SCOTUS rules same sex marriage is constitutional right

[justajane]

the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong.

Thank you for that voice of reason, we all appreciate it.

Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act.

Wait... what? You can be gay and you can get married, but the the moment you make love it's wrong? Christians have no right whatsoever to "protest" what other non-believers do in the privacy of their own home at all. Your line of reasoning seems like you're trying to reconcile what the supreme court has ruled, but still hold onto intolerance with both hands.

So, I go to a conservative Christian church, in large part because I've been there for 15 years and am loathe to move after so long. But my views regarding homosexuality did a 180 about a decade ago, yet I'm pretty sure my husband and I are probably the only people in the congregation who have no problem with same sex marriage. This is one of the many ways we are out of step with the rest of the flock.

Anyway, this is all a preface to say that I've watched the evolution of things over the last decade among fundamental Christians. Many have moved away from the idea that you can turn someone straight and that being gay is a choice. In that sense some evangelicals have progressed. They are recognizing that sexual preference is innate and that people can be born attracted to the same sex. But the problem is that they won't go the next step forward and accept that sex between two people of the same sex is not sinful. What this means is that they expect homosexuals to be chaste their whole lives. There were two lesbians turned evangelical Christians who were in our church for a while, and I felt very sad for them, because how lonely is that that you basically are doomed to a life of singleness, if you accept the philosophy of the conservative church.

I think this is a very cruel position for the church to take. In essence, it's not progress in any real sense. It might do away with those crazy and frankly abusive camps that attempt to change a person's sexuality. It might at some level accept people as they were born, but to not allow them theologically or morally (from their perspective) to have relationships, have sex, and get married is just heartless.

[Cathy]

If your jurisdiction (might be city, state, etc.) has a law on the books outlawing discrimination by businesses against customers, it will explicitly list all of the bases for discrimination that the law covers.

Some jurisdictions have open-ended anti-discrimination statutes that aren't limited to a set of listed grounds. For example, California Civil Code § 51 prohibits discrimination by businesses in general, and also contains a list of example grounds, but it's not limited to discrimination on those grounds.

[PeteD01]

396 posts and only 6796 views.
I guess we have moved on to the next contentious subject and we can all go home now.

I don't know how the view tally works. Does it count each unique person only once? Or each time they view separately?

It doesn't seem count each person only once but it also doesn't seem to count every single visit. I've been puzzled by this before.
In any case, the ratio of posts to views appears to be higher for this thread than the typical thread in this subforum.
Maybe this is due to the thread being young or due to a lack of interest - time will tell.

[arebelspy]

the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong.

Thank you for that voice of reason, we all appreciate it.

Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act.

Wait... what? You can be gay and you can get married, but the the moment you make love it's wrong? Christians have no right whatsoever to "protest" what other non-believers do in the privacy of their own home at all. Your line of reasoning seems like you're trying to reconcile what the supreme court has ruled, but still hold onto intolerance with both hands.

So, I go to a conservative Christian church, in large part because I've been there for 15 years and am loathe to move after so long. But my views regarding homosexuality did a 180 about a decade ago, yet I'm pretty sure my husband and I are probably the only people in the congregation who have no problem with same sex marriage. This is one of the many ways we are out of step with the rest of the flock.

I would bet there's a lot more than you think, and they're also thinking they're the only ones, so no one says anything.

It's really common among groups, actually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

[Cressida]

If your jurisdiction (might be city, state, etc.) has a law on the books outlawing discrimination by businesses against customers, it will explicitly list all of the bases for discrimination that the law covers.

Some jurisdictions have open-ended anti-discrimination statutes that aren't limited to a set of listed grounds. For example, California Civil Code § 51 prohibits discrimination by businesses in general, and also contains a list of example grounds, but it's not limited to discrimination on those grounds.

Wow, that seems confusing. Thanks for the clarification.

[justajane]

the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong.

Thank you for that voice of reason, we all appreciate it.

Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act.

Wait... what? You can be gay and you can get married, but the the moment you make love it's wrong? Christians have no right whatsoever to "protest" what other non-believers do in the privacy of their own home at all. Your line of reasoning seems like you're trying to reconcile what the supreme court has ruled, but still hold onto intolerance with both hands.

So, I go to a conservative Christian church, in large part because I've been there for 15 years and am loathe to move after so long. But my views regarding homosexuality did a 180 about a decade ago, yet I'm pretty sure my husband and I are probably the only people in the congregation who have no problem with same sex marriage. This is one of the many ways we are out of step with the rest of the flock.

I would bet there's a lot more than you think, and they're also thinking they're the only ones, so no one says anything.

