Conservatives must be really desperate to feel special......

All of the bill's sponsors list their church memberships on their state lawmaker biography pages and they all appear to be Southern Baptists who don't understand what the word secular means or that marriage is a secular legal contract.

The bill argues the state is "prohibited from favoring or endorsing religion over non-religion" and that "the State of South Carolina's decision to respect, endorse, and recognize parody marriages and sexual orientation policies has excessively entangled the government with the religion of Secular Humanism."

The bill claims it is unclear whether sexual orientation is genetic "and therefore is a matter of faith."

State Rep. Steven Long, R-Spartanburg, the bill's main sponsor, said the legislation is about upholding the Constitution by maintaining a separation of church and state.

"Whatever someone does in their own time and in their own home is their business, but when it comes to the government in the state, we have to have policies that are nonreligious or secular in nature," Long said.

postandcourier

.

The bill goes on to read, “Marriage between and man and a woman arose out of the nature of things and marriage between a man and a woman is natural, neutral, and noncontroversial, unlike parody forms of marriage.”

The sponsors of the bill argue that “parody marriages” and “sexual orientation policies” have created a legal mess for the state of South Carolina and that they have turned into a “legal weapon” being used against people who object to “parody marriages.”

They go on to say that while there has been no “land rush on gay marriage,” it has had other detrimental effects. Specifically, “the persecution of nonobservers,” and an effort by believers and practitioners of “parody marriage” to “infiltrate and indoctrinate minors in public schools to their religious world view which is questionably moral, plausible, obscene.”

thestate

This same idea crashed and burned in Wyoming this past week when it didn't even make it to a vote. This legislative nonsense appeals to bigots who haven't gotten over the idea that they can determine the rights of other people via their own religious beliefs. 

Would this religious idiocy only apply to LGBT people or would they try to redefine the marriages of interracial couples and interfaith couples of non-christian religions. 

Sounds like the GOP legislators in Wyoming are smarter than the ones in South Carolina.

But given that these bills are destined to fail (or be struck down by the courts) it comes back to my original question......are these bigots really that dumb or do they just think their conservative constituents are?

I'm torn between the idea that politicians are so ignorant to try to pass what are obviously unconstitutional laws or that they know that these laws are unconstitutional but they are an attempt to shamelessly pander to social conservatives before the midterms. The idea that this legislation was written by ALEC or other groups is very likely. 

Apparently it was written by Chris Sevier, the homophobic right wing moron who has pulled several stunts like filing a lawsuit in an attempt to "marry" his computer.    That's why there are so many misspellings and grammatical errors in the bill and why the identical language is in multiple legislatures.

But I sure wouldn't put it past ALEC......those folks are almost as dimwitted as Sevier and just as homophobic.

ALEC doesn't tend to be homophobic but they know that keeping the socially conservative voting Republican is key to preserving their power in both state and federal legislatures. This is as much of a dog whistle as putting DOMA on the ballot in 2004 to bring out the Republicans vote to support Dubya. 

Obviously this wouldn't have a prayer of surviving judicial review because it is an attempt to undo Obergefell v. Hodges.

ALEC doesn't tend to be homophobic but they know that keeping the socially conservative voting Republican is key to preserving their power in both state and federal legislatures.

Actually ALEC has a long history of pushing anti-LGBT legislation:

rightwingwatch

hrc

huffingtonpost

.

But to your point the conservative legislative network which ALEC enables is why identical legislation has cropped up in many red states regarding anti-trans potty bills and "religious freedom" bills, despite their claims to the contrary:

But when asked whether ALEC was involved in supporting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ALEC spokesperson Bill Meierling responds: “We do not work on firearms, marriage equality, immigration, any of those things people frequently say are ours.” 

Still, North Carolina state Rep.  Graig R. Meyer  of (D) Durham says that ALEC is having a profound effect on how state legislators in his state are picking their targets.

"While ALEC may not be directly distributing the template legislation we’re seeing pop up all over the country, they are the primary conservative legislative exchange and are courting legislators at their educational seminars and conferences," Mr. Meyer says in a phone interview.

