How same-sex marriage harms 1st Amendment liberties

I have no problem with the GLBT community boycotting businesses and individuals who don't support their cause.

But this is, it seems to me, a one-way street. Businesses and individuals who don't support the GLBT cause cannot refuse to serve or deal with that community, even if they would choose to do so to their economic detriment. This is already a reality in parts of the country, including my own home state. And in CA, where a doctor can't refuse IVF to a lesbian couple, correct? Or in NJ, where a religious organization can't refuse to rent out a function facility, correct?

How can these opposing views accommodate each other? How does the right of free speech and association intersect with the right to obtain services?

For those who supported the right of the GLBT community to boycott, although presumably not to bully, as stated in other threads (and I agree with you), what rights would you give to those who would avoid doing business with that community?

It seems to me you are grouping a lot of dissimilar things under the banner "religious liberties." There is a great difference between a church being required to officiate a gay marriage, and a caterer being required to offer catering services to gay couples on the same terms as everyone else.

I think we all agree the former is a religious libery issue, and do not think anyone has ever argued the church should not have the right to refuse.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can consider the latter a religious liberty issue, but it seems to me that is what you are really talking about, while suggesting it is the former.

Rod said in a loud voice, "If opposition to same-sex marriage is to be understood as pure bigotry, then no accomodation for religious believers will be made."

What's wrong with this may I ask?

Is there any real difference from the same religous zealots crying out loudly about the bigotry of Islamics in their treatment of women based upon religious beliefs and right minded folks bemoaning the bigotry as same religious zealots against homosexuals based upon religious beliefs?

This is a strawman argument, Rod.

I support the right of religious denominations to choose who to administer sacraments to. This is because I am ordained in the Metropolitan Community Church (a Christian denomination whose memberhip is primarily LGBT) and I don't want the government or anyone else telling us what to do. I would imagine the Unitarians and Congregationalists feel similarly, giving us all common ground with you and religious conservatives on this issue.

However, the only time this comes up is when there is government funding involved. Otherwise, it isn't an issue. Religious sacraments are not covered in any law defining "public accommodations" under civil and human rights statutes. I'm no expert, but I did work for several years at a state human rights commission and this never came up. Employment issues sometimes did, but never sacraments.

Rod,
I've said it in other threads and never received a response. If you really believe in equality and are only worried about religious liberty and the word marriage, amend DOMA. DOMA currently prevents the federal government from recognizing, and allows other states not to recognize, civil unions done in one state. Repeal that portion. Require other states to recognize civil unions but not marriages. Provide all the benefits of marriages to those involved in civil unions.
As to your worries, you haven't exactly convinced me yet. As others have stated there is a big difference between churches acting as businesses or even charitable organizations. If you rent out at separate facility from your church, you should not be allowed to discriminate in how you rent it out. If you don't want to rent to gay couples, dont' rent to anybody.
Secondly, you are conflating religious liberty concerns with economic concerns. Yes, I'm sure a colleague of yours said he didn't care what happens to the businesses owned by people who supported proposition 8. Guess what, that has nothing to do with religious liberty. They're still welcome to do what they're church tells them to. There's just a cost.

Z said: "It isn't one sided if anti-gay individuals can boycott gay owned and gay friendly businesses."

Rod, you seem consumed by this issue. I think it's really sad that you'd like to see gays and lesbians treated as second class citizens just so your church can keep its tax exempt status. When you seek to exclude and discriminate you become a private club that the government has no interest in supporting by bestowing non-profit status.

Again (and again and again...): where, anywhere in this discussion, is the responsibility of the Churches themselves in addressing their problem? For the solution is very simple.

They could shoose to restrict themselves to an utterly private role of spiritual guardianship and guidance for their congregations. Their beliefs and practices would be virtually inassailable, but at a great cost of power in the loss of influence over the larger society and of access to the mechanisms of wealth accumulation.

Or:

They could could persist in engaging in the public spheres of polictics and captial. They would maintain and increase their power as social and commercial entities, but at the cost of playing by the rules everyone else does, in sacrificing their tax-exemptions and submitting to laws enacted by a pluralistic society to govern such public activites which then may conflict with their beliefs.

I think what's being argued for here is for Churches, (or truthfully big, wealthy, conservative Christian ones...really, where are exactly the Jews, Muslims and the little white clapboard Unitarian down the street in this..?) to enjoy the benefits of both choices without having to accept the consequences of either.

Not a particularly conservative nor democratic position it seems to me. Whether it is moral and/or spiritual I'll leave to others more versed in and concerned with such matters to discuss.

No? Why not?

Hey Pyrrho, if you don't think there's bigotry in South Boston, you've never been there. This very day you can see "KSW" (keep Southie white) tags on the sidewalks around the Heights. This is a place where the massive housing projects were kept whites-only until 1990.

Oh, and also practically no one goes to church. They can't shutter them fast enough. And the St. Pat's Day parade as religious? Only if public urination is a sacrament.

