As gay couples in California head to the courthouse starting Monday to get legally married, there are signs of a coming storm. Two titanic legal principles are crashing on the steps of the church, synagogue and mosque: equal treatment for same-sex couples on the one hand, and the freedom to exercise religious beliefs on the other.The collision that will play out over the next few years will be filled with pathos on both sides.
More:
As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected."What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?" Stern asks.
Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.
A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.
A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.
More:
Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum says it is a compelling case of what happens in a moment of culture clash. Feldblum, who is an active proponent of gay rights, says the culture and state laws are shifting irrevocably to recognize same-sex unions. And while she knows it's hard for some to hear, she says companies and religious groups that serve the public need to recognize that their customers will be gay couples."They need to start thinking now, proactively, how they want to address that. Because I do think that if a gay couple ends up being told their wedding cannot be filmed, five couples will not sue, but the sixth couple will."
And as one legal expert puts it, the gay couples "would win in a walk."
Really and truly, read the whole thing. Next time somebody asks, "How can gay marriage hurt anybody else?" -- well, here's one answer. You don't compromise your religious beliefs to fit their orthodoxy, your church, synagogue, mosque or religious institution will pay a price. You can't deny it.
Traditionalist religious groups and religious-liberty activists had better get busy right now building momentum toward passing an amendment to the US Constitution granting a religious exemption to civil rights laws with regard to homosexuality. Or give up the fight, and conform. I don't see any middle ground.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I'm talking about the fact that "gay" is not a person, it is a form of relating sexually to someone that is not consistent with my morals and values. No one has the right to insist that I, or my children, have to accept sexual behavior that we believe to be immoral. Do you have scientific evidence that a "gay" person is different than a human person? "Gay" is a relationship, not a person.
Fair enough, Nancy. So, the government should also do something about teenagers having sex, about young adults living together and having sex, in fact if you should be so strict in your objections we should have laws about anyone, same or different sex, hugging in public or holding hands, let alone kissing on the mouth.
In the end, your "acceptance" has nothing to do with it. Please go back and revisit those other "behaviors" I listed, and tell us: exactly what should be done about "gay" relationships that would satisfy your morals and values?
In the meantime, I decline to answer your "scientific evidence" challenge. I am not a scientist. I know what I observe, I know the personal interactions I have with my homosexual friends and acquaintances, and my non-scientific opinion is a no-brainer: the relate to the genders differently than I do. If you insist, though, while I spend a few weeks digging up the mounds of studies by actual scientists supporting my personal observations (which, of course, you could do yourself if you promise to stay away from non-scientific sources), I challenge you to provide scientific evidence that your morals and values are superior to anyone else's.
Franklin, what the government does not have the right to do, is promote sexual relationships outside of Marriage and state that everyone must accept these relationships as being equal to Marriage.
There is not one scientific study that proves that "gay" behavior is inherent.
There are plenty of studies that have shown that children benefit from the complementary relationship of a Father and Mother.
I am a Christian and I also have a whole lot of "gay" friends. They are all great people and they diserve to live the life they choose. I would also like to remind all of those "Christians" out there that judgeing someone for their "sin" is a sin in itself. So, get off you high horse and stop ranting on about what you think is right. You are not the judge when it comes to this. God is and he can handle it just fine without you.
On the other hand. I do believe in the "right to refuse service". I just don't think it is cool to take away one right to gain another on the oposite end of the spectrum,
BUT
This is just one persons oppinion. I'm sure most wont agree because they are too busy pointing fingers at other to make themselves feel better.
The government permits or prohibits. It does not promote. With respect, it is a paranoid fantasy to believe that the government intends, let alone is able, to control our lives at that level. What you are asking for, Nancy, is a government that permits or prohibits according to your morals and values.
On other thing: it is the obligation of government to require acceptance in the legal sense of quite a list of things, nearly all of which fall under the heading of anti-discrimination. Morals and values have nothing to do with it, or we'd still be prohibiting women from voting or holding jobs, or owning property, racism would continue to be embedded in institutions, and children would be lucky to get private education instead of working in factories... well, a bit of hyperbole at the end, but I hope you get the main point.
Nancy, I most politely but still bluntly say that you give the impression of knowing next to nothing about how science works. I must decline further discussion of that with you at this time.
Tawny, actually, I am very unhappy participating in debates on this subject. I think a default respect should lead you to assume that Nancy is also not here for the joy of it.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.