Comment (22)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiSame sex marriage and its threat to religious liberty
Tactics used by gay marriage campaigners confirm believers’ worst fears.
As wildfires blazed in California last week, anger at the outcome of the state’s referendum on marriage blazed across the country. After a hard-fought campaign over Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a clear majority of California voters endorsed it, and the gay marriage lobby was enraged.
Now, as same sex marriage campaigners take the issue back to the courts, it is unclear what the outcome of this battle will be. Will their demands trump the democratic process? It has happened before.
What is clearer than ever is that same sex marriage threatens religious liberty. Disagreement over the extent of that threat played a key role in the debate over Proposition 8. As an independent consultant to the campaign, I must say that the post-election behaviour of the opponents of Prop 8 does not reassure religious believers.
The editor of a new book, Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, summarizes the general issue this way: “All six contributors (to the book)—religious and secular, left, center and right—agree that same sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty.” The demand for same sex marriage brings in its wake a demand for identical treatment of same sex couples and opposite sex couples. Churches that resist this demand can have their tax exempt status challenged, can be investigated by “human rights commissions,” and can have parts of their operation shut down completely.
The Yes on Prop 8 campaign applied this argument in print and electronic ads. “Churches could lose their tax exempt status,” we said. “People could be sued for their personal beliefs.” The opponents of Prop 8 replied by calling us liars. Their argument was, “No church will lose its tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex weddings.”
Note the sleight of hand: we made a general statement that churches could lose their tax exempt status, as well as have other legal problems. The opponents of Prop 8 brought up the one issue -- refusing to perform weddings -- which they knew the court had specifically exempted from legal challenge. On this basis, they accused us of misleading the public.
I personally was asked many times whether pastors would be forced to bless same sex unions. I told people the pastors were probably safe for now, but that the trend was not encouraging. The most likely outcome, I consistently said, was that the zone of religious freedom would become steadily more constricted. We cited many cases to support this prediction.
Catholic Charities in Boston shut down its adoption agency, rather than comply with the anti-discrimination requirement for the placement of children. A Knights of Columbus chapter in Canada was sued when it refused to rent out its hall for a same sex wedding reception. A Christian marriage counselor lost her job when she referred a lesbian couple to another therapist, rather than counsel them herself. A Christian photographer was fined by a Human Rights Commission in New Mexico because she refused to take pictures at the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.
The No on 8 forces claimed that the cases we brought up had nothing to do with marriage. Gays had used anti-discrimination law in these cases, not marriage law, to sue and otherwise harass churches and religious people. (In fact, marriage was an issue in some of the cases.) In effect the gay lobby argued: “We already have all the legal authority we need to do all sorts of Dreadful Things that You Don’t Like, so vote no on 8.”
Oddly enough, people of faith were not reassured by this message.
But refusal to take the religious liberty argument seriously was not the only way the No on 8 forces showed their hostility to religion. On the Sunday before the election, our opponents ran a truly despicable hate-filled ad against the Mormon church. The ad ran the day before the election, when it was almost impossible to respond to it.
Proposition 8 won the election. Over six million people voted for it for a whole variety of reasons. It is safe to say that the religious liberty argument played a significant role. People waved signs that said, “Proposition 8 = Religious Liberty” and “Proposition 8 = Freedom of Speech.” Even though no one could predict the exact form the legal harassment might take, many voters decided the risk to their own churches was unacceptable.
In the aftermath of the election, the No on Prop 8 forces have taken to the streets, attempting to de-legitimize the election. Their behavior toward religious people amply confirms our worst fears.
The gay lobby targeted the Mormon church. Thousands of protesters surrounded Mormon temples in Los Angeles and in Salt Lake City in an obvious attempt at intimidation. Protestors carry signs saying, “Mormon Scum,” a sentiment that would be widely condemned as bigoted if directed at anyone else. Envelopes with suspicious white powder arrived at the Mormon church in Utah and the Knights of Columbus headquarters in Connecticut.