Asides from perhaps that of conservative Christians, there is no more bogus form of victim-speak than Irish-American "we wuz discriminated against too!" bollocks. Historians have proved that the "no Irish need apply" sign never existed, but was invented as a myth for ... you guessed it, identity politics. And, in the annals of dominant groups facing new minorities, I don't think you can find more generous treatment than the Brahmins afforded the Irish in the mid-19th century. Seriously, look into it. The only violence came from the Yankee working class whose wages were depressed by the newcomers.

Tom,

Are you talking to me? I'll assume you are. Anybody is allowed to march in the parade; the issue revolved who was allowed to march under what banner. The parade has always been Irish and Catholic. (It's a celebration of St. Patrick bringing the faith to the Irish ... Get it?) Are you saying Catholics should not be allowed to assemble as Catholics without the courts telling them what they can say and what they cannot say? If you don't, then who's being the bigot?

there really will be a substantial effect on traditional churches, synagogues, mosques and religious institutions if gay marriage is constitutionalized.

Rod, my dear boy, *that's the goal*!

Mere tolerance is not enough. Everybody must approve and those who do not must be punished, silenced, and if possible, jailed or otherwise taken out of circulation.

Here's the future, dude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng

This is not a movement that seeks peaceful co-existence with Abrahamic religion and, especially, with the Church. It seeks the annihilation of the Judeo-Christian view of the human person. It can't rest until that is extirpated from the public square.

How do we test this? If a restaurant owner refuses to serve gay people celebrating a same-sex marriage, who decides whether this is a bona fide religious belief covered under the exemption? What does it say to society that believers are allowed to be super-discriminators, the only people allowed to bypass public policy merely by saying, "I believe."

You can't, which is why restaurant owners and the like should be allowed to rent to whomever they wish or don't wish, no matter what the reason, be it for racial, religious or fashion-related reasons. It's their property, what they do with it is no one else's business.

But what am I thinking? It's not like this is a free country anymore.

If people of other religions have to take responsibility for their decisions to enter a line of work which conflicts with their religious beliefs, why don't Christians have the same responsibility?

But gays should be able to whatever their hearts desire with no repercussions?

The Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay marriage in California also explicitly protected the churches rights. Read it.

Big deal, do you think religious liberty ends at the doors of the church, or only applies to "private" matters? For someone who takes their faith seriously, it extends to every aspect of their life, they cannot turn off their faith when they leave the church building.

"which is why restaurant owners and the like should be allowed to rent to whomever they wish or don't wish, no matter what the reason, be it for racial, religious or fashion-related reasons. It's their property, what they do with it is no one else's business."

So if a Unitarian owns a restaurant, you would be fine with them turning away Catholics because of the Vatican's position on gays?

At some point, the state can regulate the availability of public accommodation and say it is contrary to public policy to open up a business and then discriminate at will just because it is "their property."

So if a Unitarian owns a restaurant, you would be fine with them turning away Catholics because of the Vatican's position on gays?

Of course. The Unitarian could turn them away because he thinks their mixing natural and synthetic fibers is gauche for all I care. He could deny them service because he doesn't care for their kneeling and crossing themselves or any other silly reason. He'd be a stupid fool, and probably bankrupt after a while, but it would be his business, and he could do whatever the hell he wanted with it.

This sort of thing is what happens when enough people, in positions of power, accept the pernicious, wrong-headed and self-evidently delusional notion of Human "equality".

The ironic thing, as it applies to this conversation, is that just about the only possible way that the idea of equality can be fostered or maintained is through Christian theology and doctrine. It's not an accident that just about the only cultures in the world that support the idea of equality are those with a Christian heritage.

At some point, the state can regulate the availability of public accommodation and say it is contrary to public policy to open up a business and then discriminate at will just because it is "their property."

That's precisely the problem.

The state shouldn't be able to do that.

I also assume--as a free speech defender--you have no problem with someone setting up a picket in front of the "we-won't-serve-gay-people" business stating...

No.

rr:

So, let me get this straight - no pun intended. You think the caterer should be able to say no to a gay wedding because it violates his beliefs. How about their anniversary? What about the birthday party in the gay couples' home? What about just any party given to a gay person because they might marry someday.

Isn't their point where this so called religious libery just becomes an invitation to discriminate?

"Isn't their point where this so called religious libery just becomes an invitation to discriminate?"

But that's the point.

Scotch Meg has exactly the wrong take on this unless this forum is willing to host the argument that Jim Crow was good and just.

Jim Crow was government-mandated segregation. I don't think anyone is arguing for that. I'm certainly not.

What I'm saying is that a private business should be free to cater to whomever they wish. The reasons may be stupid and downright immoral, but we should be free to be stupid and immoral on our property at our own expense.

Is it permitted for, say, a caterer, to refuse to bring food to a wedding of a black man and a white woman? A divorced man and his new trophy bride?

He might get away with the latter, but he'd be screwed on the former. No doubt, in addition to all the legal trouble he'd be in, he'd even get some face time on Olbermann as the "Worst Person in the World", just ahead of Kim Jong Il.

When a group or individual asks for an exception to the general rules of society, we basically do a balancing test--we weigh the religious interest against the interest society has in enforcing its laws.

