code" truly prevents you from "being involved" in events at third remove then your "moral code" prevents you from engaging in business with the public and participating in society. If your "moral code" also included things like prohibiting "bearing false witness" we wouldn't have people claiming baking a cake involves them in a gay lifestyle which justifies their bigotry.
What it all boils down to is what you said way back up in comment #11...
A wedding cake, like a marriage ceremony is not a necessity... If a gay couple cannot find someone to make them a cake, they can simply look elsewhere..
YOU don't have a problem with that...
Why would ANYONE want to FORCE their lifestyle choice on someone who obviously does not want ANY part of it??
As I said...
It's about acceptance.. Gay activists want to FORCE religious people to ACCEPT their lifestyle choice..
And that just AIN'T gonna happen...
No way, No how...
Michale
Nonsense. People eating your cake doesn't mean you personally are "involved" in anything other than baking. If you've a "moral code" against people eating cakes you bake, all the more reason you shouldn't be a baker!
OK, then we're agreed..
You would not have a problem with a black baker being forced by threat of civil prosecution, to make a cake for a KKK racist to celebrate their racism...
You would not have a problem with a baker being forced to, by threat of civil prosecution, to bake a cake with anti-gay slander written all over it...
If you truly are 1000% fine with that, then we don't have anything to debate... :D
Michale
"If it's all about the rights, then it should be about ALL the rights.
Not just the rights of the people found to be politically acceptable...
That's my whole point...
Michale"
Let me try to put this in a way even you might understand, Michale. You do not have a right to attack others, in any way. You do not have a right to interfere in the activities of others, in any way.
If you do then your victims have a right to attack you in return. That's been true since before humans crawled out from caves. It will always be true. No matter what excuse aggressors proffer in attempting to claim that they are the true victim.
"Don't start no shit, there won't be any. Start it--Don't come crying to me."
Where I come from three year-olds know that much. All the customer wanted was to engage in business like anyone else. It was the baker who elected to initiate a confrontation. That they ended up losing because of it does not break my heart. Actions have consequences.--For everyone.
That is about all rights.
"You would not have a problem with a black baker being forced by threat of civil prosecution, to make a cake for a KKK racist to celebrate their racism...
You would not have a problem with a baker being forced to, by threat of civil prosecution, to bake a cake with anti-gay slander written all over it...
If you truly are 1000% fine with that, then we don't have anything to debate..."
Why must you always misrepresent everything, Michale?
No baker was forced to bake "by threat of civil prosecution." A baker was prosecuted for fraud and discrimination. For offering a service others chose to rely on and the reneging in bad faith due to personal bigotry.
There's no issue of civil prosecution coercing anyone to do anything. People are merely being held to their word and forced to compensate those that they harm.
If you offer a service to the general public then members of the general public have a right to be able to rely on you keeping your word. If you harm others those you harm have a right to compensation. There is nothing radical about it.
No baker was forced to bake "by threat of civil prosecution." A baker was prosecuted for fraud and discrimination. For offering a service others chose to rely on and the reneging in bad faith due to personal bigotry.
But the argument against that baker COULD be made against a black baker who refused to bake a cake for a KKK celebration, celebrating racism..
If you are truly OK with that, then as I said.. We don't have anything to debate..
Michale
What some are doing, though, is refuse to perform marriage ceremonies. They'll issue the license but they won't officiate any ceremonies.
That I've no problem with. Marriage ceremonies are a tradition, not a necessity. And you can always find someone, else and go somewhere else, if you want one.
These are your words...
They apply to those performing marriage ceremonies as well as to those who bake cakes for those ceremonies...
Michale
Yes, Michale,
As I've said, repeatedly, I've no problem with anyone who wants to get out if business altogether rather than serve the general public.
And your point is?!
"But the argument against that baker COULD be made against a black baker who refused to bake a cake for a KKK celebration, celebrating racism..
If you are truly OK with that, then as I said.. We don't have anything to debate..
Michale"
Then we don't have anything to debate. I'm fine with that. In fact, I'm more than fine with any black American who thinks discrimination is a good idea finding their sorry asses taken to the cleaners in civil court!
Then we don't have anything to debate. I'm fine with that. In fact, I'm more than fine with any black American who thinks discrimination is a good idea finding their sorry asses taken to the cleaners in civil court!
Even if it is discrimination against scumbag racists who don't deserve to live??
Well, OK... We have nothing left to debate.. :D
Michale
Apparently many Alabama counties have simply stopped issuing marriage licenses. As I said earlier I suspect that would only make the states position worse.
Not only is it still discriminatory since some marriages are still being recorded. It would also violate every mandate that allocates resources or taxes using marital status as a factor.
It would also be discriminatory to anyone denied services or tax breaks due to the state refusing to accept proof of their marital status. Unless the state simply accepts proof of marriage other than licenses which would be the same as, and present the same issues, as issuing marriage licenses. Since the licenses themselves are nothing more than a means to certify marriages.
Frankly, aside from registering a protest, I fail to see just what refusing to issue licenses is expected to accomplish.
CW,
As to my definition of marriage, traditionally its just an oral contract between parties formally witnessed by third parties. The vows constituting the oral contract.
Until the twentieth century marriages officiated by priests were a minority of marriages. Only those who could afford them or were married out of charity had religious officiation and ceremony. Most marriages, for the thousands of years prior to that, were "common law" with couples simply forming a joint household with, or without, formally exchanging vows witnessed by friends and neighbors.
When the state decided that certifying marriages had administrative advantages (think tax collection, estate handling, and divorce) marriage licenses were created to certify marriages with clergy enlisted to both promote the licenses and act as state agents in filing them.
This had the advantage to the clergy of both church promotion and providing a revenue stream. A revenue stream that proved particularly lucrative, as not only were the wealthy desirous of greater ceremony, and willing to pay for it. But even people of modest means were often willing to spend large sums to showcase their marriages.
This resulted in the church assuming a greater active role in marriage and developing a rather proprietary attitude toward them. Gone were the millennia of priests merely blessing a marriage, now marriages began to be regularly sanctioned by the church, not simply in loco parentis, as was more traditional, but on religious grounds, which had almost never been a factor in common marriage before.
So, yes, in my definition of marriage the role of religion is minor. More of the more traditional role of simply blessing the union. As routine church involvement in, and sanctioning of common marriages is an atypical recent modern development, without any actual traditional, religious, or legal underpinnings.