It's really common among groups, actually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

You may be right, but I have to say that Facebook has opened my eyes to people's bigotry even more, though that is just a selection of vocal people and hopefully not the norm either. The stalker functions on FB make it easy to see what people really think. For instance, a friend commented on an article about same sex marriage and said, "I'd rather be on the right side of heaven than the right side of history." Yuck, just yuck. But it does illuminate in a pithy way how high some Christians think the stakes are here, as if her accepting that two dudes or gals can love each other and express that love legally would somehow bring into question her status in the afterlife. That's some warped theological thinking.

I think millenials and younger Christians struggle with the older congregation's focus on social issues. I think these individuals are coming around to the idea that we don't live in a Christian nation and therefore can't expect people to abide by their morality. And that IMO is progress. I had coffee with a church friend right after Caitlyn Jenner announced her transition officially, and the friend could not understand why other Christians cared so much and how they truly felt like the sky was falling. I was glad to find that common ground.   

[sol]

I think millenials and younger Christians struggle with the older congregation's focus on social issues.

I suspect that conservative religious groups will only change after conservative political groups have already done so.

Political parties are creatures of expedience.  They need votes to stay in power.  The Republican party currently gains more votes than it loses by taking a strong stand in favor of bigotry, but I know a ton of fiscally conservative young voters who would much prefer to vote Republican but have a strong distaste for all of the anti-gay, anti-women, anti-immigration type policy planks.

There will come a day when the Republican party leadership realizes that they will win over more fiscally conservative young voters than they will alienate old evangelical voters if they join the 21st century on social issues.  It may not be this cycle or even this decade, but it will happen eventually.  The party will have to adapt, or else risk riding their aged demographic right into the grave.

But the conservative religious groups, the Baptists and the Mormons and such, are IMO more resistant to this kind of change.  I think they'll be the last stalwarts of hatred and bigotry by the time my lifespan wraps up.  By 2050 or so, I expect that Evangelicals will play a social role somewhat similar to the one white supremacists played in the 1980s and 90s; widely reviled by society at large, but still going strong in certain pockets of the country.  Their death throws will be equally as unpleasant.

Consider how long it took between Brown vs Board of Education (1954), a SCOTUS decision analogous to the recent gay marriage ruling, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1968) as a reflection of more widespread public support for equality between human beings.  Just because gay marriage is legal in every US state today doesn't mean discrimination against homosexuals, and the regressive attitudes that support it, are going to disappear overnight. 

[justajane]

By 2050 or so, I expect that Evangelicals will play a social role somewhat similar to the one white supremacists played in the 1980s and 90s; widely reviled by society at large, but still going strong in certain pockets of the country.  Their death throws will be equally as unpleasant.

Interesting point. I'm not even sure it will take that long. I already see how they feel like they are under siege and persecuted, even though they are the majority in most places. But you can't call them on it, because it just feeds their persecution complex even more. My husband and I have learned not to do that with our conservative Christian friends. I would just pull out my popcorn and watch the misplaced "woe is me" complex with amusement if it wasn't something that directly affected the lives of gay people I know and care about.

Regarding the cake issue (who knew flour, eggs, and sugar could be so controversial?), if you can't make confectionery for the entire public, then maybe you shouldn't be in the cake business at all. And it's not just cakes. I've heard stories from gay friends in the past about how contractors, when they come to give a bid, clearly react when they realize the sexual preference of the homeowners. How awful to be confronted on a regular basis with the reality that who you are is somehow so offensive to some that they don't want to do business with you. That type of treatment is the true tragedy here, not the fact that a Christian is confronted with the fact that their beliefs are out of step with modern life. 

[Tyson]

I think millenials and younger Christians struggle with the older congregation's focus on social issues.

I suspect that conservative religious groups will only change after conservative political groups have already done so.

Political parties are creatures of expedience.  They need votes to stay in power.  The Republican party currently gains more votes than it loses by taking a strong stand in favor of bigotry, but I know a ton of fiscally conservative young voters who would much prefer to vote Republican but have a strong distaste for all of the anti-gay, anti-women, anti-immigration type policy planks.

There will come a day when the Republican party leadership realizes that they will win over more fiscally conservative young voters than they will alienate old evangelical voters if they join the 21st century on social issues.  It may not be this cycle or even this decade, but it will happen eventually.  The party will have to adapt, or else risk riding their aged demographic right into the grave.

But the conservative religious groups, the Baptists and the Mormons and such, are IMO more resistant to this kind of change.  I think they'll be the last stalwarts of hatred and bigotry by the time my lifespan wraps up.  By 2050 or so, I expect that Evangelicals will play a social role somewhat similar to the one white supremacists played in the 1980s and 90s; widely reviled by society at large, but still going strong in certain pockets of the country.  Their death throws will be equally as unpleasant.