But many of us just don't see what's so darned important about encouraging gay people to remain single and without any permanent family ties. I've read tons of attempts to justify denying the children of gay people the protections of marriage, but the arguments just make no sense to me. Why wouldn't anyone want to encourage gay people to remain monogamous and take responsibility for the children they are raising? I know many of you hold those views deeply, but your arguments seem like gibberish to me, so I don't know how to respond.

So it comes down to destroying or weakening families on one side versus incoherent (to me and many others) arguments that somehow it's bad to encourage gay monogamy. Family integrity on one side, nonsense on the other. That's not a difficult balance to do.

Is it permitted for, say, a caterer, to refuse to bring food to a wedding of a black man and a white woman? A divorced man and his new trophy bride?

In the first case the answer is "no" as race is protected, in the second it is "yes", since "divorced" isn't a recognized protected category. This points out the key flaw in all of these anti-discrimination laws, who gets protected is primarily about political clout, not any underlying fundamental principle. So instead of living peacefully together, including accepting the limitations and faults of other people, we instead expect the government to make everything perfect and end up relating to each other through lawyers and a fascist government and bureaucracy that feels free to pry through all aspects of our lives looking for "discrimination" (but only for classes with political clout).

Jim Crow segregated government, but had no mandates for private business.

Wrong. In fact it was businesses, who didn't want to have to maintain separate facilities for each race, who were one the primary backers of repealing the Jim Crow laws. The Jim Crow laws applied to restrooms, hotels, transportation systems and just about any other public venue.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it, Rod.

As the comment alluding to Christian Identity bigotry testifies, it is entirely allowable for any church to teach ANY doctrine concerning membership and practices that do not violate actual criminal statutes. You and any other person of faith have a pretty much absolute right of freedom of association in this regard. Please show me the precedent where a church in this country has been forced to admit persons they did not wish, or marry persons they did not wish to marry. Citing Swedish law or some such does not count. I want examples HERE.

*crickets chirping*

"How can these opposing views accommodate each other? How does the right of free speech and association intersect with the right to obtain services?"

first of all the LGBT must first accept that there are people who do not agree with their program nor do they agree with it being crammed down their throats. They need to stop saying that folks who oppose them are homophobes, that they hate homosexuals and that their opposition is hateful and hurtful. I suspect that many who are opposed to homosexual marriage are like myself. We recognize that at some point in the future it will happen. I'm willing to work towards an accommodation but I find it difficult to discuss the situation as long as proponents call me a homophobe and worse.

now as to your second question. We have what we call a free market economy (supposedly). You are not forced to go to any particular vendor or service provider. If someone denies you service do you really want to use that individual if they refused you service because of your race, creed or gender? But since homosexuality as far as I know still does not have an identifying characteristic such as skin color how will someone deny you service unless you first tell them that you are a homosexual? I would think that a lesbian couple seeking a doctor to perform an IVF would have first sought out a doctor who would support their request, not someone that they just picked out of the phone book. Or how about the photographer who declined to take photos of a homosexual union ceremony in New Mexico. She told the couple she wouldn't do it because she didn't agree with their lifestyle. The couple could have walked away and sought out a gay friendly photographer, but no they decided to escalate because they were 'discriminated" against. They did not think how difficult the assignment would be for the photographer, but rather they focused on their feelings.

in conclusion the proponents of gay marriage need to think about the other side. they need to stop using stormtrooper tactics

Rod, you're my favorite conservative, but I think you are being incredibly unself-aware on this one. Your own First Amendment rights hardly seem to have been compromised so that you could not post this blog. And while there will be those who argue that pastors preaching that gays should be murdered should be allowed to do so as a First Amendment right (and those arguments have been made at length on Beliefnet), I don't see the Swedish result, where a pastor cannot call homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, happening here. I really don't.

"It isn't one sided if anti-gay individuals can boycott gay owned and gay friendly businesses."

can you point us to recent stories of such boycotts. ones that resulted in the closing of the business or loss of jobs?
and no I don't want to hear about the Disney boycotts. lets see evidence of boycotts similar to the local theater and restaurant

"So if a Unitarian owns a restaurant, you would be fine with them turning away Catholics because of the Vatican's position on gays?"

first of all how would the owner know that they were Catholics? Did they come in to the restaurant announcing in a loud voice "hey we're Catholics!"?

get real.

Couldn't the Beckett Fund's concerns be addressed through a religious exemption like those provided for in laws protecting gays from sexual orientation-based discrimination?

Well, let's talk about education for a second.

"Family" means "people who live together." Marriage means "two (or more) people who live together and can visit each other in the hospital." "Mother" and "Father" are bigoted heteronormative terms which should be replaced by "parent." Parents are people who decide to raise children; any discussion of the biological notion of parenthood is bigoted and doesn't belong in the classroom. "Husband" and "wife" are bigoted heteronormative terms that should be replaced by "spouse." Children's picture books and text books should show roughly three same-sex couples for every opposite-sex couple in their photos and illustrations in order to combat the societal heteronormative bias that must be combated. That will do for elementary school.

