When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
A very interesting report by NPR. I recommend reading a few of the many lawsuits same-sex couples are starting against religious groups and organizations. So far, the religious groups are losing, because they are violating the right of equal treatment for the homosexual couples. It will not be long until these cases go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill “condoning discrimination” — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state’s highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City’s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls’ parents sued, saying the school was violating the state’s civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state’s civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee’s religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association’s tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city’s marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts’ leases. Meanwhile, the mayor’s office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts’ $1-a-year lease for a city building.
Comments are closed.
If your business is open to the public or take public money or want to use public property you can’t discriminate. It’s not that hard to understand. There still might be people who don’t want to do business with blacks, whites, Latinos, what have you, but they have to do it anyway. Same goes for gay people. it used to be perfectly legitimate to discriminate based on race, and is no longer. Same goes for homosexuality.
Particular geniuses are people like the photographer who tell gay people right to their faces that they find them immoral. Priceless. Or, in her case, price: $6,600. I would have fined her $6666, just to freak her out :P
.” The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.”
This is truly scary and reminds me of what is happening as to our Neighbor to the North right now
Perhaps it is time to get rid of adoption. Sounds like a better idea everyday…
It should be noted that most of these are disputes over rights granted under state consttutions/laws and cities. Homosexuals are still not a federally protected class.
“Same goes for gay people. it used to be perfectly legitimate to discriminate based on race, and is no longer. Same goes for homosexuality.
Particular geniuses are people like the photographer who tell gay people right to their faces that they find them immoral. Priceless. Or, in her case, price: $6,600. I would have fined her $6666, just to freak her out :P”
In essence you have hit it on the nail and why this battle is so important. THe NEw Mexico Case case you cite is truly frightening. Tat case shows the folly of putting Homosexuals in some Suspect class
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that a good catchword could stop people from thinking for 50 years. Something similar seems to be true of the “it’s the same as race” line of argument.
“The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions.”
I find it difficult to be sympathetic to a photographer who maintains that photographing a commitment ceremony is sanctioning same-sex unions. If she had been asked to perform the ceremony, or participate in it, that would be one thing. But if photographing something is the equivalent of sanctioning it, we should arrest as terrorists all the people who took photos of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centers.
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that a good catchword could stop people from thinking for 50 years. Something similar seems to be true of the “it’s the same as race” line of argument.
Which incidentally revives Blackadder’s question to Gerald: if the Catholic Church is racist, why are you a member?
David,
Actually, out of all the cases above, I believe the photographer one is the most unfair case, because a person who runs a business and has a specific profession, he/she should reserve the right to photograph or not certain events. Where is THAT right? The photographer may have (rightly) thought of how those pictures would have affected his/her portfolio and how future costumers would have thought about it. I mean, I would refuse to take pictures of a pro-war rally or a Mason event (just to give examples). As a Catholic, I would have refused to take the pictures as well, if I were in this photographer’s position. My faith informs me of what should be my position with regard to same-sex unions and it is erroneous to extend that position to say that the person who holds it is a “homophobe” or closed-minded. This photographer was not hurting the inherent dignity of this same-sex couple. He/she reserves the right and that couple has to move on. We need to start treating homosexuality and same-sex unions (or marriage) as separate issues, because the former is not a sin in it of itself, but the latter is a distorted understanding of the role of the family and marriage in society.
Our professions should not force us to create a dichotomy between our religious belief and our everyday lives.
If your business is open to the public, you can’t discriminate. It’s simple, no ? “Won’t rent to gays”, “Irish need not apply”, “No coloreds” – it’s all viewed the same. If one doesn’t like particular people’s skin color, orientation or whatever, lie and say you don’t have time, it’s sold etc.
And yes, it is the same as race. NYPD beating up and harrassing gays in the 1960′s (“Move along, faggots, move along) is no different than Bull Connor. His ilk thought “segregation forever”, and now a half-black man is running for president. A gay public, elected official was unthinkable until Harvey Milk.
You can close your business to part of the public – say “Catholic Singles”, “Jewish Singles” websites, for example. But being open to the public, you can’t say “oh no, not you.” That’s the American way. It took a long time, mind you. You can have your religious liberty all you want, but once you step out into the public sphere, it’s liberty and justice for all, not just those we deem moral. Poland leads the West in homophobia (antisemitism’s also quite strong), so there’s always a place for those who perish at the thought of dealing with gay people.
In a few years, it won’t even be an issue anymore,except for some places like the Deep South, well, and Poland.
