There are many who believe Christians are just being paranoid regarding losing their religious freedoms because of the acceptance of gay unions. Many (such as myself) believe that since gay relationships are now being given the same preferential treatment as male and female marriages, then it only makes sense for many to begin believing that these “moral” unions are now being discriminated against!
Listed below are a few examples of what has transpired within this decade to many religious organizations and/or individuals where they were sued, forced or had ceased operations altogether to accommodate or avoid accommodating the newly defined “families.” Please take a look at the Catholic blog that I retrieved this information from: American Phoenix and the post titled: Fallout and Implications: Homosexual Marriage (Disclaimer: Although the information gathered from this page is useful, my views do not necessarily endorse all of Catholic theology.)
Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.
- Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense. What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can’t fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions — such as loss of tax benefits — being imposed on churches.
- Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline. Due to the ministry’s refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.
- The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young Men’s Christian association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont. Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.
- Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years. In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ”gravely immoral.”
Even here in San Diego, after the legalization of same-sex marriages, the San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith allowed clerks who had strong moral objections to same-sex marriages to remove themselves from processing the marriages.
That didn’t sit to well with San Francisco’s Mayor Newsome. He responded by saying:
“If you don’t want to provide a marriage certificate and you’ve got a job that does that, then you should think twice about why you got the job in the first place and maybe you should get a new job. Talk about a slippery slope, Mr. County Clerk down in San Diego.” –San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, in a Reuters interview.
The San Diego employees were later reassigned other duties as no employee was allowed to perform only heterosexual marriages. (See LA Times: Clerk reassigns workers who object to gay marriage)
Times are changing as a result of gay marriages. Paranoia? Not in the least bit as Christians are not free to continue life as is – in many areas of their lives. And the list will continue to grow as gay marriages are made more acceptable.
Attention Californians: Vote YES on Proposition 8 to keep marriages between one man and one woman! (More info click image on top of blog)
September 21, 2008 at 9:09 am
You are exactly right, Carlotta. When sexual orientation/behavior/perversion “laws” are written, they inevitably are used to trump freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association rights. Guess who gets discriminated against?
Your examples plainly show the answer to that question.
The “equality” and “tolerance” mantra is just a not-so-subtle guise that is designed, and determined, to silence Christians and God’s Word. Period.
In the secular humanistic and gay “christian” movement world, it appears that some are more “equal” than others and that “tolerance” is a one way street.
There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
God’s Word has told us what that is.
Jesus, himself, specifically refered to how it would be the closer we get to His return:
The Days of Noah Are Here
As In The Days of Lot
We need to share those links with every Christian. Many are either ignorant or unaware of the dire consequences involved in the same-sex marriage issue.
God bless you, Carlotta, for writing openly about this topic. We need to keep Proposition 8’s YES votes in our prayers and share the TRUTH with as many voters as possible! Thank you for doing your part in the TRUTH war!
In Christ’s service,
Christine
September 21, 2008 at 9:46 am
Yes, you are paranoid. Either that, or you are willing being deliberately intellectually dishonest to further your sad agenda.
Every single example above involves a religious organization being denied public funding because the organization actively discriminated against gays and lesbians. None of these organizations were forced to suddenly endorse homosexuality; they were simply told that because of their policies, they could not take money from the local government, which prohibits discrimination based of sexual orientation. This is, legally, the exact same thing as when the government refuses to give money to organizations that are racist. If the adoption agency refused to allow adoptions to black or Jewish couples, they would have lost their funding. This sort of thing — refusing to give public money to racist or Anti-Semitic organizations — has been going on for decades.
And not once has the government gone into a church that refused to do a black or Jewish wedding and shut that church down. Nor has the government ever removed tax-exempt status from racist or Anti-Semitic organizations.
For example, the Alliance Defense Fund, which is the legal organization that is devoted to making lame arguments against gay marriage and gay rights, is decidedly Anti-Semitic — they refuse to hire Jews, even ones that agree with them. (http://tinyurl.com/5coqpl) They’re a religious organization, they say, so they have every right to discriminate and keep their tax exempt status. Guess what? No one is going to take away their tax-exempt status.
Of course, your paranoia and/or intellectual dishonesty will make you say, “But it’s going to change!” Of course, anything could happen. But to make such a thing happen — for the government to start shutting down any organization it disagreed with — we would have to revoke the Constitution. If you think that we’re going to rewrite the Constitution to allow discrimination against religion, you’re, well, paranoid.
By the way, the folks in the clerk’s office who refused to perform same-sex marriages should have been fired. If you refuse to do your job, you should be fired. If you work for the clerk’s office and you have religious objections to divorce, to Jews, to inter-denominational weddings, you cannot refuse to do those weddings. If you do, you would be fired. You can become an ordained minister and be a bigot on your time. On the state’s time, you have to follow the law.
September 21, 2008 at 11:46 am
While it is unfortunate that these religious organizations were discriminated against for refusing to serve civil unions, I don’t think that’s proof that we should be more forceful in banning gay marriages/civil unions. Instead, I think this shows that we need to ensure that both sides are protected.
Why can a pastor be able to refuse to marry a straight couple just b/c they’re not in his congregation but be forced to marry a gay couple whether they’re church members or not just b/c they’re gay? Private organizations should be able to make their own decisions.