Consider how long it took between Brown vs Board of Education (1954), a SCOTUS decision analogous to the recent gay marriage ruling, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1968) as a reflection of more widespread public support for equality between human beings.  Just because gay marriage is legal in every US state today doesn't mean discrimination against homosexuals, and the regressive attitudes that support it, are going to disappear overnight.

The trend you will see first is purple states turning blue and (some) red states turning purple.  It's already happening here in CO, FL, NV, and VA.  And it's entirely the deep south conservative social issues being broadcast at a national level that are driving these changes.  At some point, you are completely correct, the political calculus starts to favor cutting the old white bigots free and embracing the young fiscal conservatives.  I hope that happens sooner than later.

But, if you are thinking that any of the states in the deep south are going to change any time soon, I wouldn't hold my breath.  They are too isolated and we are talking hundreds of years of embedded beliefs and that's just not going to change very quickly.  I predict the South will continue to be an albatross around our neck and an embarrassment to our nation for the foreseeable future. 

The irony is that they really did it to themselves by their more or less open/naked intolerance.  Back in the 80's and early 90's, most of the nation didn't really believe they were as deadly serious about this stuff as they actually were.  The advent of social media, blogs, and online news article commentaries have seriously disabused the rest of that idea that social conservatives were a quaint artifact of a bygone era.  So the more of a "voice" they have had at a national level, the more they have hastened their own demise.  Irony is ironic in that way (and delicious, I might add).

[sisto]

There is NOTHING in this ruling that says practitioners of any religion must marry same-sex couples. Churches are free to continue doing as they wish.

This says that marriage is a constitutional right, and that a STATE must recognize marriage between same sex couples.

To the extent that church officials are blessed with the power of the state to give legal effect to marriages, allowing them to opt out of ratifying marriages on the basis of the gender of the participants does potentially raise constitutional concerns, although not ones discussed in the decision. I won't say those issues have a clear resolution in US constitutional law, but the arguments aren't frivolous.

The next marriage-related frontier will likely be an onslaught of state laws that purport to authorise marriage officials to decline, at their option, to grant a marriage licence on the basis of personal beliefs. Those laws are typically passed under the rubric of promoting freedom of religion, but they can have the effect of making it logistically difficult to find an official to ratify a marriage in less-progressive regions. In Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3, the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan considered legislation that authorised marriage officials to implement their personal religious beliefs by, at their option, refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The Court found that such legislation is contrary to the constitution of Canada. I expect that this issue will be litigated in the US in due course.

I debate with religious people over these things all of the time. The best answer IMHO is to separate church and state. Let the church do whatever they want with marriage, but don't allow any legal rights attached to that said marriage. Define how the legal aspects of two people uniting will work and have that be how anything related to legal matters is addressed. There are many other areas where this separation should be made. Another constant example is voting. I absolutely hate that in all but one time in my entire voting life has it been in a church. I think this is very wrong.

[Gin1984]

There is NOTHING in this ruling that says practitioners of any religion must marry same-sex couples. Churches are free to continue doing as they wish.

This says that marriage is a constitutional right, and that a STATE must recognize marriage between same sex couples.

To the extent that church officials are blessed with the power of the state to give legal effect to marriages, allowing them to opt out of ratifying marriages on the basis of the gender of the participants does potentially raise constitutional concerns, although not ones discussed in the decision. I won't say those issues have a clear resolution in US constitutional law, but the arguments aren't frivolous.

The next marriage-related frontier will likely be an onslaught of state laws that purport to authorise marriage officials to decline, at their option, to grant a marriage licence on the basis of personal beliefs. Those laws are typically passed under the rubric of promoting freedom of religion, but they can have the effect of making it logistically difficult to find an official to ratify a marriage in less-progressive regions. In Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3, the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan considered legislation that authorised marriage officials to implement their personal religious beliefs by, at their option, refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The Court found that such legislation is contrary to the constitution of Canada. I expect that this issue will be litigated in the US in due course.

I debate with religious people over these things all of the time. The best answer IMHO is to separate church and state. Let the church do whatever they want with marriage, but don't allow any legal rights attached to that said marriage. Define how the legal aspects of two people uniting will work and have that be how anything related to legal matters is addressed. There are many other areas where this separation should be made. Another constant example is voting. I absolutely hate that in all but one time in my entire voting life has it been in a church. I think this is very wrong.

I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym.  I don't see the problem with renting any of this space.  Can you explain what your issue is?

[arebelspy]

I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym.  I don't see the problem with renting any of this space.  Can you explain what your issue is?