Gerald,
No, it is not the same as race. Try to maintain the distinctions here. We’re not talking about hate crimes, which is what you seem to bring up in order to fit your argument that it is the same as racial discrimination.
Katerina, just what is the difference between refusing to photograph a gay wedding versus refusing to photograph a black wedding ? Sure, you consider it a sin, but that doesn’t matter to the government. All kinds of people deem all kinds of things sinful.
A wedding photographer isn’t required to photograph dog shows. If you offer weddings to the public, you can’t turn people down on account of their kind of wedding. Or you shut your mouth and say you’re booked. You can of course also be more specific, say, “Beach Weddings”.
Would you like to be refused service because you’re Catholic ? After all, a lot of people might have a grudge because of all kinds of Catholic positions.
To me, it is the same, to you it’s not. What matters is what the government decides. Today, my state’s government agrees with me, not you. It used to be different. Young people overwhelmingly favor gay marriage, as do people with higher education. Evangelicals still oppose it in vast numbers, but they also tend to think they’ll be raptured (if only).
Evangelicals still oppose it in vast numbers, but they also tend to think they’ll be raptured (if only).
What about Catholics? What does their percentage look like? I oppose same-sex marriage… does that make me an old, dumb evangelical waiting for the rapture?
David,
The person was fined 6,600 dollars for basically excerscising her personal and perhaps religious beliefs. One might disagree with them but personally I am more afraid of the States actions here
Gerald,
What matters isn’t what the government decides; what matters is what is true.
Your last comment really seems to embrace the dictatorship of relativism.
Gerald, your only argument is that the majority agrees? Is THAT a basis for morality? Give me a break. And, yes, Katerina, DOES want you to argue for homosexuality based on itself not on other factors such as race. The fact you can ONLY argue with a race base may indeed show you have no argument for homosexuality.
RCM – I don’t believe committed gay relationships to be sinful, that’s why. There’s no moral turpitude involved. There’s this lesbian couple getting married in the great state of California, been together for 55 years. I can’t even begin to imagine how they must feel.
Adultery, that’s sinful. But even if i did, i believe in the American system, which to me means equality. Read up on how gays used to be treated, by law and law enforcement.
Lastly, a ban, as advocated by the bishops here, would affect my own family. To quote Springsteen, “Man turns his back on his family, he just ain’t no good”.
Gerald,
How do you come to terms with a ban that the bishops apparently advocate and your faith? I’m just wondering, because my faith is constantly turning me away from my family and that seems to accentuate with every passing day, but my faith always ends up winning no matter how painful it is.
Suppose one were a general wedding photographer who’s Catholic and offering her public services . One is asked to photograph a Methodist marriage ceremony, between a Catholic and a Methodist, but which does not have the proper bishop’s dispensation of form, for the marrying Catholic party.
Would you have the legal right to refuse services in this case?
If not, then how is it different than cases involving homosexual ceremonies, in states that allow same sex marriages?
If your business is open to the public, you can’t discriminate. It’s simple, no ?
Not really. The rule is that one is free to form contracts with whoever one chooses. The big exceptions are employment and housing that restrict discrimination that may be licitly employed at the federal level. States may also further restrict this. In many States one’s rights are futher circumscribed if they make public solicitations (i.e. advertise.) With religious organizations, there is the issue of tax exemption moreso than right of refusal itself. In other words, the religious organization no longer enjoys the ability to claim it is offering a public good if it refuses the legitmate requests of the public it serves.
I could never turn away from my family. Unless they’re cannibals, why would religion make one turn away from them ?
It certainly is a valid question – at what point is on no longer compatible with the denomination one belongs to ? The areas I do not agree or do not fully agree with Catholic rules are mostly of a sexual nature. Obviously, if the Catholics who don’t agree with Catholic rules left, there’d be 3 people left in each parish. Another interesting question is – does the Church want people to leave who don’t agree with everything ? The high Anglicans definitely have more appealing liturgies on the average, as some readers pointed out to me :P
I recommend the book “Will there be closets in heaven ?” It’s very moving. About/by an ‘old school’ Catholic father and his lesbian daughter. Of course, the two were banned from speaking on church property. Which is perfectly the church’s right.
Bruce Springsteen might not be a reliable moral compass.
To quote Jesus, “I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. “
The rule is that one is free to form contracts with whoever one chooses.
True, but apparently you can’t tell people, “No I won’t work for you because you’re gay/black/a man/etc.” – at least judging from recent rulings ?