Other Democratic legislators say ALEC is shaping conservative legislation in their state. For example,  Arizona state Sen. Steve Farley sees the non-profit group as a driver of debate on gun legislation and the recently aired idea of mandating church attendance in his state.

csmonitor

Any attempt to mandate religious attendance is laughable. Are they just stupid or is this an attempt to just wear down the judiciary and possibly provoke a SCOTUS ruling where the conservatives on the bench might ignore the 1st Amendment? Religious nuts have tried that tactic with abortion.

#1. White Christian Domnionism

#2. Yes, they are really that desperate

#3. No, they are not dumb, simply stubborn and pig-headed.

#4. They know what secular means, they just don't like it and feel that their likes and dislikes need to be forced onto everyone else. At the same time,  they will resist to the death anyone trying to force them, but feel perfectly comfortable forcing you. It's spelled h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

A lot of People on the coasts and in blue states are blithely unaware that in half of these not so United States of America  it remains perfectly legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in housing and unemployment. Please see the maps from the Human Rights Campaign on the attached link to observe where it remains legal to refuse to hire or rent to a gay person merely because they happen to be gay. It is shocking, probably, to most people that this remains the case. Gays, lesbians, trans and bisexuals are not among the federally protected classes of citizens so the equal rights many assume they enjoy are withheld unto them in those states that have not specifically expanded protections to them. For instance, a gay couple cannot be denied marriage in Texas anymore but they can be legally denied jobs or a place to live. Of course, most employers and landlords are not so stupid as to openly discriminate for obvious financial reasons but in half of our states they would be within their legal rights to do so. The courts have been rightfully advancing equal protection under our law but the process is gradual and often uphill. New laws aimed at diminishing justice for LGTB persons are continually being passed by the gop in red states. It takes a lot of money to fight these laws through the courts and People who are discriminated against on an institutional basis are often least likely to be able to fight for their rights in court. Progress is made as evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision regarding marriage but there is a large and powerful contingent fighting even harder to reverse the course of history in this regard. This link is safe. The Human Rights Campaign  hrc...

What seems clear it that the gop is attempting to endrun equal protection under the law for all people by challenging civil rights laws under the guise of religious freedumb. They want to establish a new kind of sexual Jim Crow regarding LGTB persons but that is just to get their food into the door enough to expand their right to discriminate to anything and anyone under the guise of strongly held "Belief". I remember Jim Crow. Only white people could go into the bank or the dry goods store. Even the grocery store was segregated. Black and brown People had to go in the back entrance off the alley and asked for what they wanted, pay cash and leave. The ambulance service refused to carry non-whites which did not matter much since the local hospital would not treat them. The white school was new and well equiped. Black and brown kids worked in the fields.

Now somebody will probably say that being LGTB is not the same as race. Do not be fooled. Once the gop makes it legal to deny services to People based on some undefined beliefs about their morals it is a short step to expand that to anything including race, religion, national origin, cultural membership and so on and so on. Is it any wonder the once Grand Old Party of Lincoln is now known merely as "the gop"? 

They know what secular means, they just don't like it and feel that their likes and dislikes need to be forced onto everyone else.

Maybe.....although I agree that they think they should dislike anything secular (despite the fact that they benefit from secular government).   But the wording of the bill shows that these conservatives either really don't understand what the word means, or they think their fellow conservatives are extremely ignorant:

(2)    In view of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895:

(a)    the State of South Carolina shall no longer respect, endorse, or recognize any form of parody marriage policy because parody marriage policies are nonsecular.

(b)    the State of South Carolina shall no longer enforce, recognize, or respect any policy that treats sexual orientation as a suspect class because all such statutes lack a secular purpose.

(C)    The State of South Carolina will continue to enforce, endorse, and recognize marriages between a man and a woman because such marriage policies are secular, accomplishing nonreligious objectives."

I think you're right. They don't understand the word "secular". As a matter of fact, I think they are trying to argue that Secular Humanism is a religion.

(2)    In view of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895:

(a)    the State of South Carolina shall no longer respect, endorse, or recognize any form of parody marriage policy becauseparody marriage policies are nonsecular.

so their viewpoint is that Marriage is religious - i wonder if they understand that whole legal "contract" part or not ? if they were strictly religious - we'd have no need for divorce courts or divorce lawyers.