Potential subconscious influences?

[johnny847]

I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym.  I don't see the problem with renting any of this space.  Can you explain what your issue is?

Potential subconscious influences?

So a perfectly neutral location would be...?

[Gin1984]

I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym.  I don't see the problem with renting any of this space.  Can you explain what your issue is?

Potential subconscious influences?

Are people really making voting decision AT the polls?  Aren't you suppose to figure how you are voting before you go?

[arebelspy]

I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym.  I don't see the problem with renting any of this space.  Can you explain what your issue is?

Potential subconscious influences?

Are people really making voting decision AT the polls?  Aren't you suppose to figure how you are voting before you go?

Absolutely, in theory.  But don't underestimate psychology.  I could see people changing last minute based on guilt, or something they don't even realize, or whatever.

[Gray Matter]

I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym.  I don't see the problem with renting any of this space.  Can you explain what your issue is?

Potential subconscious influences?

Are people really making voting decision AT the polls?  Aren't you suppose to figure how you are voting before you go?

Absolutely, in theory.  But don't underestimate psychology.  I could see people changing last minute based on guilt, or something they don't even realize, or whatever.

I don't think I've ever been influenced  by the building in which I voted (always followed through on who I intended to vote for), but I don't like that I have to go into a place of worship to vote--that doesn't seem very "separation of church and state" to me.  I'm uncomfortable in houses of worship--find them slightly creepy to be honest--and don't feel like I should have to set foot in one to do my civic duty.

I'd prefer to vote only in public buildings--schools, libraries, county or city rec centers, etc.--but that's not my polling place.  I supposed I could vote by absentee ballot, but I like to rub elbows with my neighbors at the polls.

[justajane]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

[Gray Matter]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I agree with you.  I know there are practical reasons why they use places of worship, so I've never made a stink about it, just don't like it, you know?  And I think it could be much harder for people who feel like they've been persecuted by a particular religious group, and now they have to step into that place of worship.  But not high on my list of Things to Try to Change About the US.

[justajane]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I agree with you.  I know there are practical reasons why they use places of worship, so I've never made a stink about it, just don't like it, you know?  And I think it could be much harder for people who feel like they've been persecuted by a particular religious group, and now they have to step into that place of worship.  But not high on my list of Things to Try to Change About the US.

I can certainly understand that, especially if, like you say, if the church had offended someone in the past. Can't anyone vote a week earlier absentee now if they want? That could be a solution, albeit one that would necessitate planning.

[Gray Matter]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I agree with you.  I know there are practical reasons why they use places of worship, so I've never made a stink about it, just don't like it, you know?  And I think it could be much harder for people who feel like they've been persecuted by a particular religious group, and now they have to step into that place of worship.  But not high on my list of Things to Try to Change About the US.

I can certainly understand that, especially if, like you say, if the church had offended someone in the past. Can't anyone vote a week earlier absentee now if they want? That could be a solution, albeit one that would necessitate planning.

I do believe that anyone can vote absentee ballot now, so yes, that is a solution and probably the best one.  Although (and I'm totally surmising here), if I felt persecuted, I wouldn't want to have to vote absentee (I realize it's a choice, but neither one feels very good to me).  It's as if everyone else gets to come together as a community to vote, but in order to feel comfortable voting, I have to remove myself from that and be marginalized, in a sense.  My preference would be for people within a community to be able to select another voting place if they're not comfortable with their designated one, but that adds complications we don't need, so I just shrug it off.

But to arebelspy's point about the psychology behind things, while I don't think it has changed my vote, it might dissuade me from voting at all (unconsciously) if I weren't particularly comfortable in the voting place--it's just an extra barrier to entry.

[Gin1984]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I agree with you.  I know there are practical reasons why they use places of worship, so I've never made a stink about it, just don't like it, you know?  And I think it could be much harder for people who feel like they've been persecuted by a particular religious group, and now they have to step into that place of worship.  But not high on my list of Things to Try to Change About the US.

I can certainly understand that, especially if, like you say, if the church had offended someone in the past. Can't anyone vote a week earlier absentee now if they want? That could be a solution, albeit one that would necessitate planning.

I do believe that anyone can vote absentee ballot now, so yes, that is a solution and probably the best one.  Although (and I'm totally surmising here), if I felt persecuted, I wouldn't want to have to vote absentee (I realize it's a choice, but neither one feels very good to me).  It's as if everyone else gets to come together as a community to vote, but in order to feel comfortable voting, I have to remove myself from that and be marginalized, in a sense.  My preference would be for people within a community to be able to select another voting place if they're not comfortable with their designated one, but that adds complications we don't need, so I just shrug it off.