People have called for the LDS church to lose its tax exempt status. An enterprising reporter found that the LDS spent a grand total of less than $3,000 in an in-kind contribution. The other “Mormon millions” were small contributions by thousands of individual members of the church. Gay activists are scouring the election law, looking for minor violations the church or its members might have made.
This attempt to enlist the government for intimidation actually illustrates the point that concerned us throughout the campaign. If you cross the gay lobby, they will use the legal system to go after you. By passing Prop 8, the voters declined to give the gay lobby any additional legal tools.
The authors of Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty were not exaggerating. The drive for same sex marriage really does clash with religious liberty. The nation-wide post-election outburst gives Yes on 8 voters all the evidence they need that they did the right thing.
Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute. http://www.ruthinstitute.org/
Dear Dr. Morse,
Your article hits the nail squarely on the head. I will send it to all of my family and friends. There is no doubt that everything you say here is true - 100%! The only question is: what can we do now? I believe the court (in CA) will uphold our vote, but I’m sure your crusade to educate the good people of this country could use wide-spread support. How can we help?
Thank you for your wise, tireless, and timely efforts!
Sincerely,
Tom Ballantyne (appreciative Latter-Day Saint)
Pa said:
“Could it happen that someone risks investigation by a county human rights commission for failing to service a same-sex marriage in some way (catering, photographing, lawn-servicing and the like)? Yes, it COULD. ...However, the chances are REALLY small. And, besides, think of the circumstances that would be likely to give rise to a lawsuit or Human Rights complaint (annoying to be a litigant, even if you are gay/lesbian): it would have to be an instance in which the marital couple was left high and dry very late in the game with respect to something that was very important to their wedding.”
What about at least two cases in Canada: the BC chapter of the Knights of Columbus successfully sued by a pair of lesbians just for its refusal to rent its premises for their “marriage”, and a printer who refused to print homosexual publications? There was no “high and dry” factor in either case.
There have been so many good comments, especially recent ones, that I have just given thanks to God in the privacy of my small apartment.
Michael Cook and Carolyn Moynihan: Bless you for editing and managing MercatorNet.
PART 3 OF MY COMMENT; SORRY
. There are, of courses, cases that are closer to the line of what constitutes permissible and impermissible discrimination. While I don’t claim to know exactly where that line is—and assume from my knowledge of law generally that the line varies from state to state and from locality to locality, depending in part on exactly what the relevant anti-discrimination law says—I do believe that anyone who genuinely believes that his/her faith does not allow him or her to do something with respect to same-sex marriage should very easily be able to get someone else within his or her business/area of work to do that something for him or her.
Could it happen that someone risks investigation by a county human rights commission for failing to service a same-sex marriage in some way (catering, photographing, lawn-servicing and the like)? Yes, it COULD. [Just as there is no way to immunize yourself from being sued—anyone with the will and the filing fee can sue you (or me) for anything. All I or any of you can do is immunize yourself from being sued successfully. So, don’t ever let someone scare you into believing something bad is going to happen to your liberties by reciting a story that somebody else once got sued for doing what you think you and others should be free to do]. However, the chances are REALLY small. And, besides, think of the circumstances that would be likely to give rise to a lawsuit or Human Rights complaint (annoying to be a litigant, even if you are gay/lesbian): it would have to be an instance in which the marital couple was left high and dry very late in the game with respect to something that was very important to their wedding. Personally, I doubt that my Catholic Church would label me a sinner if I was a commercial photographer who took wedding pictures of a same-sex couple’s marriage. Moreover, I would not have a lot of sympathy for someone who had been hired to take pictures at such a wedding and then refused to do so at the last minute, leaving the couple with no pictures of their wedding.
So, by all means, oppose same-sex marriage because you think it wrong, immoral, against the Will of God. Just don’t let people scare you into believing that such marriages pose a threat to your practice of your faith or to your religious organization itself. In the words of a famed Alaska governor: ‘Ain’t gonna happen!’
