Jun 19 2008
Will gay rights trample religious freedom?
[LA Times]
Yesterday, gay and lesbian couples were lining up at county clerk’s offices across the state to exercise their new right to marry, bestowed on them last month by the California Supreme Court.
In its controversial decision, the court insisted that these same-sex marriages would not “diminish any other person’s constitutional rights” or “impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person.” Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices.
However there is substantial reason to believe that these assurances about the safety of religious liberty are either wrong or reflect a cramped view of religion. The case for same-sex marriage, reduced to its essentials, is an attractive one. It is that the government in a liberal democracy ought not to impose any one moral vision on its citizens; moral decisions ought to be, as much as possible, a matter of private choice and not law.
But it should not follow that having allowed same-sex couples to come out of the closet, as it were, that religious people should in turn be confined to the sanctuary.
In the same-sex marriage decision, the state Supreme Court suggests that all will be well and good as long as the “official” activities of the clergy aren’t affected. But that excludes religion entirely from a broad range of social welfare and other activities, despite the fact that the California Constitution declares: “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed.”
Evidence from previous and pending cases indicates that the court tends to take an extremely narrow view of people’s “free exercise and enjoyment of religion” when they clash with another group’s need for equal protection. This would seem particularly true following the In re Marriage Cases ruling, in which the majority equated the ban on same-sex marriage to the now discredited (and unconstitutional) ban on interracial marriages.
Religious liberty claims rarely, if ever, have prevailed in the face of complaints about racial discrimination. Conflicts about the rights of gays and those of religious believers demonstrate that these are not hypothetical fears. Consider the following:
* A San Diego County fertility doctor was sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination for one partner of a lesbian couple for religious reasons. The doctor referred the patient to a colleague, promised there would be no extra cost and offered to care for her during her subsequent pregnancy. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and justices seemed hostile to the doctor’s defense during oral arguments last month.
* Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient.
* A Lutheran school in Riverside County was sued in 2005 under California’s Unruh Act (which forbids discrimination by businesses) for expelling two students who allegedly were having a lesbian relationship, in contravention of the religious views of the school. The case was thrown out in Superior Court in January, but the students have appealed.
* Public school officials in Poway, Calif., so far have successfully barred students from wearing T-shirts that register their opposition to homosexuality on campus. One lawsuit made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being dismissed (as moot, because the students had graduated), but another federal lawsuit is pending.
Read more here.
Then check out what is happening in Canada.
A Canadian human rights tribunal ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.
In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for “damages for pain and suffering” as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.
According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of the Rev. Alphonse de Valk, who also cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation’s debate over same-sex “marriage” and now faces HRC charges.
Read more here.
[From me]
So…Will we be allowed to continue teaching what the Bible says when it comes to lifestyle choices? What Christian beliefs will be thrown out next by our courts? Canada today, California tomorrow, your neighborhood and community next week?
What do you think?
23 responses so far
And they say it doesn’t matter whom we choose as president? Time to get the head out of the sand.
Bill(cycleguy)’s last blog post..This Will Shock You!
Or is that time to get the head out of somewhere else?
Bill(cycleguy)’s last blog post..This Will Shock You!
I never like to say that we could be the “last days”, but the days are getting worse.
As believers in Jesus Christ, we can’t wait for others to stand up and speak out! Now is the time to speak. We can do it by our vote, we can do it by our writing, speaking, preaching, etc. We can contact our elected officials, letting them know we’ve had enough!
This year, over an issue that hit home for my wife and I, I contacted the elected officials in my area. I was surprised at their indifference, for the most part, in my opinion. However, I’ll have the last laugh–election time will come around! They will need my vote. And, due to the way they acted when I needed them, I doubt they will see my support when they need me!
M. Steve Heartsill’s last blog post..What’s Wrong with This Picture?
Kevin – I think the church in America has been part of the problem in the way we have addressed homosexuality and the definition to marriage. The following quotes come from “God, Marriage and Family” by Kosternberger and Jones and most clearly defines for me what is happening.
“The West’s Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation have largely been supplanted by a libertarian ideology that elevates human freedom and self-determination as the supreme principles for human relationships.”
I would venture to say that most of the people in our pews think about what the government will or can do for them. Marriages in America are not formally recognized until the government does. Think back to the last marriage you performed, how did you end the ceremony? “By the power invested in me by God and the state of ??, I now pronounce you husband and wife”. Now I realize many of us leave off the section about the state, but none the less, we think of marriage a contract, established by the government and less of a covenant between God, the man and the woman.