In middle school, all sex education will include graphic discussions of gay sex as well as the heterosexual variations; all of it will be presented as normal, and children will be asked questions like "If you have never tried same-sex physical activity, how do you know you are heterosexual?" A 'married' lesbian teacher will insist that lesbians do have vaginal sex, and include explanations of sex toys used for that purpose in classroom sex ed. (If you think I'm making that one up, see this link: massresistance.org/docs/a8a/general/NPR_091304.htm).

Of course, high school will present a special problem. How can the biased heteronormative stance of most literature suitable for high school study, for instance, be addressed? Will students be encouraged to re-imagine "Pride and Prejudice" with Elizabeth Bennett choosing to marry Miss Darcy instead of her brother, for example? How will the overwhelmingly bigoted heteornormality of other books be dealt with? What about the depressing reality of history, which shows that up until a few decades ago no society considered "marriage" to be open to those of the same gender? What about the overwhelming bigotry of the study of genealogy, which insists on tracing family lineage through male and female lines as if every child is somehow supposed to have one parent of each gender? Clearly some disciplines will have to be completely re-invented, if we are to avoid the impulsive bigotry society has in favor of the notion that marriage involves one man and one woman.

That's just for starters, of course; same-sex writers and textbook authors are going to be in high demand as they create new, better literature and texts for our children to study, so that they can shed all of their old bigotry and move forward into the vision of a post-genderism new society.

the stupid Chris @ 7:20 PM writes:

"Except for Karth, who tells us This sort of thing is what happens when enough people, in positions of power, accept the pernicious, wrong-headed and self-evidently delusional notion of Human "equality". Clearly he means this wrong-headedness: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I'm an American, a Christian and a conservative. The notion that we should abandon our American principles in order to remain Christian and conservative seems wrong-headed to me."

Since when is it American, Christian or conservative to dictate the conscience of others ? That's what "civil rights" or "anti-discrimination" laws are all about. The modern special-privilege agitators for homosexual "rights", women's "rights" or minority "rights" are, at bottom, attempting to set themselves up as a modern-day Thought Police, with the power of the central government to enforce their dictates. They want to destroy or remake cultural institutions that arose as a result of the actions of the people themselves, all in the name of the sacred abstraction of "Equality".

In a very real respect, they're trying to set themselves up as God. Doesn't that trouble you ? I don't know about you, but my faith specifically enjoins people from trying to supplant the Divine. Never mind the Constitution--this one goes right back to the original Ten Commandments, if not back to the Tower of Babel.

I hate to disappoint you, my friend, but the American Revolution was fought for the specific purpose of stopping other people who wanted to do that.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

quote:" So, let me get this straight - no pun intended. You think the caterer should be able to say no to a gay wedding because it violates his beliefs. How about their anniversary? What about the birthday party in the gay couples' home? What about just any party given to a gay person because they might marry someday."

Yes, absolutely. A caterer or photographer should be allowed to say no to a gay wedding. It would be a gross violation of their civil liberties to do otherwise. Why is this? Because for religious conservatives such as myself, a wedding ceremony and celebrations around it are fundamentally RELIGIOUS in their nature. So in essence you are saying that people should be forced to participate in events they consider religious in nature, even if doing so violates the tenants of their religion.

To give you an example, I consider the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) a heretical body. They should be free to conduct whatever services or wedding ceremonies they want. Not that I find said ceremonies valid in any way, but that's their business. But if I was a caterer or a photographer, I would find it highly offensive that I might be forced to in any way participate or assist in one of their ceremonies.

As to a restaurant serving a gay couple a meal, I think they should be required to do so by law. After all, serving a meal isn't the same as participating or assisting in some manner in a religious ceremony. I've never heard any conservative Christian say that serving a meal to someone they consider living an immoral lifestyle was against their religion. I just don't see the point of that. Again though, the difference is the religious nature or potential religious nature of a wedding ceremony.

rr

Lord Karth

"Since when is it American, Christian or conservative to dictate the conscience of others ?"

******************************
I dunno. Why are you so occupied with trying to force people like me to do what you want, then? The Republican Party ideals I remember from Barry Goldwater seem to have sadly discarded. You know, those Libertarian things he was always on about over how the government shouldn't tell people what to do or how to live...

"The modern special-privilege agitators for homosexual "rights", women's "rights" or minority "rights" are, at bottom, attempting to set themselves up as a modern-day Thought Police, with the power of the central government to enforce their dictates."

*************************

This is so silly as to not really deserve an answer. I will observe that women and most ethnic minorities have been subjected to appalling abuse, disenfranchisement and powerlessness. Your complaints that they are somehow muzzling you is laughable. Thought police indeed!

"They want to destroy or remake cultural institutions that arose as a result of the actions of the people themselves, all in the name of the sacred abstraction of "Equality"."

*******************************

"We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal..."

'Nuff said.

"In a very real respect, they're trying to set themselves up as God. Doesn't that trouble you ?"

*************************
No more than you playing God by trying to somehow interfere or hinder their right to live as they please.