I must say that all this culture war stuff – in which I am kind of between the fronts – is something very American. You can hardly get anyone outraged over gay marriage and other issues in Western Europe (among which I don’t count Poland). The people who do decry ‘sodomites’ tend to be very odious, like the website kreuz.net. Asking my Austrian friends if they thought gay marriage should be legal, they say “Of course, it’s not even a question”
Sure, the Austrian bishops predicted doom if gay marriage is legalized, but they have no influence. Whatever good will was left, and it wasn’t much, was lost by the perv who used to be archbishop of Vienna and the other bishop who had the seminary/child porn repository. Not to mention that many view the Church as against the ‘little people’, stemming from Austrian history. The separation of church and state in the USA has prevented the catholic church from such a position of power/later resentment.
What matters isn’t what the government decides; what matters is what is true.
Yes I think you’re right here.
And, yes, Katerina, DOES want you to argue for homosexuality based on itself not on other factors such as race. The fact you can ONLY argue with a race base may indeed show you have no argument for homosexuality.
However, in fairness to Gerald, he isn’t here making an argument “for homosexuality” but for the fat that discrimination against gay people is just as wrong as discrimination against people based on race or religion. I think his question about how we would like it if we were discriminated against because we are Catholic is an important one. I think one can be against homosexual marriage and still see that some of these cases do come down to discrimination.
I could never turn away from my family. Unless they’re cannibals, why would religion make one turn away from them ?
Have you heard of priests/nuns who didn’t talk to their families for years or not at all after they decided to join the seminary or a religious order?
The question is whether the discrimination is unjust, not whether it is discrimination. If one comes from the position that discrimination is generally unjust, I have no difficulty seeing how one could see discrimination against gay couples as offensive. I think that is also the majority view in the US and much of the western world. My own view is that discrimination is an ill effect of pursuing other goods and the harm should be evaluated proportionately.
I think one can be against homosexual marriage and still see that some of these cases do come down to discrimination.
Not all of the cases noted above are necessarily related to same-sex unions like the one with the Lutheran high school, which dealt with a student having a different sexual orientation. That, I consider discrimination, because it is solely based on who an individual is based on their sexual orientation. However, my opposition to same-sex marriage and the fact that I would decline to take pictures of a same-sex “marriage” is hardly discrimination, because the marriage is not intrinsic to who those individuals are.
Same goes with how I would also decline to take pictures of a marriage between a father and a daughter (which, I understand is legal in some parts of Europe). My actions do not express a rejection of who the father and the daughter are as human beings, but I simply do not agree with their own actions and what they are doing, so I would decline to take pictures of their wedding.
The question is whether the discrimination is unjust, not whether it is discrimination.
Yes, MZ, I think you nailed it.
As a complete aside, does anyone herein know if Regnum Christi members were-are directed/strongly encouraged to refer to M. Maciel as “Nuestro Padre.?
I must say that all this culture war stuff – in which I am kind of between the fronts – is something very American.
There’s something quite odd about insisting that the government should force photographers to photograph gay wedding ceremonies because “That’s the American way,” and then, within minutes, describing opposition to such a policy as distinctly American.
However, in fairness to Gerald, he isn’t here making an argument “for homosexuality” but for the fat that discrimination against gay people is just as wrong as discrimination against people based on race or religion.
Gerald’s position is that it’s okay to discriminate against gay people so long as you are willing to lie about it. One would hope he doesn’t believe the same about discrimination based on race or religion.
Mark DeFrancisis,
I have been to exactly 1 Regnum Christi meeting. “Nuestro Padre” was the only way anybody referred to Fr. Maciel. I assumed it was official.
However, my opposition to same-sex marriage and the fact that I would decline to take pictures of a same-sex “marriage” is hardly discrimination, because the marriage is not intrinsic to who those individuals are.
How is this different than a photographer 50 years ago refusing to take a picture of a marriage between a black man and white woman?
Why would it make a difference to you if any person refuses to take a photograph? Really. Can’t I as a human being say that I don’t want to accept money to take your photograph? Do I really even need to state my reason for doing so? Even taking the posited example, the worst outcome we would have is that if all the professional photographers decided not to take pictures of inter-racial couples we wouldn’t have any pictures of inter-racial couples. Is this the stuff, to use an expression, we want to make a federal case (or in this case state) case out of?
M.Z. – Why make a case about where someone sits on a bus? I mean, all Rosa Parks had to do was walk a few seats back – probably six or seven strides, maybe 15 feet – and everything would have been fine.
As a complete aside, does anyone herein know if Regnum Christi members were-are directed/strongly encouraged to refer to M. Maciel as “Nuestro Padre.?
Yes.