This gets to the heart of this blog, what California has done should not be unexpected. We have given the government the authority to define marriage and to dictate what it will look like. The church has been quite for far too long and now we are can’t be heard over the cries of “I want the government to define my life style as acceptable because the government has the ultimate authority”.
I don’t want ya’ll to think I’m defeated. God is Good, All the Time…and All the Time God is Good.
Well, I am of the opinion that the government should get out of all marriages. Why do I have to pay $30 to get a license to marry? Because the state wants $$$. This also means that the state has the right to tell us who can and can’t marry.
Marriages should be left up to the church. Marriage is a (or was a) religious ceremony before God. Now it is a state-sanctioned, state-regulated event.
Regarding your post in its entirety, if anyone doesn’t believe that there is a spiritual war occurring, reread the section about Canada. Personally, I think a lot of the arguments against gay marriage are simply stupid, but I cannot deny the effects that such marriages have on the spiritual health of the nation.
I wish more Christians would approach this problem with a more loving heart. I’m personally tired of hearing televangelists blame homosexuals for everything from AIDS to 9/11. Perhaps if the church would approach this behavior with love, more people could be won for Christ.
Michael’s last blog post..Ecclesiastes Chapters 3 - 5 : Turn, Turn, Turn
The United States is not Canada. I repeat the United States is not Canada. Our laws are different. Let’s avoid the alarmism. Can anyone point to one US Supreme Court decision that would indicate that what has happened in Canada will happen here? We have a rather robust Free Exercise Clause.
Frankly, I’m not sure how two lesbians (who have cohabited for years) getting a marriage certificate from the county clerk affects your rights in any way…
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Fred Shuttlesworth To Be Honored At CBF
BDW,
I’m sure Lot didn’t think his town would deter as far as it did. Did you read what has happened already in California? Did you read it?
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..He said what?
The Bible is pretty clear that people and nations that keep His commandments will be blessed.
I think it is important that we try to keep His commandments for the good of the country.
I don’t want to sound like Jerry Fallwell or anythings, but it is important for the nation to serve God instead of themselves.
$.02
Michael’s last blog post..Ecclesiastes Chapters 3 - 5 : Turn, Turn, Turn
I read the article.
Anyone can sue. So what?
I don’t see in any of these cases where the right to freely exercise or practice one’s religion has been trampled on. There have been many lawsuits concerning whether for instance pharmacists have to fill birth control prescriptions or in this case where a doctor refused to inseminate a lesbian. And what does that have to do with gay marriage? The lesbian would still want a child whether she was married or not.
The case of Catholic Charities and the adoption services, what does that have to do with gay marriage? Gay couples would exist whether same-sex marriage was legal or illegal. And gay couples would still want to adopt children regardless of the legality of gay marriage.
In the Lutheran case, I say so what? The case was thrown out. Anyone can sue. You’ve covered enough news stories about ridiculous lawsuits to know that.
Finally, public schools have the right to create a certain dress code. Cases like this will play out through the legal system - that’s the purpose of the system after all. But again, what’s this got to do with gay marriage? Homosexuality existed hundreds and hundreds of years before any gay couple was presented with a marriage certificate. Again, regardless of the legality of same-sex marriage, homosexuals will continue to be part of our society.
Mark Stern makes all of these pointless points by pointing out that religious liberty claims “rarely, if ever, prevailed in the face of complaints about racial discrimination.” Stern seems to lament that this has happened. Do you too feel that free exercise rights should trump racial discrimination? This is a straw man, by the way. Most of his examples are straw men because they have nothing to do with gay marriage.
The real issue here is not your opposition to gay marriage but the constitutional protection of sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas. Would you like to see those who engage in homosexual sex to be prosecuted thus criminalizing sodomy? What type of rights and presence should gays and lesbians have in our society?
What about the religious beliefs of gays and lesbians? Your beliefs shouldn’t trump theirs. We live in a pluralistic society. Pluralism. It’s real and it’s not going anywhere.
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Fred Shuttlesworth To Be Honored At CBF
BDW,
Do you really put that much faith in a secular government to protect Christians rights? I don’t.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..He said what?