But to arebelspy's point about the psychology behind things, while I don't think it has changed my vote, it might dissuade me from voting at all (unconsciously) if I weren't particularly comfortable in the voting place--it's just an extra barrier to entry.

My state won't let me vote absentee without a valid reason (NY).  It pisses me off because I pretty much voted absentee for years in Ca. 

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I would bet there's a lot more than you think, and they're also thinking they're the only ones, so no one says anything.

It's really common among groups, actually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

Thanks for introducing me to a new concept. I've surmised the existence of pluralistic ignorance many times, but never knew it by name. That was an interesting read.

[sisto]

There is NOTHING in this ruling that says practitioners of any religion must marry same-sex couples. Churches are free to continue doing as they wish.

This says that marriage is a constitutional right, and that a STATE must recognize marriage between same sex couples.

To the extent that church officials are blessed with the power of the state to give legal effect to marriages, allowing them to opt out of ratifying marriages on the basis of the gender of the participants does potentially raise constitutional concerns, although not ones discussed in the decision. I won't say those issues have a clear resolution in US constitutional law, but the arguments aren't frivolous.

The next marriage-related frontier will likely be an onslaught of state laws that purport to authorise marriage officials to decline, at their option, to grant a marriage licence on the basis of personal beliefs. Those laws are typically passed under the rubric of promoting freedom of religion, but they can have the effect of making it logistically difficult to find an official to ratify a marriage in less-progressive regions. In Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3, the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan considered legislation that authorised marriage officials to implement their personal religious beliefs by, at their option, refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The Court found that such legislation is contrary to the constitution of Canada. I expect that this issue will be litigated in the US in due course.

I debate with religious people over these things all of the time. The best answer IMHO is to separate church and state. Let the church do whatever they want with marriage, but don't allow any legal rights attached to that said marriage. Define how the legal aspects of two people uniting will work and have that be how anything related to legal matters is addressed. There are many other areas where this separation should be made. Another constant example is voting. I absolutely hate that in all but one time in my entire voting life has it been in a church. I think this is very wrong.

I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym.  I don't see the problem with renting any of this space.  Can you explain what your issue is?

I'm not a religious person, but always seem to have to vote at a church. Luckily now there is absentee ballots so I have a choice, but in the past I did not. I don't believe I should be forced to go to a church if I want to cast my vote.

[sol]

I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.

Our worse yet, a satanic temple.

Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station.  "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."

[sisto]

I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym.  I don't see the problem with renting any of this space.  Can you explain what your issue is?

Potential subconscious influences?

Are people really making voting decision AT the polls?  Aren't you suppose to figure how you are voting before you go?

Absolutely, in theory.  But don't underestimate psychology.  I could see people changing last minute based on guilt, or something they don't even realize, or whatever.

I don't think I've ever been influenced  by the building in which I voted (always followed through on who I intended to vote for), but I don't like that I have to go into a place of worship to vote--that doesn't seem very "separation of church and state" to me.  I'm uncomfortable in houses of worship--find them slightly creepy to be honest--and don't feel like I should have to set foot in one to do my civic duty.

I'd prefer to vote only in public buildings--schools, libraries, county or city rec centers, etc.--but that's not my polling place.  I supposed I could vote by absentee ballot, but I like to rub elbows with my neighbors at the polls.

Thank you Gray Matter! I agree with this 100%

[sisto]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I agree with you.  I know there are practical reasons why they use places of worship, so I've never made a stink about it, just don't like it, you know?  And I think it could be much harder for people who feel like they've been persecuted by a particular religious group, and now they have to step into that place of worship.  But not high on my list of Things to Try to Change About the US.

Yes Gray Matter EXACTLY why I personally don't like it. I live in CA where a majority of churches were against Prop 8. I'm sure everyone here is aware of this proposition due to all of the attention and the last SCOTUS ruling over it, so I won't go into it. So to then have to go to a church and vote on the issue IMO is wrong.

[sisto]

I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.

Our worse yet, a satanic temple.

Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station.  "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."

Sol, the more I read your posts on this the more I like you and think I might actually be an atheist. I've always thought I might be, but thought maybe more agnostic. I never really looked into it, but I may now. Thanks for some awesome information!

[Midwest]

I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.

Our worse yet, a satanic temple.

Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station.  "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."

If the atheists would like to pay for and maintain a polling place as convenient as a church, I'll be happy to vote there.

[arebelspy]

I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.

Our worse yet, a satanic temple.

Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station.  "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."

If the atheists would like to pay for and maintain a polling place as convenient as a church, I'll be happy to vote there.

I've never voted in a church.

And the concept is really weird to me.