I" don't know about you, but my faith specifically enjoins people from trying to supplant the Divine. Never mind the Constitution--this one goes right back to the original Ten Commandments, if not back to the Tower of Babel."

************************

If you want to live under a theocracy, then kindly do so without bothering the rest of us. I don't care what you believe, so long as you leave me alone. I don't bother you and your church. Keep your nose out of my beliefs as well.

"I hate to disappoint you, my friend, but the American Revolution was fought for the specific purpose of stopping other people who wanted to do that."
****************************

If you believe that, then you would fail any American History class. You actually seem to argue that the Revolution was fought to establish an overtly theocratic government, as opposed to a secular government with freedom of conscience. Where did you get such an outlandish idea, if that is indeed the case? Can you cite the literature? Do you have historical references? Do you know anything about Locke or Hobbes, and the notion of social contracts which directly lead to our way of governance? Are you aware of the failure of ancient radical Greek democracies, and why their example was avoided? Have you read ANY of the Federalist Papers?

*sigh*

It is letters like your which is why I will teach History. So much ignorance, and so little time to deal with it.

Daniel, here are a few resources from my fantasy world/imagination:

challenginghomophobia.net/ch/def_hp.asp

ehe.osu.edu/edtl/faculty/BlackburnMollie.htm

jstor.org/pss/1180039

etfo.ca/AdvocacyandAction/SocialJusticeandEquity/HomophobiaandHeterosexism/Pages/default.aspx

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb172/is_6_69/ai_n28716334/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 (see second page for reference to elementary schools)

nameorg.org/resolutions/heterosexism.html

eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED403137&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED403137 (This is just an abstract, but note the recommendation "It is suggested that to overcome homophobia we need to confront the issue and not relegate it to health or sex-education classes, and teach units about homosexuality in biology and life science classes as early as fourth grade.")

These are just a few examples, of course; but the gay rights community is very clear about their objective to do away with heterosexism in the schools--and heterosexism is defined as anything which privileges heterosexuality, assumes that more people are heterosexual, uses words with connections to heterosexual (heteronormative) society, and so forth.

Erin, good thing your kids will be protected from all these attempts to teach tolerance and suggest that gays (and their kids) should be treated with dignity.

Erin,__Academics exist to push ideas. There are also a lot of Christians who want schools to teach an expressly Christian perspective throughout all classes (look at the "Intelligent Design" movement, for example). We've been pretty smart about how to design our text books. Plus, what you wrote is barely comprehensible, so I don't think it would persuade kids of anything.____In any case, same sex marriage is irrelevant your arguments. With same sex marriage, many gay people are trying to follow the norms of "heterosexual" society by settling down, getting married, and raising kids. That sounds pretty traditional to me. ____If anything, the more the anti-gay forces work to push gays to the fringe, the harder the rest of society will have to work to pull them back in. The anti-same-sex-marriage fight probably increases the need for counter-balance elsewhere. Congratulations!

Daniel, what a judgmental comment. This isn't about teaching my, or anyone else's, kids to treat people with dignity. This is about redefining society to believe that only the most bigoted people think that the heterosexual nuclear family raising their own biological children is somehow foundational to the social order, and punishing anyone who doesn't embrace the new reality.

Did you see the Canadian school document in my links? Did you read this definition?

"WHAT IS HETEROSEXISM?...Heterosexism is the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and the belief in the inherent normality and superiority of heterosexuality. Heterosexist assumptions are made and reinforced in all areas of society. Some examples that occur in schools are: assuming that a family has one male and one female as parenting partners, having a prom king and queen."

Read that again: assuming that a family has "one male and one female as parenting partners..." is heterosexim, something to be stamped out and silenced in the new society--because, of course, "parenting partners" can be any assortment of adults of any gender with any sort of relationship (or none at all) to the child. Children don't need *parents* so long as there are plenty of "parenting partners" to go around.

But by all means, keep seeing this as an attack on people's dignity, Daniel.

Heterosexism is the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and the belief in the inherent normality and superiority of heterosexuality.

Erin,

I think it's time for us to unveil a new term: heterophobe.

"You just hate us because we're inherently normal ... and superior." ;-)

Z
November 17, 2008 4:32 PM
It isn't one sided if anti-gay individuals can boycott gay owned and gay friendly businesses.

*****

Personally, I don't go in for the whole boycott thing. But I think anyone can boycott anything they have a mind to.

What I don't like is when a mob descends upon a mom and pop business. That's thuggery.

Daniel,__Bigotry goes both ways here. I see in the documents referrenced by Erin, written by pro gay educational revisionists a "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own". (Websters Dictionary) And the thing they are intolerant of? Heterosexual relationships. ____

Gosh, Daniel, how amazing that you can judge my soul over the Internet based on posts I *haven't* written. Reading souls is a great mystical gift, you know; I hope you use it well. As for me, so great is my bigotry toward the same-sex attracted that I pray they end up in Heaven for all eternity, and are not lost forever for their sins, as I hope to be saved despite my own great sinfulness. But I hope others will be similarly bigoted toward my sins and warn me against them, and that I won't be too full of pride or folly to listen, and repent. What I would not appreciate would be for someone to tell me that my sinfulness defines me, and that God had better just let me keep on sinning and then let me into Heaven regardless of what I've done on earth--or worse, that God is less important than my sins, and that the eternal pains of Hell are not too small a price to pay so long as I get to keep on committing them and being celebrated for them.