BDW,
Have you not kept track of Supreme Court decisions? What concerns me is that Justice Stevens quoted a case from the EU in making a decision for the US. http://www.slate.com/id/2098559/
This has set a dangerous precedence in our courts. How long will it be before the courts turn to Canada for legal advice?
Activist judges are already rewriting the Constitution to fit their agenda. The check and balance on them through impeachment is a joke.
Quinn Hooks’s last blog post..This could have a chilling effect on blogging
Quinn,
Unless you have a law school background and have a graduate degree in religion & law, political science or a related field, I’m willing to bet you haven’t kept up with and studied US Supreme Court decisions as extensively and intensively as I have.
Breyer citing a foreign law is no more binding than Scalia citing ad nauseum revisionist history from the founding period. It ain’t binding. For a couple hundred years, other countries have cited Supreme Court decisions. What’s the harm in citing those other countries on occasion? Heck, in the founding era, our Founding Fathers relied heavily on foreign law to make interpretive decisions. That’s not what Breyer or Kennedy has done in any of these cases.
It’s not binding - just words in a decision. For example, Breyer pens a decision on school vouchers and their ramifications. Well, our history does not know what those ramifications will be. So, Breyer mentions foreign examples such as in France or Britain. And the harm is? Those examples aren’t binding. Supreme Court Justices citing foreign law has only happened in a few cases. The question of citing foreign law isn’t so much about foriegn law but is more about judicial philosophy, more specifically Scalia’s untenable textualism and Breyer’s Living Constitution hermeneutic.
And frankly, I’m not sure what this has to do with gay marriage.
As to your reference of “activist judges” - surely you understand that not all “activist judges” are liberals. In today’s context, an activist judge is simply someone whose decision you disagree with. The voting bloc of Roberts, Alito,Scalia and Thomas could easily be dubbed an “activist bloc.” They support the expansion of executive powers when a Republican is in the White House. But don’t kid yourself, they would limit the powers of the executive branch if a liberal held that office. Activists on the right tout “state’s rights” until the state wants to do something that is an anathema to right-wing conservatives. Ultimately, all judges, liberal or conservative, can be accused of judicial activism or legislating from the bench whenever their decision to strike down a law or uphold a law is at odds with those in the majority or a sizable minority.
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Fred Shuttlesworth To Be Honored At CBF
Kevin,
John Leland and the Baptists helped get the Bill of Rights ratified.
The First Amendment has stood the test of time for over 200 years.
I’m not interested in protecting just the rights of Christians. I’m interested in protecting the rights of all people made in the image of God whether they choose to believe or not.
Our Judiciary has not always got thing right. But, there is no need for anyone to strike an alarmist chord about the influence of Canada on our Constitution. That’s silly.
What I’ve always found interesting is folks like Al Mohler constantly point to how the number of church-goers has decreased rapidly in Europe due to secularization. But what folks like Mohler don’t point out is in most European countries the religious schools and churches receive a considerable amount of financial aid from the government. Perhaps, the government getting into the affairs of the church in these European countries has played a significant role in the decline of religion. Meanwhile, many conservatives (maybe not you, but certainly the organizations you cite and the websites you read) are advocates of “faith-based initiatives” “vouchers” and other forms of governmental aid to religion. It seems that we could all learn from a little history lesson even if that history lesson is a foreign history lesson!
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Fred Shuttlesworth To Be Honored At CBF
Aaron,
I’ve seen you comment on many different blogs before, but have never looked at your blog or even your profile until just now. I was wondering what it was about your posts that made you sound so angry.
Then, I found out that you’re a 25 year old kid who has thrown your lot in with Mainstream Baptists.
That helps explain it.
I remember how impulsive and quick to speak I was at 25 or even 35. Even at nearly 44, I don’t have it under control. I also remember how “right” I was about everything at 25. I haven’t quite got that one fixed yet, either.
I have nothing against 25 year olds, nor against you; please don’t get me wrong. But here’s some unsolicited advice; obviously you can take it or leave it: Just try to not sound so angry. (or so “right”)
Rick Boyne’s last blog post..Cool Invitation
Wow Rick,
I haven’t been called “angry” in a long long long…never.
What exactly about my posts makes you think that I’m “angry” ?
Surprisingly, through the blogosphere I’ve developed more than a few friendships with those whose theology is much much much more conservative than mine.
I’m not sure any of those guys would call me angry. Maybe sarcastic at times but definitely not angry. Actually, I know they wouldn’t.