Sol's post makes a great point--I'd bet Christians would be offended to have to go into another place of worship to vote, why should theirs be different?

I've voted in multiple libraries and elementary school gymnasiums, and even in a mall.  Those seem perfectly adequate to me, and (to your funding point, though I'm not really sure what the point is), they are funded by the taxpayers (besides the mall, which was obviously voluntary on their part).  How is a church more convenient than a library or school? (Or any other public building.)

[Midwest]

I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.

Our worse yet, a satanic temple.

Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station.  "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."

If the atheists would like to pay for and maintain a polling place as convenient as a church, I'll be happy to vote there.

I've never voted in a church.

And the concept is really weird to me.

Sol's post makes a great point--I'd bet Christians would be offended to have to go into another place of worship to vote, why should theirs be different?

I've voted in multiple libraries and elementary school gymnasiums, and even in a mall.  Those seem perfectly adequate to me, and (to your funding point, though I'm not really sure what the point is), they are funded by the taxpayers (besides the mall, which was obviously voluntary on their part).  How is a church more convenient than a library or school? (Or any other public building.)

In my state, schools are often excluded because of safety concerns (adults entering while children present).  I live in a town of 8000 now and grew up in a town of 12,000.  In both of those, libraries and govt buildings were used, but many precincts did not have such a building so churches were utilized in those cases.  My precincts in both cases have happened to fall in a church.  I don't recall seeing any religious symbols in the voting area.

In both cases of churches being used, I could walk to the voting precinct.  This type of access increase voting availability so seems like a good trade off to me.  Neither of the polling places was a church I attended but was simply convenient to my house.

To the funding point, churches were used because they were the only suitable building readily available in the precinct.  If someone is offended, they are free to offer an alternative.  I'd be more than happy to vote in a mosque or atheist voting area as long as religious (or non-religious) symbols were equally removed.

[I'm a red panda]

I've voted in a grocery store and in a school.  Never had a church as a polling place.


One time there was major school budget issue on the ballot- the school offered free lunch to anyone who voted.  Now, you didn't have to vote FOR the issue, but I think the school knew most people would, and voter apathy would be the main issue in preventing it from passing.  (It did pass, and lunch was delicious.) 

[Chris22]

I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.

Our worse yet, a satanic temple.

Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station.  "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."

If the atheists would like to pay for and maintain a polling place as convenient as a church, I'll be happy to vote there.

I've never voted in a church.

And the concept is really weird to me.

Sol's post makes a great point--I'd bet Christians would be offended to have to go into another place of worship to vote, why should theirs be different?

I've voted in multiple libraries and elementary school gymnasiums, and even in a mall.  Those seem perfectly adequate to me, and (to your funding point, though I'm not really sure what the point is), they are funded by the taxpayers (besides the mall, which was obviously voluntary on their part).  How is a church more convenient than a library or school? (Or any other public building.)

I'm not a hardcore Christian by any measure, but my polling place used to be an Asian church (couldn't tell if it was Christian or otherwise).  Never bothered me in the least. 

A church tends to be more convenient because there are usually more of them in a given area than libraries, and the schools have the security concerns. 

[MDM]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario.  There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.

If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees.  E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank.  In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.

[enigmaT120]

You guys are weird. * I vote at home and drop my sealed ballot off in a special box at the county courthouse or a local library.  We call it "vote by mail" but I'm too cheap to pay the postage when I'm going right by the place anyway.

*  Yeah, I know Oregon is different.

[Gin1984]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario.  There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.

If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees.  E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank.  In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.

But I think we do have to take into account the privilege of being a majority religion.  Would those in that religion be comfortable in another place of worship?  I know that for OJs, it is against their religion to enter another's place of worship.  How is that not, in effect, discrimination?

[sol]

think I might actually be an atheist. I've always thought I might be, but thought maybe more agnostic. I never really looked into it, but I may now.

Meh, you're not alone.  The western world is full of millions of atheists who just haven't embraced the label yet.  Lots of them still go to church.

It's getting harder and harder to convince thinking adults in a modern society to believe seriously in the supernatural.  Science and logic and reason have just done too much for them to be tossed aside in favor of voodoo chicken feet or talking snakes bearing forbidden fruits.

[Gray Matter]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario.  There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.

If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees.  E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank.  In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.

I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it.  "Oh, you're uncomfortable?  Well, I'm not.  So too bad, you need to get over it."  I personally think I've gotten over it as much as I need to (I go to said place, despite my discomfort, to do my civic duty, and I don't say anything to the good citizens who are helping at the poll booth, and I've thought through the practical implications of what might be, in my opinion, a better solution and have decided it's probably not). 

And I didn't say "religious people," I said "houses of worship," so it's not the equivalent of "gay people" (also, have never had a gay person try to convert me, but whatever).  I stand by my right to feel uncomfortable in a building that is laden with pictures and statues of a dead guy with blood running down him and who many people have insisted on telling me died for my sins (oh no, he didn't!).  And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state. 

I would be interested in see what would happen if more people were asked to vote in mosques, or houses of devil worship, or Wiccan sacred space.  I believe I have built the bridge I need to and I do not act on my uncomfortable feelings--I do my civic duty--but my feelings are my own to have if I want to.

[Gin1984]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario.  There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.

If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees.  E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank.  In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.

I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it.  "Oh, you're uncomfortable?  Well, I'm not.  So too bad, you need to get over it."  I personally think I've gotten over it as much as I need to (I go to said place, despite my discomfort, to do my civic duty, and I don't say anything to the good citizens who are helping at the poll booth, and I've thought through the practical implications of what might be, in my opinion, a better solution and have decided it's probably not). 

And I didn't say "religious people," I said "houses of worship," so it's not the equivalent of "gay people" (also, have never had a gay person try to convert me, but whatever).  I stand by my right to feel uncomfortable in a building that is laden with pictures and statues of a dead guy with blood running down him and who many people have insisted on telling me died for my sins (oh no, he didn't!).  And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state. 

I would be interested in see what would happen if more people were asked to vote in mosques, or houses of devil worship, or Wiccan sacred space.  I believe I have built the bridge I need to and I do not act on my uncomfortable feelings--I do my civic duty--but my feelings are my own to have if I want to.

Hey now, let's be reasonable, we vote in November.  Wiccan sacred spaces are often OUTSIDE.  Are you crazy?  No voting in Wiccan space, no, no, no.  I need that backing up octopus right now. 

[justajane]

I see where people are coming from, and perhaps there should be an exemption or a way to switch polling places if you are offended by the one assigned to you. Perhaps this already exists in certain places.

FWIW, I just checked and the Ethical Society near my house is also a polling place. I imagine if there were more Ethical Societies than one in this metro area of 4 million that there would be more non-religious basements in which to vote. The reality is that there are a lot of churches and there needs to be a lot of polling places. There are only 3 schools in my city of 8,000 but probably 7 or so polling places. Even if we disregarded the safety issue of schools, there just aren't enough schools or public places. Then you get into the issues of long lines. If we really want to rant about something, in my city certain urban areas of town always have long lines to vote; yet in my suburban area it's easy peasy. Why so few polling places in urban disadvantaged areas?

It's true that many Christians would probably have a coronary if they had to vote in a mosque. There's a new mosque going up in a certain area of town that I wouldn't describe as the most progressive (I'm being polite here), and it totally cracks me up. It's in a mostly residential area. I can just imagine the discussions of those who can see the minaret from their back deck.  I'll have to check back when it is finished to see if it becomes a polling place.

[Chris22]

And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state. 

The church can't overstep the line of separation, it's up to the state to keep the church in check.  The church is free to pursue as much influence as it can and the state is responsible for holding it back. 

[MDM]

But I think we do have to take into account the privilege of being a majority religion.  Would those in that religion be comfortable in another place of worship?  I know that for OJs, it is against their religion to enter another's place of worship.  How is that not, in effect, discrimination?

Following that reasoning, do you also think it is discrimination against those who consider it "against their religion" to support gay marriage when the state enforces anti-discrimination laws?

Sorry for the multiple double negatives but I suspect most will get the gist....

[Gray Matter]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario.  There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.

If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees.  E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank.  In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.

I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it.  "Oh, you're uncomfortable?  Well, I'm not.  So too bad, you need to get over it."  I personally think I've gotten over it as much as I need to (I go to said place, despite my discomfort, to do my civic duty, and I don't say anything to the good citizens who are helping at the poll booth, and I've thought through the practical implications of what might be, in my opinion, a better solution and have decided it's probably not). 

And I didn't say "religious people," I said "houses of worship," so it's not the equivalent of "gay people" (also, have never had a gay person try to convert me, but whatever).  I stand by my right to feel uncomfortable in a building that is laden with pictures and statues of a dead guy with blood running down him and who many people have insisted on telling me died for my sins (oh no, he didn't!).  And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state. 

I would be interested in see what would happen if more people were asked to vote in mosques, or houses of devil worship, or Wiccan sacred space.  I believe I have built the bridge I need to and I do not act on my uncomfortable feelings--I do my civic duty--but my feelings are my own to have if I want to.

Hey now, let's be reasonable, we vote in November.  Wiccan sacred spaces are often OUTSIDE.  Are you crazy?  No voting in Wiccan space, no, no, no.  I need that backing up octopus right now.

OK, so only Wiccan sacred space in the South, how about that?  Northerners get a free pass.  :-)

[Gray Matter]

And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state. 

The church can't overstep the line of separation, it's up to the state to keep the church in check.  The church is free to pursue as much influence as it can and the state is responsible for holding it back.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Glenstache]

Why so few polling places in urban disadvantaged areas?

Sad to say that there is nothing surprising here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/opinion/long-lines-at-minority-polling-places.html?_r=0

Yet another example of systematic discrimination.

[MDM]

I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it.  "Oh, you're uncomfortable?  Well, I'm not.  So too bad, you need to get over it."

Agree completely.  That was in fact the main point I was trying to make, with the follow-up that all should be cognizant of the potential for others' discomfort and be considerate.  All the while helping them to build those bridges.  E.g., you might help others understand perspective A, while others help you understand perspective B.

[Gray Matter]

I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it.  "Oh, you're uncomfortable?  Well, I'm not.  So too bad, you need to get over it."

Agree completely.  That was in fact the main point I was trying to make, with the follow-up that all should be cognizant of the potential for others' discomfort and be considerate.  All the while helping them to build those bridges.  E.g., you might help others understand perspective A, while others help you understand perspective B.

OK, I'm tracking with you, and it makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying.

[Gin1984]

I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.

I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.

I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario.  There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.

If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees.  E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank.  In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.

I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it.  "Oh, you're uncomfortable?  Well, I'm not.  So too bad, you need to get over it."  I personally think I've gotten over it as much as I need to (I go to said place, despite my discomfort, to do my civic duty, and I don't say anything to the good citizens who are helping at the poll booth, and I've thought through the practical implications of what might be, in my opinion, a better solution and have decided it's probably not). 

And I didn't say "religious people," I said "houses of worship," so it's not the equivalent of "gay people" (also, have never had a gay person try to convert me, but whatever).  I stand by my right to feel uncomfortable in a building that is laden with pictures and statues of a dead guy with blood running down him and who many people have insisted on telling me died for my sins (oh no, he didn't!).  And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state. 

I would be interested in see what would happen if more people were asked to vote in mosques, or houses of devil worship, or Wiccan sacred space.  I believe I have built the bridge I need to and I do not act on my uncomfortable feelings--I do my civic duty--but my feelings are my own to have if I want to.

Hey now, let's be reasonable, we vote in November.  Wiccan sacred spaces are often OUTSIDE.  Are you crazy?  No voting in Wiccan space, no, no, no.  I need that backing up octopus right now.

OK, so only Wiccan sacred space in the South, how about that?  Northerners get a free pass.  :-)

Lol, but winter is still cold in the south to the southerners.

[Chris22]

And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state. 

The church can't overstep the line of separation, it's up to the state to keep the church in check.  The church is free to pursue as much influence as it can and the state is responsible for holding it back.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

You can disagree, but you'll be wrong.  It's like saying my kid has too much influence over my decisionson their bedtime.  It may be true, it may not be, but ultimately it's my responsibility to make the decision, not my kid's, so if I let my kid sway me that's 100% my fault. 

[Cathy]

It doesn't need to fall to either the church or the state to address the alleged injustice of polling stations based in churches.

Anybody aggrieved by this state of affairs is free to file a complaint in Court and have the matter adjudicated by a judge based on the law as applied to the evidence filed (which might include science showing the intimidating effects of the polling location).

[Gray Matter]

And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state. 

The church can't overstep the line of separation, it's up to the state to keep the church in check.  The church is free to pursue as much influence as it can and the state is responsible for holding it back.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

You can disagree, but you'll be wrong.  It's like saying my kid has too much influence over my decisionson their bedtime.  It may be true, it may not be, but ultimately it's my responsibility to make the decision, not my kid's, so if I let my kid sway me that's 100% my fault.

From a legal perspective, of course you are right--churches are under no obligation to respect separation of church and state, and are certainly free to pursue their own interests.  However (and I know this makes me sound idealistic) from an ethical perspective, I think they have a responsibility to self-govern.  I don't expect you, or others, to agree with me, thus the "agree to disagree" thing.  I'm not much for "every man for himself" or "pursue your own interests until someone stops you" as an approach to life.  That doesn't make me a very good capitalist, I know, but it is still my opinion about how organizations ought to comport themselves, and as such, I can't be "wrong" (though you can think I am).

Also, the government is made up of adults, as is the church (those governing it, anyway), so your analogy is not compelling to me.  The relationship between churches and state is not that of parent/child, in my opinion.