And Sig--I'm chuckling, and I applaud your serious literary ambitions. I'm afraid that up to now I would have pegged you as the sort of writer whose tendency was to create breathless erotic fan-fiction on the Internet, featuring, perhaps, the cast of "Stargate: Atlantis." By all means, if you can create a plausible alternate universe for Austen, attempt to do so! I only give you the usual writer's caveat: write about what you know. I myself might not mind attempting some sort of Austen's universe characters, because my view of Christian morality and social manners fits in fairly well with the Regency period; but I could never pull off a believable same-sex attracted character, and wouldn't insult those of my acquaintances who carry that particular Cross by attempting what could only become a parody.

"But I hope others will be similarly bigoted toward my sins and warn me against them, and that I won't be too full of pride or folly to listen, and repent."

The prayers have already been said. I pray every day to end the suffering of those who have been harmed by the fellow man who use the word of God to do harm and pray that those who cause harm can change and repent.

You've never--in any of the hundreds of posts you've written about gays and homosexuality--have shown any indication your respect the dignity of gays and lesbians. Therefore, my only reasonable conclusion is that you are using our Church is a cover for bigotry, which is offensive.

Sometimes a bigot is a bigot. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, . . .

So says Daniel about Erin. I say this: You've never -- in any of the hundreds of posts you've written about gays and homosexuality -- shown any indication your respect for the clear and conscience-binding teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, my only reasonable conclusion is that you are using our Church as a cover for a radical anti-Catholic social and sexual agenda, which is offensive.

Sometimes a fake Catholic is a fake Catholic.

I would have pegged you as the sort of writer whose tendency was to create breathless erotic fan-fiction on the Internet, featuring, perhaps, the cast of "Stargate: Atlantis.

Oo, I wonder if this is Erin's version of "I'll scratch your eyes out, beyotch!" Don't get sassy with me, missy, because we can go ROUND and ROUND . . . . Actually, if I were a writer of fanfic, I'd say so proudly. I think fanfic is a very interesting phenomenon, and as the author of six published novels (so far), I've talked about it with my community. Sadly, although I have some great ideas tucked away, posting here is my current form of fanfic.

Hmmm . . . and just HOW would you know about SGA erotic fanfic, anyway, Erin? Don't tell me you're a midnight reader! Who's your favorite pairing?? Inquiring minds want to know. Stargate: Atlantis hasn't been very good lately, but it's okay--I respect your preference. You know, fanfic really isn't so bad. If a person wants to write, then writing almost anything is better than writing nothing. And one thing I'd never be mean about is another person's writing, because I know how close to the heart that is, especially when you long to do it and you're not, for whatever reason. But that's just me . . . .

Lawsuits will likely arise when religious people or religious organizations choose, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, not to hire individuals in same-sex marriages, refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex spouses, refuse to make their property or services available for same-sex marriage ceremonies or other events affirming same-sex marriage, or refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples.

...in states where discrimination based on sexual orientation is already illegal, and hence all those would be just as illegal if you replace 'same-sex marriage' with 'gay relationships'.

It's interesting, in a post specifically about 'How same-sex marriage harms 1st Amendment liberties', Rod managed to point out, um, no example of that.

Instead, he pointed out examples of how laws against sexual orientation discrimination 'harms' 1st amendment liberties, when, of course, laws about marriages are entirely orthogonal to laws about discrimination...the government could disallow gay marriage but forbid discrimination, or allow discrimination against gays and allow gay marriage. (Although, in that case, as 'martial status' is a protected category, the discriminator would have discriminate against all gay people, and couldn't against just those that were married.)

"Instead, he pointed out examples of how laws against sexual orientation discrimination 'harms' 1st amendment liberties, when, of course, laws about marriages are entirely orthogonal to laws about discrimination"

DavidTC makes the obvious point that occured to me the moment I read Rod's post. If Rod wants the right to discriminate against gay people, he should openly support discrimination against gay people. He shouldn't disguise with SSM scary talk.

Mike

quote: "I think a lot of you would be disappointed at how little 'hatred' there is towards gays and lesbians in conservative Catholic circles. We're all so 'heteronormative' that the issue rarely comes up, except in relation to the Scandal."

From my experience the same thing is true in Evangelical circles, though of course there generally isn't much discussion of Catholic scandals. Not only are gays and lesbians rarely discussed, but with the exception of election time, politics isn't discussed all that much either. You wouldn't know this from the media and certain on the internet where these things are discussed to death. I guess Rod could always say try and discuss things that come up in Evangelical Bible studies such as childrearing or one of Paul's epistles. Something tells me, however, it just wouldn't get the same kind of traffic.

