We obviously disagree fundamentally about the role of the courts in dealing with issues where fundamental rights (like marriage and equal protection) are at stake. The "will" of the voters does not trump such rights and the courts exist to uphold them against just such a tyranny of the majority.
I'm also afraid, Jay, that in the big scheme of things, it is worse to construct a theological justification, or at least an apologia, for treating GLBT Americans as second class legal citizens than it is to interrupt a church service by showing up in pink underwear (which apparently occurred once in the past month). You know I don't condone disruptive activity. However, the breath exhausted on condemning this by the Religious Right would have been better expended doing almost anything else, perhaps even having the constructive dialogues many Christians apparently need to have on GLBT issues.
On the legal front, there is a completely legitimate call for an inquiry into whether churches that did expend resources, as they are entitled to do, on passing Proposition 8 accurately reported those expenditures under state law. The group Californians Against Hate has filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission which I believe is thoroughly appropriate, as does the New York Times.
Just like there needed to be a national effort against partisan politicking from the pulpit, perhaps there needs to be a parallel campaign demanding accountability and transparency on initiative funding. Treating all who get involved in these initiatives with the same scrutiny would not interfere with any legitimate "free exercise of religion" claim. You can't be against such equal treatement, can you?
Transparency Needed In Proposition 8 Battle
Sunday December 7, 2008
Categories: Election '08, Gay Marriage
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Subscribe
About Lynn v. Sekulow
Lynn v. Sekulow is an ongoing debate blog--a blogalogue--about how big (or little) a role faith and religion should play in American politics and government, featuring the two leading voices of the church/state battle: American Center for Law & Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow and Americans United for Separation of Church and State Executive Director Rev. Barry W. Lynn.
Please note that in discussing political issues, candidates’ positions and political party statements, the Rev. Barry Lynn and Jay Sekulow are offering analysis in their individual capacities as lawyers and commentators. They are not speaking on behalf of Americans United for Separation for Church and State or for the American Center for Law & Justice. Those organizations do not endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Nothing contained in this dialogue should be construed as the positions of the respective organizations.
Archives
About the Authors
Rev. Barry W. LynnExecutive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit educational organization that defends religious liberty by opposing government interference in religion
» Posts by Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Jay SekulowChief Counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization focused on protecting religious freedom, American families, and human life.
» Posts by Jay Sekulow
Recent Posts
Tag Cloud
abortion, Abortion, ACLU, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Chief Justice Roberts, Congress, Constitution, election, Establishment Clause, Fairness Doctrine, First Amendment, free speech, graduation, health care, IRS, John McCain, Mexico City Policy, National Day of Prayer, news, News, politics, Politics, President Obama, pro-life, Rick Warren, Senate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, Ten Commandments
Blogroll
Recent Comments
- DSJulian commented on Abortion Funding ...to be continued - Up Next: A God-free Capitol Visitor Center?: N. Lindzee
- N. Lindzee Lindholm commented on A New Generation of Leadership: It is true
- N. Lindzee Lindholm commented on Think the "Culture Wars" Are Over? I Have a Bridge in Brooklyn For Sale: I am thank
- N. Lindzee Lindholm commented on Fear Not: One World Government Not Coming: Since Pres
- N. Lindzee Lindholm commented on U.S. Sovereignty at Risk With Obama?: What's jus
- N. Lindzee Lindholm commented on Abortion Funding ...to be continued - Up Next: A God-free Capitol Visitor Center?: In regards
- Vince commented on Abortion Funding ...to be continued - Up Next: A God-free Capitol Visitor Center?: There is o
- Gwyddion9 commented on Abortion Funding ...to be continued - Up Next: A God-free Capitol Visitor Center?: Elizabeth,
- Elizabeth commented on Abortion Funding ...to be continued - Up Next: A God-free Capitol Visitor Center?: The "under
- Rich commented on There Is Still Time to Save Health Care Reform From the Catholic Bishops : Your name
==I don't understand why anyone is responding to something that defines itself as "not credible" to begin with...==
Cuz people like you prefer to lookit the name, rather than the substance of what is written.
== If the Mormon church or any other entity violated those laws, then they must be fined accordingly.==
So-called "separation of Church and State" notwithstanding.
So, essentially what you are saying is that Churches have some sort of "protection" from the general obligation to obey the laws?
Churches may preach to their congregations on matters of faith and morals. They may not tell their congregants how to vote. Nor may they use tax-exempt funds, given to support the church and its pastors, to support a specific political initiative or to defeat that initiative. The funds they dedicate to these purposes must be reported for tax purposes.
It may appear that the inquiry into the Mormon church's expenditures is "sour grapes" on the part of homosexuals and those who support them, but you have the same right to inquire into the expenditures of a church that appears to be misspending its donations for any reason. Why don't you do that?
Yes, we are "astonished" that one poster can bear so much false witness.
The right that was taken away was the right to be treated equally under the law.
Equally, under the U.S. Constitution, there is no "right" for heterosexuals to marry either, but somehow they manage to do it all the time.
I agree with the aseveration made by Lost Left Coaster:
== if you are going to address constitutional issues regarding that ruling, please base your objections on what the California State Constitution says.==
The California State Constitution says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".
Now, probably Lost Left Coaster is going to say that I misinterpreted his post, and that what he meant was what the California State Constitution said.
This kind of misinterpretation, the fact that the law forbidding same sex marriage was not explicit in the constitution, was what happened. The principle of Lex stricta, lex scripta, lex previae, requires the specificity of the law, although of course it was a severe misinterpretation to allow homosexual marriage based on these premises, that now has been resolved thanks to the voters in California.
Gay marriage is not a "fundamental right". Marriage is a fundamental right as defined as a union between a man and a woman, not among homosexuals. Therefore, your whole argument is skewed because it is based on an incorrect definition of marriage.
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.