I don’t think that we, as Christians, should not always be forcing what we believe on others through legislation. God has given us the freedom to make our own decision to believe in Him, so we should give others the freedom to make that decision for themselves. But, if it causes harm to us in the meantime, we should also put into law practices by which, we will not be forced to do something we don’t believe in, just as we don’t force them to do something they don’t believe in.
September 21, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Need more examples of Christian discrimination because of “gay” laws?
Photo artist told to pay over $6,600 in attorneys’ fees for declining to photograph same-sex ceremony
Va. school district discriminates against outreach program to people involved in homosexual behavior
ADF attorneys file lawsuit against school district’s censorship of Illinois student’s T-shirt
School official crosses out message on student’s T-shirt worn in response to school’s allowance of event promoting homosexual behavior
Montana official stifles church’s marriage
Last but not least, why YES on Proposition 8 in CA is necessary:
ADF attorneys: Defining marriage as the California Constitution does cannot be unconstitutional
Opening brief in Proposition 22 Fund case against San Francisco filed today
Source and many more here:
Gay Laws Discriminate Against Christians
September 21, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Christine, thanks for sharing two of my most favorite links from your blog! And yes, Proposition 8 is in my prayers and I do hope the message from this post gets across to the many Christians who are really in the dark regarding the true ramifications of this proposition NOT passing! I hope they also take the time out to read those links as God’s word is giving us some very big clues on what’s to come and why!
ted, your words only confirmed what I’ve been saying all alone! A Christian is going to lose freedom that he otherwise would have been able to keep before his stand against homosexual issues. Churches loose all important tax exemption statuses, or monies needed to keep the particular organization flowing or existing at all! Individuals loose jobs, positions and etc.
Because the Christian views homosexuality as immoral, then they have to take a stand against it. The comparison to homosexuality and race has already been covered in my previous posts, so I won’t need to rehash that argument.
Kayla, I wouldn’t consider it “forcing one’s beliefs” on ours because there is no way to force someone to believe in Christ. However, to take a stand against something that is immoral is perfectly scriptural. We are not to stand humbly by and have immorality pushed on us!
In each of those examples I gave above, there were people and organizations being forced to accept an immoral way of life against their consciousness or face the consequences. Most faced the consequences rather than compromise their beliefs. So it’s not purposely “us against them,” but rather being placed in positions where we are forced to decide against what may be considered the norm.
Legislation in the case of marriage is very important because of the possible fallout as a result of same-sex marriages being approved.
I took a look at your website and it looked pretty good with great content until I got to your post on abortion. For some reason you equate legislature with forcing religion down folks throat so you’re for abortion for that reason.
You need to be consistent and also be against legislature against murderers, those who steal, rapists, those who commit hate crime and etc. Legislature exists to protect the best interest of individuals, groups and etc.
To allow gay marriages is to allow the legislating of immorality, something we Christians must take a stand against.
But again, a very nice website you have with just a few exceptions.
September 22, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Hi Carlotta–you misunderstood what Ted said. Your primary post was about so-called persecution. Churches can say what they want. The problem is that they are afraid to lose money. Shouldn’t their message be more important than raking in the bucks? If these organizations really believed in their own message, money shouldn’t matter. But money does matter to these places. And that is why churches fight to keep their tax-free status–it is greed, pure and simple. To say that it is persecution when these churches have this tax-free status taken away is to misunderstand what persecution really is.
If churches lose their precious money for saying what they believe, then those churches should either change their message or accept that they shouldn’t be getting special treatment from the government. I would think that a church would be more concerned about its message. But then again, money has always been the most important factor in Christianity since the beginning.
And Carlotta–gay marriage is already allowed. Prop. 8 will take that right away. That is the whole thrust of Prop. 8–taking a right away that has already been given. I hope you remember that when you vote yes on Prop. 8. I hope you also think about the history of this country and how various minorities have won their own rights through the courts and not through the ‘will of the people’ when you vote yes on Prop. 8.
September 22, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Carlotta:
You have every right to your opinion, but you have no right to the facts.
Religious organizations are free to preach whatever they want, but they do not have a right to free money from the government. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from taxes. No one has a right to be tax exempt. No one is less free if they have to pay taxes.
We don’t live in a theocracy; though it’s clear you rather we would. As I’ve mentioned before, it would behoove you to learn something about our political system before you start spouting assertions about how it works.
Kevin:
Carlotta will not think about our rights when she votes. She doesn’t care about our rights, our families, our dignity. And she certainly is not interested in learning the truth. If anything can be learned from these silly comment debates — that Carlotta asked for when she came to our blogs to challenge us — it’s that she ignores all evidence that contradicts her position, ignores all counter-arguments, and has no problems with being an obvious hypocrite. Anyone who willingly admits that they chose which parts of the Bible work for her and which can be left for the Jews has no place making moral judgments based solely on scripture.
September 22, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Kevin and Ted, you both are missing the point to my post. Where Christians and organizations enjoyed certain freedoms and privileges, those were taken away simply because they don’t accept the immorality of homosexuality. Persecution is when you are treated differently for your beliefs. That has happened – thus persecution.
We are not free to exercise what we believe is morally wrong. That’s it and nothing more. I can assure you that if it ever became illegal to preach against homosexuality in the pulpit, then our church would be glad to be the first to cross the line.
So right now it’s the buildings such as pavilions with the Methodist church, the YMCA, and the judges and the clerks, employees, and everyday people – in other words, everyone and everything outside the building of the church. All of these are examples of taking away liberties for not exercising what we believe. Ted, you would be quite pleased if the only place Christians can exercise their freedoms is within the church walls, which is your interpretation of church and state. But as you can see, if one maintains their beliefs consistently no matter where they go, it will extend beyond the church walls.