Now if you equate being angry with being right, well I guess we all strive to be “angry,” huh?
And apparently you think Mainstream Baptists are an “angry” bunch?
Honestly, that may say more about you and your thinking than about me. For what it’s worth, I’ve never described myself as a mainstream Baptist.
Perhaps you had some issues growing when it comes to thinking before speaking. I’m pretty sure that I don’t have those same issues. I write. I publish. I even speak on occasion. I’m a doctoral student - that’s what I do. I guess you’re a preacher? If so, I guess that helps me understand your unsolicited advice.
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Fred Shuttlesworth To Be Honored At CBF
Now if you have something substantive to add to this discussion on gay marriage, the First Amendment, free exercise rights of Christians, use of foreign law in Supreme Court decisions, or the reliance of Christians on secular authority - well please chime in.
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Fred Shuttlesworth To Be Honored At CBF
Rick,
BDW is a good guy who has a passionate faith. I respect him & consider him a friend. I don’t think he is angry- just passionate.
My apologies all the way around. I was simply making an observation.
The “tone” of the written word can certainly belie the “intent”.
Rick Boyne’s last blog post..Cool Invitation
The portions of the 1st amendment that deal with religious liberty are there explicitly to protect churches from the government. In none of those California cases have the courts found in favor of the plantiffs as of yet, and it’s highly unlikely that they would survive strict scrutiny standards. As long as they’re not using public funding, private schools have the right to admit whomever they want, and I’d guess that there might be a ban on all types of “message” t-shirts at that public school. As for the Catholic charities cases, that’s because they were tied up with the federal government, and the government can’t treat one group of people differently from others under the constitution and the principles on which our country was founded. If those are the best examples that the author of this opinion piece could come up with, then he has a pretty weak case.
I think that the use of stories like these to scare Christians and other people of faith are just that - a fear tactic. Just as the government doesn’t tell a minister that he or she has to marry any heterosexual couple (if the minister has misgivings about their relationship, for example), it’s not going to force any institution to perform same-sex marriages. There’s no legal precedent for doing so, and the first amendment’s protection of free exercise holds pretty strongly in these cases, so long as federal money isn’t involved. Even in churches taking government money for faith-based initiative programs, those FBI’s are usually set up as a separate nonprofit institution to protect the church. The government has no interest in interfering in devotional matters. That’s the beauty of the principle of church-state separation.
Texas in Africa’s last blog post..dear professor - special thursday edition
BDW,
I have to agree that written language does fall short in communicating the emotion intended. That’s why we have emoticons, right?
Having a degree in history from the Citadel and seeing the patterns of other past civilizations, I do not place my faith in the government as some do.
BTW, off-topic, your profile picture didn’t pop up on your blog today. It remained blank. I just thought you would like to know.
Quinn Hooks’s last blog post..What has Barack Obama Accomplished?
BDW:
Regarding your comment concerning conservatives who promote “faith-based initiatives” “vouchers” and other forms of governmental aid to religion.”
I can assure you, as an advocate for abused children in the courtroom, that the children I represent do not see the shoes, backpacks, food, tutoring, etc etc etc, that I supply them with through faith based programs, as some form of governmental aid to religion.
Likewise, the impoversished single mother who would be able to send their chidlren to a better academic environment doesnt view a voucher as a form of governmental aid to religion, but a chance at a better life for her children.
I would also add that in my humble opinion, gay mariage, like many “liberal” agendas is a direct afront upon God and His Kingdom.
Gay marriage attacks the family and its original intent and purpose of procreating (think about that, we actually assist God in the creation process) and subsequently passing down his Law and Word to further generations. Similarly, abortion directly attacks the sanctity of life set forth by our Father, envirenmentalism attacks the majesty of God and sets earth worship before Him.
While we are to follow the rule of government (Rom 13: 1-3), we are also obligated to “obey God rather than human beings.” (Acts 5:29). There are many examples in the NT and OT of Godly men and women opposing the rule of government when that rule opposed the Word of God, Peter and John in Acts probably being most prominent.
“God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up” (which can be found on Google) is a must read for everyone. Since it isn’t copyrighted, it should be reprinted on all sites. The only folks who don’t like it are the you-know-who folks! Irving
I guess I am one of those you-know-who folks. Your article is written without love. I’m a fan of sarcasm, but now when it is used to mask. I would not want people I care about to read the hatred and lack of understanding. This is why people do not like the church or Christians.