But really, the notion that conservative Christians are obsessed with gays and have some "irrational" bigoted, hatred for them simply isn't based in reality, at least not in the experiences I've had all my life. Sure, homosexual behavior is seen as immoral and possibly related to psychological problems as well. But guess what? Adultery and fornication are also seen as immoral. And in Evangelical circles, there is a lot more focus on pre-marital sex than any other sexual sin. There simply is no singular fixation on homosexuality. That is why the term "homophobia" is not only inherently nonsensical, but doesn't make any sense as conservative Christians oppose homosexual behavior because they see it as immoral, not because of some fear of it. The left is either intellectual lazy, emotionalistic, or purposefully attempting to shut down any conversation beforehand in using terms such as "homophobe," "bigotry," and the like. Sometimes it seems as if they can't conceive of anyone else adhering to a different code of sexual morality than they do and that any debate on this has been long settled. Thus, the only disagreement to their point of view must be due to "irrational hatred."

Finally, the term "hetronormative" is a real hoot. Actually, heterosexuality is normative. It's how species reproduce after all. And if they don't reproduce, they die off. Sorry, that's just basic biology. I find it ironic that some on the left will browbeat conservative Christians in one breath for merely a suspicion that they harbor doubts on evolution while in the other will use the term "hetronormative." It begs the question if they really understand basic biology after all.

rr

rr: I agree that many Christians are neither hateful nor bigoted, at least much of the time. I don't agree, though, that "homophobia" is not a useful concept. Christians are supposed to think that pride, envy, and wrath are immoral. Yet I don't see the same level of intense, passionate attacks (verbal) on these activities, whether by Christians or non-Christians, as I see focused on sexual activities deemed immoral. (Of which homosexuality gets a big piece of the pie.)

So why do Christians, whether Evangelical or Catholic, not attack those other activities with the same vehemence they save for sexual behaviors? To generalize the psychological viewpoint expressed above, we are angry wiht that which we fear. So why such a big fear? (hence the -phobia).

Finally, w/r to "heteronormative" (don't forget the "e"): also as discussed above, to have an offspring, at least among the higher animals, you nearly always have a male and a female. These are the biological ancestors. Our names of "mother" and "father" are not biological descriptions but societal descriptions, and carry a heavy societal weight. I thought that Christianity teaches us that we are not bound to our biology, but that we strive to perfect our selves in spirit and in truth, and not just in the flesh. So why feel restricted to these biologically-based definitions, especially if biology doesn't drive all your other beliefs

MBunge
DavidTC makes the obvious point that occured to me the moment I read Rod's post. If Rod wants the right to discriminate against gay people, he should openly support discrimination against gay people. He shouldn't disguise with SSM scary talk.

In fact, I'll ask what I should have asked in my post:

Rod: If sexual orientation was no longer a protected class, and people could discriminate against it all they wanted, what would be your objection to gay marriage?

(Presumable 'martial status' would still be protected, but that simply means you'd have to treat married and unmarried gays the same as each other. And married and unmarried straights the same as each other, which could be different than how gay people are treated.)

And while we're at it, why are people under the impression that a wedding photographer can legally turn down a gay civil union on the basis of their sexual orientation? I do not believe that is correct, at least on in states that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

If you think they can get around it because they are a 'wedding photographer' and it's not a 'wedding', I'm pretty sure people here will be sadly disappointed the first time that goes to court.

It would be treated like the equivalent of a 'white person catering service' that refused to let black people hire it on the grounds that was outside the scope of their business...discrimination laws are not a computer program, people can't just magically escape from them by providing services that only certain classes can use, when those services are identical in every way except the name to services that other classes can use.

You are channeling James Dobson again, Erin, and your paranoia is getting the best of you. Step back from the culture war rhetoric for a second and take a deep breath. Maybe even pray on it.

Sig,

I put together a long, detailed reply to your message, but it got eaten by the system.

[1] I should make it clear that I was 18 at the time, and that the priest soon found out he was messing with the wrong boy. But there's more to the story -- and that's the most devastating part. Maybe some other time....

[2] The book is about the 'normal neuroses' of 'well-adjusted' people. You know, the self-defeating behavior that makes life so unpleasant, like the kinds of 'hatred' expressed in comboxes. I definitely agree that there are forms of hatred outside the purview of this marvelous little book.

[3] I really appreciate the thought-provoking opinions of the 'loyal opposition' on this website. It's one of the things that makes this blog so special. I also envy your writing ability. Thanks for responding to my post.

[4] My vaporized thoughts re: SSM ... maybe some other time.

Pyrrho, I regret that your post disappeared! Nothing is more frustrating--which I can say most sincerely because I just lost, by a series of improbable malfunctions, the SAME goshdarn 1500 words of text, TWICE. Wrote it, lost it, rewrote it, lost it again. Arghhhh . . . I think it's time for a new laptop.

Anyway. Your quote was very interesting, and I made a note of the book. I know I've learned a LOT from reflecting on the concept of projection! And put it into practice here, where it sometimes inspires me to take a look at myself and laugh ruefully. I also agree that the word "hate" is sorely overused. I think we'd all benefit from giving it a rest and trying to find more descriptive and less inflammatory synonyms.