Separation of church and state did not mean for everyone else in the world to have freedoms to their beliefs and not Christians, otherwise the writers of our laws who were predominantly Christian would have worded things a bit differently.
Proposition 8 is not about taking away, but restoring what was rightfully ours to begin with. That’s the way I look at it as I know it’s quite different from the way you both look at it.
Ted, as far as these being silly debates, why are you still here? That was your last comment on this board as you have already violated my comment policy. You called me a hypocrite and I’m still trying to figure out why, but that’s okay because you will not be able to explain except through my contact form.
You may disagree with me all you want, but nasty snide remarks such as yours won’t be tolerated on this board.
September 22, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Hi Carlotta,
I posted a comment with several links in it yesterday. Perhaps it ended up in the “spam” filter?
Anyway, here is a good article by Robert Gagnon about The Threat of the Homosexual Agenda to Your Freedoms.
Note what he concludes:
…the greatest change is likely to come on the issue of homosexual advocacy and the oppressive hand of the federal government against those who resist the false conclusion that homosexual practice is a normal, natural, and acceptable form of behavior that society should promote. It is on this issue that there is a serious prospect of radical abridgement of your religious and civil freedoms, to the point of being fired or imprisoned. What could be more alarming? Every Christian has a civic responsibility to engage the political process with a view to preventing such tragic results.
September 22, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Carlotta,
Don’t you love seeing how giddy Kevin and Ted are about four rogue CA judges ruling in their favor on the same-sex marriage issue – yet – when the Supreme Court gave the Boy Scouts of America the right to reject openly homosexual men from becoming scout masters (through freedom of association rights), the gay activists continually and mercilessly harass that organization and work hard to ban the troops from meeting in certain public places?
When Ted talks about hypocrisy – he should look in the mirror.
September 22, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Christine, your comment was marked as spam and I am releasing it back to the comments. Thanks for the heads up on that!
Ted calling me a hypocrite among other things he’s said, has cost him participation on this blog. His comments have been pretty nasty and I just won’t tolerate him anymore.
Addendum: That was quite a “prophetic” piece by Robert Gagnon. Thanks for sharing that! I’ll be soaking up these links you’ve shared. They’re quite eye-opening!
September 22, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I went a little overboard with the links! That’s probably why! You can eliminate some of them before posting it if you want.
September 22, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Thanks for those links Christine! Very very good links that many folks (and myself too) will enjoy reading and researching. That list will be increasing yearly, no doubt!
Don’t worry about being “overboard” with them either. The more evidence the better!
I hope what I’ve typed tonight makes sense…writing and watching those Chargers! (Shame on me!)
September 22, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I actually have never understood why churches are tax exempt to start with. I don’t think they should be nor should they expect to be. And I’m a conservative Christian! And I don’t want to play Devil’s Advocate here, but you said this, Carlotta.
“Persecution is when you are treated differently for your beliefs.”
Couldn’t gays and lesbians argue that they have been persecuted for generations under that definition? I know I’ve been treated differently simply for being oriented one way, even though my beliefs line up with traditional doctrines. In that way, I’ve been persecuted.
Neither side of this issue has done much right. There has been too much pain and hurt thrown all around. That’s why I’m pretty apathetic when it comes to gay issues in politics. No one “gets it.”
September 22, 2008 at 11:22 pm
The tax-exemption thing I don’t quite get either. I’m sure those who are more knowledgeable can share some insight on that with us here. Do you think the early churches were non-exempt from Caesars taxation? But one thing I do know is that if the church can have certain freedoms as a non-profit, then it should be the same all the way across – with every non-profit!
Yes Jay, persecution can occur to anyone who suffers due to their particular beliefs. But the question is what are you experiencing persecution for and if you are a Christian, is your persecution due to following God or your own desires?
There are many scriptures that say a person is blessed if they are persecuted for Christ’s sake. So if one is experiencing persecution for any reason other that following after Christ, then that persecution is in vain.
September 23, 2008 at 6:01 am
“But the question is what are you experiencing persecution for and if you are a Christian, is your persecution due to following God or your own desires?”
Well, I’ve just been discriminated against because I struggle with a sin that most don’t struggle with, even though I don’t think it’s any different than the sexual sins my straight brothers and sisters in Christ deal with.
Or was that a general “you” in your quote?
September 23, 2008 at 7:15 am
I did direct that question to you Jay. But I truly need to clarify my position on persecution and discrimination.
Although blessed when we are persecuted for Christ’s sake, it still isn’t right for some types of persecution to even take place. For example, it is never right for someone to taunt, physically or verbally abuse anyone for any reason. Persecution in the form of abuse isn’t acceptable at all.
But if persecution exists in the form of just mere disagreement, and that disagreement is due to a transgression of any of God’s laws, (sin) then that persecution is justifiable and unavoidable.
We all discriminate in some form or fashion. I discriminate in whom I date as a single woman. The man must be at least a professing Christian to even start the dating conversation. So yes, all non-Christians I am discriminate of in my choice of possible mates.
So just discriminating isn’t wrong in itself because we all have to make such decisions. The question is are we sinning in the process of discriminating?
Back to you Jay. If you aren’t practicing the homosexual lifestyle, then what are you being persecuted for is what I’m trying to figure out. If you are celibate, but insist on being called “gay” then that’s probably the root of your persecution. You are identifying yourself with a group that lives contrary to the word of God.
Before I was married, I struggled with promiscuity and when I finally became celibate, winning the victory against unmarried sex, I ceased identifying myself with promiscuous women. In fact, I disdained even being a part of that group of women…and stopped having close friendships with those women because being around them drew me into that type of lifestyle again.
So help me figure out what you are being persecuted for.
September 23, 2008 at 8:20 am
One, I don’t call myself “gay” when not online simply because it’s not practical, so it’s not the root of any persecution that I face. There’s just often an attitude in the church that Christians who struggle with homosexuality, or Christians who aren’t seeking marriage and instead are seeking lifelong celibacy, are second-class Christians. There’s pressure to change one’s orientation, even though that’s more based off being “normal” than being holy, and I won’t stand for that.
However, I will not say that all gays are living contrary to the word of God, since like I said, many are like me and are celibate. You know, eunuchs for the Kingdom and all that.
I wish Christians would get over the “gay” term. It’s a trait that is not immoral in and of itself, but has to be acted upon (in mind or body) to be sinful.
September 23, 2008 at 9:28 am
Hi Carlotta,
You state: “Persecution is when you are treated differently for your beliefs.” Yes, I totally agree with you here. That is why I am so interested in the persecution that gays and lesbians feel on a daily basis. Your definition fits perfectly.
You also state that if one goes against God’s laws (whatever those are), then “Persecution is justifiable and unavoidable.” I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that it is o.k. to persecute someone if they go against God’s laws (whatever those are)? I hope you really don’t mean that. If you do mean that, could you give me an example of when persecuting a group is o.k.?
Also, you are using two different definitions of the word ‘discriminate.’ You say you discriminate when you date someone. That is, you choose between two people. That is not the same as discriminating against someone because of a physical characteristic. I hope you can see the difference. Here is the definition of discriminate from dictionary.com:
v. intr.
1. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.
And I can’t speak for Jay, but gays and lesbians are persecuted by the church for being who they are. It doesn’t matter if they are celibate or not. You have chosen not to be promiscuous, but again you confuse a choice you make with the fact that gay is not a choice. It isn’t something you can just decide not to be (’be’ being the key word here). I believe that is what Jay is trying to explain. And he is persecuted by the church for being who he is.
Hi Christine–I am not ‘giddy’ when judges rule in my favor. I am giddy when they do the right thing. There is a difference. However, I do like the fact that the State Supreme Court Justice was appointed by Republicans. That, I admit, makes me happy. Although you don’t like it, judges are part of our democracy. They issue their rulings not based on public opinion, but on facts. If laws were based on public opinion and the rule of the majority that could never be challenged, we would not be living in a democracy. You might as well be pushing to get rid of the judicial system.
About the Boy Scout example–yes, the Supreme Court gave them the right to discriminate. I didn’t like it, but I can live with it. I didn’t call for the overthrow of those judges or call them rogue. However, there are consequences, and the Boy Scouts are seeing the result of their desire to keep gay men out of Scouting. I can live with those consequences as well. By the way, in case you were wondering, I was a Boy Scout (and a Cub Scout).
September 23, 2008 at 10:18 am
Jay, I’m still not getting you at all. On my other post on “gay bashing”, I was willing to accept the fact that you are struggling but determined to live as God desires you to live. I’m okay with that.
But what is confusing is why bother identifying as gay? You’re gay only while you’re online?
And pressure to change one’s orientation – changing your orientation would be to please God so that pressure should be your own without anyone else having to pressure you.
This is all confusing but I’m willing to just accept you where you are at, as long as I know you are striving to become closer to Christ through bible study, prayer and associations with those who are walking with Christ.
I will not be questioning your issues on this board any more, unless of course you want to continue the discussion.
September 23, 2008 at 10:30 am
Kevin, regarding discrimination. That’s why I asked “are we sinning in the process of discriminating?” Not all discrimination is bad, and not all good. Of course Christians are declared as bigots for discriminating against gays and lesbians. But it really depends upon what and how it’s being done.
As far as the church persecuting those who claim to be gay or lesbian and Christian at the same time, if a person is celibate and still wants to be known as gay, then of course that will be questioned. Struggling with sin is one thing, but being associated with a group that is sinning against God is another.
Like I shared above, struggling with the sin of sexual promiscuity is one thing, but being labeled as promiscuous when I’m not practicing it and not associating with promiscuous people, then why on earth would I want the tag as “promiscuous?”
You may think you are “gay” but you don’t have to live with that label if you aren’t practicing it! That is the problem we have with those of you who believe that being homosexual is innate. You stop the action and you aren’t!
Okay folks. We are going around and around with this subject of “what is gay” and I’ll allow everyone of you to give a final comment so that we can get back on the topic of gay unions and religious freedom.
Thanks!
September 23, 2008 at 10:50 am
Carlotta,
Well, I go into much greater detail on my own blog about these things. That’s a more appropriate forum for these issues – which are more theological as opposed to political, which seems to be your blog’s focus. I’m sure you have plenty of blogs you keep up with, but if you’re ever interested in where I’m at, where I’ve been, where I’m going, or issues guys like me face, then by all means please read my posts. The one entitled “My Hope” really sums up where I am at this point in my life, if you’re curious.
And I’m always available through e-mail as well.
September 23, 2008 at 10:54 am
Thanks Jay, I think I will hop on over there – time permitting. If nothing else I’ll be doing a lot of reading on your blog. Very interesting topic this is – homosexual struggles of the saved Christian!
Thanks also for your valuable input!
Oh, and when you get a chance to please check out James Hartline’s testimony on his blog as well as Pastor DL Foster’s testimony, who’s website is all about the Gay Christian Movement. Pastor DL’s site is mostly about those who claim to be Christian, yet want to continue the homosexual lifestyle. His site actively debunks those type of teachings. But both Pastor DL and James Hartline struggled with homosexuality as Christians and both shared how it was a process of growth and maturity. Their stories reminded me of yours! Hopefully, you’ll get a chance to read those very powerful stories. Pastor DL got married and has four kids by his wife, but sadly James Hartline has AIDS along with having Hepatitis C, but his testimony regarding his illness is also very, very powerful and he is still very active preaching and teaching God’s word!
And one final thing: My blog is mostly on spiritual issues. The only politics I’m really involved in is this Proposition 8, and the weeding out of the presidential nominees, their running mates and their spiritual beliefs. Aside from that, you can consider me Political Ignoramus! So theological discussions are welcomed, I just have to make sure a post is designated for that particular discussion!
September 23, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Hi Carlotta,
You are still misunderstanding what ‘being gay’ is. One way you can understand this is that you are black. That isn’t a behavior–that is the way you are. Being black isn’t a behavior. Being gay is the same. It is not a behavior–it is who I am. If I stopped having sex, I would still be gay. I’m not sure how else to describe it to you more clearly than that. But Jay has said the same thing. It isn’t about behavior–it is about who a person really is. And that is the difference, say, between calling someone promiscuous. That is a behavior and not who the person really is. If someone stops being promiscuous, they are no longer promiscuous.
September 23, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Kevin, I DO understand but just disagree! Please refer to my post, “Gay rights vs Civil Rights – not the same” which is also in my “Best of the Best” section. I explain in that post why your race is not the same as your sexual orientation. Being gay and promiscuous can be changed while being black cannot. Completely different things here.
Check out the post and you can continue this discussion there if you wish, so that we can return to the topic of discussion here. I just saw that you were already a part of that discussion. Perhaps you can just refresh your memory on it or offer any fresh info you may want to share.
Thanks!
September 23, 2008 at 11:30 pm
It sounds like you don’t care at all about other religions. For example, there are conservative religions that don’t believe in interfaith marriage or in interracial marriage, and those clerks are already “losing freedoms,” in your view.
So, are you saying that the state should never legalize any activity that any religion views as sinful, or do you just believe that the state should carve out special exceptions and favors for your religion?
Put another way, are you trying to support religious freedom for all, including people whose religions you disagree with? Or just trying to force everyone in the state to live by the rules of your own personal faith?
September 24, 2008 at 10:37 am
Phil, you asked the following:
Good question!
I don’t know the state’s precise laws regarding one’s moral consciousness. I know that some states have a clause where people shouldn’t be forced to comply with a state law if it causes them moral dilemma. I would just be requesting the same, such as in the County Clerk’s cases.
Regarding legalizing an activity – being a democratic nation, we must go according to the will of the people. That’s why this Proposition 8 is at the forefront right now. People want to be heard and if the majority of people say they want marriage to be between a man and a woman, then that should be the case. If not, and it goes down in defeat, that would mean the majority of people want same-sex marriage to be legal.
So if that did happen and same-sex marriages became permanently legal here, then it wouldn’t change my beliefs one bit. It’s still immoral.
I guess to answer your question, no, the laws of the land are still governed by the will of the people and not by specific religions which is okay I guess, because then there would be major fights for what religions to be represented!
The point of this post was that because homosexuality is being portrayed and accepted as “moral” then Christians who have been free thus far to speak out against it, will now be forced lose many of their freedoms. Including the freedom to discriminantly choose against homosexual people as in the examples in the post.
I don’t know if I made any sense or not….rushing and writing. Oh well, just let me know!
September 24, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Hi Carlotta,
This is the problem I have with your reasoning. Essentially, you are putting forth a legal theory that, in order to protect “religious freedom.” the state must never legalize any activity that any religion views as wrong. That is both impracticaly and untenable.
The examples you list in the original post involve people who didn’t want to comply with nondiscrimination laws due to their religious beliefs. But the _specifics_ of religious beliefs should not matter to the state. People could choose to believe anything they wish, and the state should not have the right to “control” their beliefs. As such, while your examples are all Christians who didn’t believe same-sex marriage was moral, a consistent legal theory would provide the same protection under the law for everyone, including Christians who believe that interracial marriages are immoral and muslims who believe that interfaith marriages are immoral.
What you’re proposing is that we should ban an activity because one religious feels that it is immoral. That’s an incredibly inappropriate response to the problem you perceive. If we implemented your solution _every_ time their was a conflict between a legal activity and someone’s religion, we would live in a horrbily oppressive state.
I’m sure you can see that, no matter how deeply someone believed that interracial marriage was wrong, it would be horribly oppressive to argue that the state should therefore ban interracial marriage. That would be true no matter HOW MANY people believed interracial marriage was wrong. Even if the majority believed, for reliigous reasons, that interracial marriage was immoral, it would STILL be wrong for the state to ban it.
So I don’t understand how you can’t see that, even though your religion finds same-sex marriage to be immoral, it STILL be wrong for the state to ban it. That is, unless your view is that “My religious views should trump the views of all other religions under the law.” And that view is, in my opinion, immoral and bigoted.
I disagree: I think that if the “will of the people” is that the laws of the land should be governed by specific religions, it’s still wrong. That is, the majority should not be able to impose their religious will on the minority, which is what you are suggesting with this post.
You seem to be a reasonable and moral person. Can’t you see that your standpoint on this issue would hurt thousands of couples who don’t happen to share your religious views? Can’t you put yourself in their shoes, and see how hurt and betrayed you would feel if millions of Californians like you were trying to take an important right away from you?
September 24, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Phil, you’ve misunderstood quite a bit that I wrote about, but before I get into that, you make the statements that certain acts such as banning interracial marriages are WRONG.
How does the state determine whether something is wrong or not? If not by the will of the people, then how?
Now back to what I wrote. I’ve only written that our Christian liberties should not be taken away simply because we believe something to be immoral. Not changing any laws here – with the exception of marriage. Not only is gay marriage WRONG, but it has also been taken away from the will of the people.
That’s why I’ve asked you how does the state determine what’s WRONG, if they are to choose what is RIGHT above the will of the people?
More later, but I would like an answer to that question first.
Good questions you are asking and causing me to dig a little deeper than usual…but I will get back to more of your questions later.
September 24, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Well, for starters, I’m not a moral relativist. I don’t think that something “becomes” right if it supported by a majority, or “becomes” wrong if it is opposed by a majority. I can’t imagine that you believe that, either.
Admittedly, each person is ultimately responsible for determining what they believe is right and wrong; I believe it’s the responsibility of the state to defer to people whenever possible. However, I believe that, when possible, the state should defer moral matters to individual people, not to “the people” collectively.
So, from my perspective, it matters not whether a particular Christian sect believes that interracial marriage is immoral. If the state creates an institution called “marriage” and does not discriminate on the basis of race, then each person can decide on her/his own whether to marry someone of a different race.
I believe that banning marriage based on the gender of the participants is immoral.
You believe that a marriage where both spouses are the same gender is immoral.
You see this as a conflict, but it isn’t. We can both be right and feel that our views are fully supported by the state. Under the status quo in California, if I believe that same-sex marriage is right for me, then I can enter into one. But if you don’t want to enter into a same-sex marriage, you don’t have to.
The “religious discrimination” aspect comes up when, as you see, people are forced to do things that violate their consciences.
I don’t have sympathy for a clerk who won’t issue marriage licenses. If you’re a representative of the state, you have to do your job. That’s pretty reasonable. It might suck for you, but if you don’t feel you can do that job, it’s reasonable for you to change. It would be ridiculous to suggest that a Muslim man who worked at the post office and refused to sell stamps to women with uncovered faces deserves the right to do so. You would never, ever, argue that the state should require all women to wear scarves so that one man could continue to do his job according to the way his religion sees fit. That would be totally illogical.
Now, is it “religious discrimination” if the state requires a man who works in a government agency to serve women whether they are wearing scarves or not? No, it’s not.
Is it “religious discrimination” if the state requires a man who issues marriage licenses to issue such a license to a same-sex couple? No, it’s not.
Here’s a principle that I think most reasonable people can agree on: the state should stay out of religious disputes. The state should never, ever tell people that their religious beliefs are “wrong.” Do you disagree?
If you believe in religious freedom, you should vote “No” on Proposition 8.
If you believe that same-sex marriage is okay, you should vote “No” on Proposition 8.
If you believe that same-sex marriage is immoral, you should also vote “No” on Proposition 8.
I know it seems counter-intuitive, but the best way to support religious freedom in the state of California is to vote “No” on Proposition 8.
The best way to ensure that “the people” are never in a position to tell you that your religion is wrong or that you have to stop practicing it is to vote “No” on Proposition 8.
If you feel that your religion is being treated with intolerance, fight intolerance! Do not fight against people with different religious beliefs! That is not the Christian way, it’s not the democratic way, and it’s not the way that reasonable, moral people act.
If people are being forced to do things that are against their religious beliefs, then fight that. But don’t try to ban every activity that your religion feels is immoral. That’s illogical, and ultimately, bigoted.
September 24, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Hi Carlotta, You ask: “How does the state determine whether something is wrong or not? If not by the will of the people, then how?”
Can you please tell me what you think about the will of the people in California in 1949–90% were against interracial marriage (Pete touched on this). Is the will of the people correct here? How about the will of the people when slavery was built into this country? How about when the Chinese were excluded from coming to this country (in the late 1880s)? The will of the people was firmly behind these things. But the Cal. State Supreme Court ruled in favor of interracial marriage in 1949. Do you agree with the will of the people, or with the finding of the court? If we went with the will of the people, I don’t even know if today we would have interracial marriage. The will of the people is what democracy is based on. However, the founders of this country knew about the tyranny of the majority and they set up the court system to deal with that. The will of the people can sometimes be wrong, as in the 90% of California in 1949.
The will of the people (61% of people who actually voted), in 2000, believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. In 2008 The State Supreme court said that this was unconstitutional, for a variety of reasons. But what happens when the will of the people change? Poll after poll is showing that the will of the people now want to allow gays and lesbians to keep the right they have been given to marry. Will you accept the will of the people? Why or why not? If the will of the people decide what is right and what is wrong, and the majority is showing that they want gays and lesbians to keep the right to marry, then is that determining what is right?
September 24, 2008 at 7:58 pm
So Kevin – if I am correctly grasping what you are saying about the boy scouts suffering “consequences” because of the Supreme Court’s decision made in their favor – then all of the harassment they are continually receiving shouldn’t qualify as hate crimes against them and their organization?
Oh…that’s right – it’s only “bullying,” “harassment,” “bigotry,” and “intolerance,” when it is a homosexual person suffering the consequences…I get it now.
Never mind.
September 24, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Hi Christinewjc,
I was a Boy Scout, back in the day. I wave even in the Order of the Arrow.
I think it’s simplistic to say that they “got what they deserve” or that they ought to face the consequences of their actions. It sounds punitive, when, in most cases I’ve read about in the news, that’s not quite the case.
The Boy Scouts argued that they deserved exemptions from state nondiscrimination laws because they are a private, religious organization. That’s not my opinion; it’s theirs. The organization felt so strongly about it that they went all the way to the Supreme Court to advance that view: that the Boy Scouts are a private, religious organization.
The “consequences,” then, aren’t really punitive: they are simply the logical conclusion of the Boy Scout organization’s strongly-held position. Local governments, in the years following the decision, began to treat the Boy Scouts exactly the same as they would treat any other private religious organization. Some communities had taken to treating the Boy Scouts as a kind of public service, but that viewpoint, based on the Scouts’ own view of themselves, was in error.
Is equal treatment under the law “harassment?” If a chapter of the Black Muslim Church enjoyed tax-free, rent-free use of city property when other groups had to pay, would you consider it to be “harassment” if the city decided they ought to pay market rate?
What other examples of harassment are you referring to? Certainly, the Boy Scouts have been criticized–freedom from criticism is not a right that any group enjoys–but in terms of legal repercussions, all of the “consequences” I’m aware of are a result of municipalities treating the Boy Scouts the way that the law requires them to treat religious groups: which is to say, equally. Is equality harassment?
September 24, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Phil, I only know these things here:
1. The State of California has now legalized gay marriages
2. The people of California want an amendment to revert marriages back to only between men and women
3. The outcome of Proposition 8 will decide which way the amendment will go.
Maybe I’m using the wrong words. All I meant was that people will decide how this marriage law will end up in November based upon Proposition 8. Correct?
I understand your points which were:
The will of the people wanted slavery, no interracial marriages and etc.
The State government knew what was best and made laws opposite of what the people wanted.
So the State of California should make the same decision regarding same-sex marriages is your point?
And you are correct that I am not a moral relativist.
But here’s something you say:
What you don’t understand is that I don’t believe that Proposition 8 is about religious freedom. It is about what is morally right. It is what is best for our state, for our nation. Families built upon the foundation of having one mother and one father is the best for all involved. This is scientifically, psychologically, and emotionally proven to be the best for families. (See Gay Marriages: Who’s minding the children?)
Addendum: Even the LA Times has and article on why gay marriages are harmful to the family. See: Protecting Marriage to Protect Children (from the ProtectMarriage.com site)
My argument has been that because of the moral acceptance of gay marriages, THAT is what is affecting the religious freedoms of Christians. Please don’t get these two confused. Prop 8 is not about religion, but the acceptance of gay marriages affects the FREEDOM of religion!
That’s why I asked that question earlier, how does the state define what is right or wrong anyway?
I believe that same sex IS immoral, but I actually agree with you that religion and state laws are separate – although possibly related. Meaning, the constitutional writers of the state constitution MAY have been religious people. But I truly don’t know diddly squat on the makers of our state constitution to truly offer a sound opinion on that.
Fighting for Proposition 8, again I repeat, is fighting for what is best for the family, the foundation of any nation.
September 24, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Kevin, what happens after this Prop 8 is voted either way? People voting will have affected an amendment to the state constitution.
Does that make it permanent? Whatever way it goes for Prop 8, will that be final?
I truly don’t know which is why I’m asking. Because if it is final, then the will of the people will have succeeded in getting a law established.
Why is this different from previous things such as interracial marriages? Was there an outcry by the people to ban interracial marriages once the laws went into affect? Any push from the people to make an amendment to say NO to interracial marriages?
September 25, 2008 at 12:55 am
Actually, I wouldn’t say that I support the legal theory that “The State government knows what is best and should make laws accordingly.”
However, it is a fallacy to believe that “If the majority of the people believe that something is right, then it must be right.” So, if you appeal to the notion that something is right because a majority of the people say so, then you are always engaging in fallacious reasoning, not just sometimes.
It does not follow that the majority are always wrong; just that we must look to something else to guide us.
Rather than allowing the majority (or a minority) to decide what is right for individual couples, it is best for the state to defer that decision to each couple.
I’ll take your word for that, but we are responding to a blog post entitled “Gay Unions don’t affect religious freedom? Think again!”
If you believe that it is the acceptance of same-sex marriage that will curtail religious freedom, then it makes sense that you would argue against the acceptance of same-sex marriage. But it still behooves you to vote against Proposition 8. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it is right or that it ought to be accepted.
For example, I think it’s wrong when Amish people force their children to wear old-fashioned clothes and sequester them from society-at-large. If an Amish parent asked me about this, I’d be happy to tell them.
But does it follow that I therefore think it should be illegal for Amish parents to dress their kids as if it’s 1860? No. If I tried to make such behavior illegal, that would be inappropriate: I’d be a bigot.
The question you must ask yourself is, “Is it ever right for the government to force people to adhere to a religion that is not their own?”
To that question, I answer “no.” Does your response change if the question becomes “Is it ever right for the government to force people to adhere to my religion even when it is not their own?”
Do you hem and haw, and say, “Well, gosh, maybe we could force the Jews to eat pork.” Or “Maybe we force stores to close on Sundays, even if it means Seventh Day Adventists will go out of business, because they celebrate the Sabbath on a different day…?”
Maybe you do. Maybe you are that kind of person: you believe that you are right, and others are wrong, and you will impose your will on them with the force of law if you get the slightest chance. Maybe that’s who you are.
But if you’re a reasonable, moral, and–dare I say–a Christian person, then that’s not who you are.
Like it or not, Proposition 8 is not a referendum on whether homosexuality is moral or immoral. It’s not even a referendum on whether same-sex marriage is moral or immoral. As we seem to both agree, morality is not determined by the state.
What Proposition 8 is is a referendum on whether the state has the right to force some people to live by other’s moral beliefs. It’s about whether the state has the right to impose one religion’s view onto people who don’t share that view.
Don’t fall prey to the sin of pride: “I am right, and therefore it is okay for me impose my religious views onto other people.” If the state has the right to impose Christian morals onto all citizens like this, then it also has the right to force you to adhere to other religion’s morals, or to prevent you from exercising your freedom of religion. A “yes” vote is an acknowledgment that the state has that right, and that is a dangerous legal theory for anyone, Christian or not, to buy into.
Freedom of religion either exists for everyone, or it exists for no one.
For a Christian who believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, there is only one moral choice: to oppose same-sex marriage with your heart and your voice, and to vote “No” on Proposition 8. It might feel wrong, and it might be difficult for you to do, but doing the right thing is often difficult.
September 25, 2008 at 8:13 am
Phil, at this point I just want to say, let’s agree to disagree.
I will be voting yes on Proposition 8 because marriage between a man and a woman is best – period! It is not about ME its about what’s best for US.
Somebody is going to have something forced against them no matter how you look at it.
I’ll allow a final comment from you on this topic and that will be it from you otherwise you and I are just going ’round and ’round!
I do appreciate your comments which have been quite thought provoking and I thank you for your input!
September 25, 2008 at 10:40 am
Yes Christine–Yes, never mind. You don’t get it that the Boy Scouts had their decision upheld. But now they are having their free ride end. That isn’t a hate crime. Give me a break! The Boy Scouts should be happy with their decision. But like the church, it is the most-holy-dollar that is the real issue here and that is really what they are complaining about.
Hi Carlotta–that article that you said was in the L.A. Times isn’t an article–it is an Opinion piece. There is a difference.
And I hope you do answer the question put forth by Phil (and it is something I have been asking for a long time as well–and not only to you): “Is it ever right for a government to force people to adhere to a religion that is not your own?”
About Prop. 8: If it fails in Nov., then gays and lesbians will retain the right to marry. If it passes, that right will be taken away. I don’t totally know the law, but if it passes, then I am guessing that the only way it can be taken off is to have the Supreme Court of the U.S. declare such laws unconstitutional.
September 25, 2008 at 11:06 am
Kevin, you said:
I thought I answered when I said to Phil that I believe that state laws and religion are separate. Just because a state may pass a law that is favorable to most religions, doesn’t mean that it’s forcing people to adhere to any religion.
Like I also said earlier, somebody is going to feel like they’re being forced to adhere to something that is not of their own beliefs either way.
Thanks for answering my question about what could possibly happen after Prop 8.
September 25, 2008 at 11:52 am
Carlotta,
Thanks for the discussion. While, I disagree with you, I appreciate the thought that you’ve put into the topic.
I’ll be voting “No” on Proposition 8. Since our votes will cancel each other out, maybe we should play a “Spanish Prisoner” game and not vote on the proposition either way, come November.
(I’m kidding.)
September 25, 2008 at 12:20 pm
LOL! So glad you were ‘just kiddin!’
September 29, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Great post, Thank you for getting this information out.
I have linked to your article from Yes on Prop 8 with non-Californian’s help, prayer and fasting
September 29, 2008 at 4:31 pm
From Jeremiah Films? I take this as an honor to be linked to your page!
Thank you!
October 1, 2008 at 11:21 am
These look like cases of discriimination. Having a a religion doesn’t exempt you from the law. Don’t discrimiinate by action or inaction against other people on the basis of their sexual orientation. You’re free to express you religious views, but when you act on them in a manner that impacts someone’s rights to equal treatment you’re likely to come into conflict with your state’s laws.
October 1, 2008 at 11:48 am
Tony, that’s why there’s the uproar and a push to Proposition 8 now. Our State laws on marriage goes against what we believe to be God’s mandate for the family, for marriages.
I truly don’t know at this point which group has the upper hand the YES’s or the NO’s on Prop 8.
It’s being left up to the people now to make this an amendment.
I wish it was easy as just saying, “just let the homosexual community marry whomever they wish,” but it isn’t.
I just made a new posting how the Massachussetts laws on gay-marriage HAVE affected those in that state. You can take a look, or if you already know something about it, feel free to post your opinion there.
October 1, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Proposition 8 won’t make it legal to discriminate against gay people.