THIS IS PART TWO OF MY COMMENTS: MY APOLOGIES
You particularly don’t have to worry about your religion losing its tax-exampt status. Unless, that is, the leaders of your religion consciously decide that it would be worth giving up that status in order to achieve or prevent a particular change in the public law, which achievement or prevention they could not achieve through other means that would not cause the loss of tax-exempt status. Unless, that is, the leaders of your religion consciously decide that it would be worth giving up that status in order to achieve or prevent a particular change in the public law, which achievement or prevention they could not achieve through other means that would not cause the loss of tax-exempt status. Every charitable organization in the U.S. which is exempt from paying taxes on its income must comply with laws that limit the extent to which that organization can act to influence legislation. The ACLU will lose its tax-exempt status if it lobbies for or against legislation; so will the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; so will any religious organization. That does not mean the religious leaders cannot say they think something is right or wrong. [Beyond these statements, the precise limits can get a little complicated—which is why every tax-exempt organization, including the religious ones, get advice from lawyers about what exactly crosses the “lobbying” line] When you hear the angry proponents of same-sex marriage threaten to strip the Mormon Church of its tax-exempt status, remember that you are hearing just bluster, like that you hear from any group/person who is angry about losing a competition about the kind of society in which they will live.
With respect to some of the other examples mentioned in the article: almost all of those have to do with enforcing state/local laws which bar certain kinds of discrimination against people based on their “sexual preference.” It is pretty clear that I as a teacher am not allowed by state law to refuse to teach a student who is gay or lesbian. It’s clear my doctor can’t refuse to treat a patient because s/he is lesbian/gay, at least to the same extent that he can’t refuse to treat someone because s/he is Black. It is also pretty clear, I believe, that a priest, minister, rabbi or imam can refuse to marry a same-sex couple.
I’m a law professor who has not been active at all in the debates or protests about same-sex marriage. I know something about constitutional/legal considerations related to such marriage because issues about the legality of states’ refusal to permit same-sex marriages arose when my students and I were studying marriage rules as part of a typical Family Law course which I taught in the 1990s, before any state did recognize such marriage.
This article was forwarded to me by a friend. I wanted to comment simply to reassure those of you who are worried that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will infringe on your ability to follow your faith or on your religion’s ability to articulate its views about the immorality of homosexual behavior or of same-sex marriage. This article misleads you in suggesting otherwise. I will explain a little more fully why I say that in the paragraphs after this next one.
You and your religion (whichever one it is) are completely free in this country both to believe that same-sex relationships, up to and including same-sex marriage, are immoral and against the Word of God. Both you and your religion are completely free to articulate that belief publicly. Like me, any of you is completely free to make every effort to influence what the law—statutes, regulations, court decisions—says about same-sex marriage [within limits, of course: no bribing public officials, no threatening them with harm, and you have to comply with general lobbying laws and campaign finance laws].
To pick up on that last statement, and return to my broader theme that neither you nor your religion have anything to fear from same-sex marriage (other than that there may be more people around doing what you regard as immoral/sinful), let me point out that you particularly don’t have to worry about your religion losing its tax-exampt status. Unless, that is, the leaders of your religion consciously decide that it would be worth giving up that status in order to achieve or prevent a particular change in the public law, which achievement or prevention they could not achieve through other means that would not cause the loss of tax-exempt status. [THE REST OF THIS IS FORTHCOMING IN NEXT POST, DUE TO CHARACTER LIMITS]
The gay agenda is similar to the feminist agenda. Both want gender neutered. Except for asexual animals (and that does not includes mammals - which is where humans fit into, in the Darwinian order), sexual reproduction REQUIRES male and female humans. Women cannot make sperm, and men cannot make eggs.
As long as we are human, gender cannot be neutered. Our physical make-up is also designed to be hunter (male) or protector (female). Yes that is so politically incorrect, but it’s the truth of the Darwinian model. The earliest creatures used to be asexual, but evolution saw to it that being sexual was the better option. Do you realize you are asking the rest (and majority) of the world to return to the “old” ways of being asexual?!