(b)    the State of South Carolina shall no longer enforce, recognize, or respect any policy that treats sexual orientation as a suspect classbecause all such statutes lack a secular purpose.

so i suppose treating people equal regardless of sexual orientation is not a good thing in their mind ? or is it that classic failed argument - "gay men can get married - to any woman they want !" ?? looks like they aren't using their "God" given brains...

(C)    The State of South Carolina will continue to enforce, endorse, and recognize marriages between a man and a womanbecause such marriage policies are secular, accomplishing nonreligious objectives."

so... opposite gender marriages are all secular yet same gender marriages are all religious ? ... do they really love pretzels that much ? i can't believe people actually support and believe in these things.

I think they are trying to argue that Secular Humanism is a religion.

That's exactly what they're arguing, which seems to be the pretzel logic which many bible-babblers use.    From another article :

The bill, titled the  "Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act"  defines marriage as the union between "a man and a woman," and calls other forms of marriages "parody marriages." The text claims that gay marriages violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution because they are inherently "non-secular" and part of "the religion of Secular Humanism."

As opposed to straight marriages, which, you know, have absolutely nothing to do with years of patriarchy merged with biblical concepts.

Sevier is best known for filing a federal lawsuit against several state leaders in Mississippi in September 2017 for not recognizing his marriage to a computer, in an apparent attempt to underscore what he perceives as the invalidity of non-straight marriages.

"Because gay marriage is not secular. It's controversial. It's questionably real. It's questionably moral," Sevier  told WJTV in Jackson, Miss . "And just like polygamy, and zoophilia, and machinism, and other forms of perspective marriage are also not secular. All forms of parody marriage are equally part of the religion of secular humanism."

Sevier, who makes music under the name Chris Severe, tells  CP  that he's working on similar bills in 25 other states and in the federal Congress.

He continuously compared gay marriages to "animal marriages" and gay people to "zoophiles," and admitted that his "machinist" lawsuits are only meant to prevent governments from protecting LGBT marriage laws by highlighting the ridiculousness of "parody marriages."

**********

College of Charleston math professor and president of the Secular Coalition for America Herb Silverman says that the irreligion-is-religion argument is a common tactic used to rouse up moral panic.

"I think that’s often used by the religious right when it comes to teaching evolution in school, where they say, 'Thats just promoting the religion of secular humanism,' rather than saying we want to have science taught the right way," he said.

Silverman says that the "precedent" Sevier and Rep. Long are citing is probably  footnote number 11 from  Torcaso v. Watkins,   which in part reads:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.

"Nobody, really, within the Secular Humanist community thinks of it as a religion, some of us would say atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color," Silverman said. "Yes, atheists and humanists generally promote gay marriage the same way we promoted marriage between blacks and whites when there were religious arguments against it, it’s what we view as a human right."

.

Of course SCOTUS only referred to "secular humanism" as a religion for the purposes of legal analysis under the 1st Amendment, ie that non-religious and religious persons have the same 1st Amendment rights.

And while this bill isn't going anywhere other than to be yet another billboard displaying the hate and desire for privileged status which are central to the GOP and to conservatives more broadly, it is rather amusing that the authors seem unaware that many if not most Christians in the US today support marriage equality too.    These dumb bigots must live entirely within the right wing evangelical bubble.

Question: If the State is a secular institution, why is it in the business of saying who can and can't get married? 

If the State is a secular institution, why is it in the business of saying who can and can't get married?

Since marriage is a legal contract about legal kinship rights and property rights the state is necessarily involved, if only to be sure that the parties are of legal age, that they give informed consent, aren't currently married, and aren't too closely related.    The latter two items could be different than they are today (and historically have been different), but it's unlikely that you'll ever see age or mutual consent dropped as requirements to marry.

Pretty much all other constraints which have historically existed like race, gender, intent to procreate, tradition of superstition, etc, had no secular basis and no legitimate secular state purpose whatsoever.

Because marriage is a legal contract and a civil right. Therefore, the state has interest and involvement in marriage. You're thinking of holy matrimony, which is religious. But the religious aspect is merely ceremonial and has no legal weight.