Too bad there's no room for more discussions of such matters. Ever since the election revved up, I think this site has been more adversarial and less reflective. When people on both sides aren't quite so invested and alarmed, I think there's more space for exchanges that involve actual give and take, and learning. Maybe those days will come again and you will have an opportunity to repost some of your thoughts.

Well, this argument is at least more coherent than the "it will lead to people marrying their lizards and lamposts" argument or the "gay people are going to march into our schools and start teaching 'gay astronomy' and 'gay algebra'" argument.

I expect a generation of suits and counter-suits over the issue of same-sex marriage. The issues involved are multiple and complex, and feelings on both sides are unlikely to come down from their fever pitch any time soon. It is a little mysterious to me that religious people who oppose same-sex marriage are so concerned over the fragility of their cooalition and this impending epidemic of persecution. The success of their propositions is just one piece of evidence that these constituencies still wield quite a bit of power.

The core objection to same-sex marriage is a religious one. Conservative-minded religionists are convinced that homosexuality is a perversion, a lifestyle choice, and a bane on society. This flies in the face of nearly every scientific finding and nearly every sociological study, but we do live in a pluralistic society and freedom of speech is something we hold dear.

The loss of freedom of speech due to economic boycotts, like what is happening to pro-prop 8 companies in the wake of its passage is perfectly constitutional. The right to sell a commodity and the right to choose not to purchase it from an unamenable vendor both constitute free expression of speech. The evangelical community has a long history of organizing boycotts against companies that conflict with evangelical values. Prop 8 manger Ron Prentice's quote that is going around about boycotts against prop 8 donors amounting to "trampling on the rights of others" is dizzying to those of us who see same-sex marriage as an equal rights issue.

As to the issue of religious beliefs expressed within the confines of a religious body ... There is no question that any law passed in favor of marriage equality should include the strongest and most unambiguous language possible to protect church's from having to marry homosexuals or from expressing their interpretation of Scripture. I personally find such beliefs unfortunate, but it is my conviction is that it is not the desire of the average homosexual couple to be granted rights at the expense of conservative Christians. I think that this is a myth perpetuated by opponents of same-sex rights. However, there is the real danger of a self-predicted prophecy. The loudest voices against same-sex marriage really do seem to want to preach themselves into a corner as a matter of strategy; "I told you so" is always waiting on their breath.

Arguments like the one presented in Dreher's blog are right to stick to the parameters of the Constitution, no matter how dishonest I may find these arguments to be. What we should never forget is that, although religious speech is protected in America, America is not a theocracy. America is a melting-pot of ideologies and backgrounds. That is why the system of law must remain ostensibly secular. And from a secular point of view, heterosexuality and homosexuality is parallel. Homosexuality is not pedophilia or bestiality - acts that void consent. Since these two sexual constitutions are parallel, their recognition by the state should be equal. We tried "separate but equal" during the black Civil Rights era. It was a pantomime of equality. In Tony Campolo's book 'Red Letter Christians' he lists the rights routinely denied homosexual couples under the current laws of the land - basic rights such as hospital visitation and the intended execution of wills. Unless and until we grant marriage rights across the board, or civil unions across the board leaving marriage to religious bodies , things will not be equal. And that is wrong.

"Conservatives and libertarians sometimes face a disadvantage in policy arguments. We're attuned to the indirect effects and unintended consequences of certain policies, whereas our liberal interlocutors concern themselves primarily with direct effects."

I have the hardest time making headway with religious conservatives using this very same argument. The problem is that many religious people find themselves on the conservative side because they feel their religion is under attack, not because they're actually conservative.

If we applied the logic from above to gay marriage then we can easily see that the real problem is that marriage is regulated by the state. God ordains marriage not the state. Remove marriage from state regulation and the problem is solved. Inevitably someone will say "but what about my tax breaks" by which I respond "obviously your faith is rock solid."__

This is an old post but I noticed in reading through the comments that no one mentioned the disconnect between the title of the post "How same-sex marriage harms 1st Amendment liberties" and the actual substance of what the Becket Fund did.

The Becket Fund undertook a survey of over 1000 state anti-discrimination laws to assess how those laws would affect conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage if same-sex marriage were legally recognized. We looked specifically at whether state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or marital status could be applied to penalize religious people and organizations with moral objections to same-sex marriage.

The link doesn't even give five examples. Not a one. There are check boxes for which states have anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, and marital status.

Okay, laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are going to apply even in cases where there is no same-sex marriage. Does that violate the First Amendment?

Oddly, the only thing I can conclude from this is that the Becket Fund thinks it'd be a good thing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, and marital status.

"I'm sorry, we wanted a man." "We wanted a single girl." "We wanted a heterosexual."

You can't say those things in Colorado, where there is no same-sex marriage. You can't say those thing in Illinois, where there is no same-sex marriage. New Mexico, New York, New Jersey. You get the idea.

So is it that conservatives want to stop same-sex marriage or do they want to roll back civil rights protections?