I say to the minority of people who may be born homosexual, deal with it! People are born blind or born deaf too. You were unfortunately born with a disability and international laws already protect your rights regardless of your (sexual orientation) disability.
Marriage is the union of man and woman with one of it’s intentions being that of procreating the next generations. As a homosexual you naturally cannot do that. So please stop trying to change non-disabled persons’ “marriage” into your own. Or the next thing will be that humans with bestiality tendencies will want their “unions” recognized as a valid marriage too!
Regarding the money spent to promote Proposition 8, it was well spent to protect children’s rights to grow up with both biological parents. As Dr. Morse has said before, if gender is important to gay and lesbian people, how can they say gender is not important to children, who need both a mother and a father? The state’s expenses for prisons and social services are in the billions as a result of fatherless children. Strengthening marriage is cost-effective, and without Proposition 8, it would be illegal to strengthen marriage for the benefit of children!
Regarding equality, marriage is not about equality, it is about uniting the two different and complementary halves of humanity in a stable and fruitful embrace for the benefit of children and the benefit of the state.
Thank you Dr. J for being so vigilant.
The true colors are starting to come out they cannot.
Remember the devil is alloted so much time and he is accomplishing much in his time on earth, think about this, first assault, take God out of schools, second assault as we took God out of schools we began to raise children with no morals and they became parents, now the third assault, attack the family,the family has been weaken, the devil has a long rang plan that people didn’t see, but when you look over time you see what’s happening and his time is running out.
Fr. Corapi said if you don’t believe the devil exists he’s doing he’s job.
About a year ago I started what Jesus said, pray for those who persecute you, bless those who curse you and I have found a great change in my life and in others
Have Faith the battle has been won, remain children of light the darkness is growing, we need to shine brighter, Jesus told us to persevere to the end.
God Bless
Rob
If you start thinking about the negative impact of just one group, in this case the so called LGBT, you’re forgetting that a different result would have had a negative impact to the other group, heterosexual marriages. Because of this conflict, California decided to use a democratic tool, the referendum. And the result means that in spite of the pressure the no on 8 campaign did, most people want to protect marriage, and it was reassured that marriage is only a union between a woman and a man, and that LGBT is a minority, whose rights can’t be left behind but also can’t be the same as the rights of heterosexual marriages, because they are not the same thing.
Thank God for Proposition 8!
SO much time and effort . . .SO many resources tied up in SO many things that, in the grand scheme of things, are relatively unimportant. Sure: equal rights in civil matters and prosecution of those who break the law . .but what about homelessness, poverty, inadequate health care? The ‘real cost’ of all this controversy within and outside of the church are the resouces that are not available for other things.
Charles+
Before going to Mass, I want to thank you, Jennifer Roback Morse, for another splendid article. It will help me hugely with old and dear American friends of mine, not religious, who cannot see their way out of tunnels. I intend to email it to one of them after Mass.
The stress these friends caused me last year, when I was in my native land for the first time in 16 years, is indescribable. One, female, attacked me on the subject of gay marriage soon after I’d spent close to 24 hours travelling to NY from Australia at the age of 68. The situation felt surreal. The thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to hit me all at once, and kept hitting me in NY/NJ, on and off, until prayer helped my immune system to cope. Every ounce of prudence I possessed was required in the situation. Only now, over a year later, am I beginning fully to say what I think. You have spoken for me.
Thank you.
I just wonder what this anti-discrimatory thing is all about!!! Beneath this, the real discrimination is towards fellow human beings (male and female) and who a person is in totally (wholesomeness). For them the sense of identity as a person is lost that one (they) have to resort to words to justify their acts and/or their agendas. The law is meant to protect what is upright and not to be manipulated.
‘You can’t step out of the churches, throw propaganda and lies about people around and then run back in and cry “religious liberty”’
I can say the same thing about homosexual activists and “free speech”.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >