I hate to bring this up again, given how the combox chatter will go, but the next time somebody asks, rhetorically, how Adam and Steve's marriage is going to hurt anybody else, refer them to this National Public Radio story. Excerpt:
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.
And then there's the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.
The reporter, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, tells the story about a lesbian couple that sued a photography company run by Christians who refused to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony. The Christians lost the case, and have appealed to state court. Now the photographers are thinking about leaving their vocation, saying the hassle may not be worth it. The story resumes:
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."
It's coming. And you may be one of those people who thinks this is a good thing, a just result. If so, then defend that -- just don't pretend that there won't be big sacrifices required of the faithful. When an Orthodox Jewish university is compelled by the state to allow same-sex couples access to married student housing, that's a very big deal.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"A Bakersfield, Calif., couple rushed their child to the emergency room with a 104 degree fever. The women were registered domestic partners, but the hospital only allowed the biological mother to stay with the child. Although hospitals typically allow both parents to stay with a child during treatment, in this case, the second parent was forced to stay in the waiting room."
Wow, a true tragedy. At least you didn't waste time worrying about the rights of that child who was forced under the guardianship of two same-sex "parents". Nah, that doesn't matter.
Despicable, your title is apt.
Oregon and Florida - Although I can see the upset this is a matter of a hospital being obtuse with regard to the laws as written and in the end they got it straightened out. Hospital bureaucracy can be annoying, but what if they were married and the hospital said "I'll need to see the marriage certificate before I can accept that." Unless you think gays are going to carry their marriage license everywhere there'd still be a hassle if people are insistent on confusion or non-recognition. So it's not much more then the hassles many have to face at hospitals.
In addition your source states "nearly 75 percent of the hospitals have policies to protect their patients from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." In 1959 did that high a percentage of hospitals have non-discrimination policies for interracial couples? (1959 is the first year I find where a majority of states allowed interracial marriage. Also maybe in 1959 hospitals 75% of hospitals did have non-discrimination policies, but it's worth asking)
Doctors wanted to pull the plug on me because they felt my life wasn't worth living. Do I need a formal bonding-rite with someone who shares my anti-euthanasia views? Is my parents having "Power of Attorney" not enough? Why or why not?
Straight married people, or people who merely don't act on their homosexual desires such as myself, don't really live in a happy land without hospital frazzles or the like. I think you're sort of looking in and seeing something that doesn't entirely exist.
Frank Writes:
>The institution of the Catholic church as represented
>by its bishops has shown that it is willing to allow
>gay minors to be bullied into suicided and gay adults
>to be tortured or murdered ...
Where in the world does this come from? Show us one bishop who supports (or has supported) what you report as fact.
>all in the name of preventing gay marriage. The Catholic
>church is viciously and violently anti-gay.
There is no warrant for this kind of extremist polemic. You seem more interested in advancing anti-Catholic polemic than reasoning about one of the pre-eminent moral issues of our time.
But, in response: Bigots exist everywhere. The Church's teaching, however, is clear to those not infected by anti-Catholic sentiment. Indeed, the Catholic Church's position is not unlike most Protestant Church's stance - Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Cheers,
There is a lot of potential conflict resulting from more open and formal gay relationships, with or without marriage. On this topic—it makes me anxious to see yet another way in which religious convictions are now the acceptable material to retreat to "the closet." The mentality: you can oppose homosexual relationships on religious grounds, but do it behind closed doors.
Although I am not a political conservative in general, I am greatly irritated by the self-righteous hypocrisy of the left-of-center crowd on the issue of religious freedom. It is not logical or sensible to support freedom FROM practicing a religion and at the same time disparage what it means to be free TO practice a religion. Faith is not the same thing as philosophy. It does not exist in isolation in the unobtrusive privacy of one's mind. It often involves concrete actions, things like—worship, abstinence from spiritual or physical pollutants, separation from others in society, making moral judgments about oneself and one's environment, etc., etc. I think a lot of opposition to this type of religious structure is that it isn't necessarily conducive to a unified or accepting society. But does that invalidate it, or devalue the unpopularly (religiously) motivated?
This is where the concept of tolerance approaches its breaking point. From my point of view: advocates for gay rights do not try to understand people who are unwilling to accept them, and opponents to expanding gay rights are put in the position, through the democratic process, of having to condone that which they do not accept. Which non-acceptance is acceptable? Neither? Both?
Maybe a step forward would be the recognition that the fight for legal and social rights for gays is not something as simple as a live-and-let-live mutual tolerance. Gay people want equality with heterosexuals in the recognition of their personal relationships, not just in a straightforward legal sense, but in all the myriad details and consequences of the tradition of marriage—including where the legal and the social intersect.
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.