Opus Dei calls St. Josemaria Nuestro Padre as well, but that’s not what I hear them say ALL the time. They use “Nuestro Padre”, Fr. Josemaria and St. Josemaria quite evenly.
ben,
Thank you.
How is this different than a photographer 50 years ago refusing to take a picture of a marriage between a black man and white woman?
I think a distinction needs to be made between discrimination against an individual, because of who he/she is and discrimination against the actions of a certain individual. A black man/woman cannot be discriminated, because that is who they are: their skin color is inherent to who they are as human persons. “Discrimination”, for the lack of a better word, those same-sex individuals who want their unions to be recognized cannot be equated to racial discrimination, because it is the action that those individuals take that are discriminated against, not the individual himself/herself.
There’s something quite odd about insisting that the government should force photographers to photograph gay wedding ceremonies because “That’s the American way,” and then, within minutes, describing opposition to such a policy as distinctly American.
I noticed the same inconsistency, BA.
I think a distinction needs to be made between discrimination against an individual, because of who he/she is and discrimination against the actions of a certain individual.
Then my question still remains to be answered: the Black man/white woman are choosing to get married (an action) – so, what is the distinction between their situation and the situation of a gay couple that want to be photographed?
Mr. Talbot,
Common carriers are treated differently for all sorts of reasons. A photographer isn’t a common carrier.
Then my question still remains to be answered: the Black man/white woman are choosing to get married (an action) – so, what is the distinction between their situation and the situation of a gay couple that want to be photographed?
Because if one chooses not to photograph the black couple is because of their skin color not because of the fact that they are getting married.
M.Z. – Lunch counters, then.
How is this different than a photographer 50 years ago refusing to take a picture of a marriage between a black man and white woman?
Because inter-racial marriage isn’t immoral.
And, of course, the next step in the argument is, “But a lot of people thought so 50 years ago.” But they were wrong. Which shows that finding a majority of people who believe something is a pretty lousy guide at determining the morality of something.
Because if one chooses not to photograph the black couple is because of their skin color not because of the fact that they are getting married.
I think you left something out – in my analogy, the photographer refuses to photograph the inter-racial couple because she disapproves of inter-racial marriage.
I don’t see a particular need to compel a restarant to serve all customers. In the specific circumstance of the Jim Crow South, I think there was a compelling interest in legislating against the practice. Those circumstances are absent in discussing homosexuals.
My last was directed at Katerina.
Why was there a compelling interest for legislating against the practice of lunch counter discrimination in the South, but no such compelling interest for discrimination against gays? What is the distinction between those two things?
I think you left something out – in my analogy, the photographer refuses to photograph the inter-racial couple because she disapproves of inter-racial marriage.
Ohh ok… I think the argument remains the same. The person would oppose the inter-racial marriage exactly because of skin color not because the action itself is immoral. But you may come back and say that the person who opposes inter-racial marriage thinks that marriage is immoral in the same way that the person who opposes same-sex marriage thinks that union is immoral. If we really fall into this trap, then we are in deep trouble as Christians in our understanding of sexuality and the role of the family in society.
The compelling interest was that a caste system had been created and castes aren’t good in the long run. When we think of homosexual neighborhoods, gentrified and cosmopolitan are more likely to come to mind than ghetto.
I think the argument remains the same. The person would oppose the inter-racial marriage exactly because of skin color not because the action itself is immoral.
No, actually I don’t think you can separate the two. The action is considered immoral. The opposition to the inter-racial marriage was because that particular kind of marriage was unnatural. It’s actually a very similar argument to the argument against gay marriage. The reasons for it being “unnatural” are different, but they were both considered deviations from the natural order.
Katerina – How would preventing a photographer from discriminating against a gay couple put us in “deep trouble as Christians in our understanding of sexuality and the role of the family in society.”? Discrimination (in a secular setting) based on sexual preference isn’t a religious matter (the couple didn’t sue to force the local Catholic parish to marry them, for example.)
MZ – Some ghettos are golden.
I don’t think the analogy to race is valid, but I will say this: if I were marrying someone of a different race and the wedding photographer said he didn’t approve of inter-racial marriage, I would take my business elsewhere. Why anyone would want their wedding pictures taken by someone who thinks their union immoral is beyond me.
Michael I. and Matt T.,
So what is going to dictate our morality? Do we explain to society why same-sex marriage is indeed unnatural and the inter-racial one is not? Do we just cross our arms and let somebody else decide what is moral and what is not?
“It should be noted that most of these are disputes over rights granted under state consttutions/laws and cities. Homosexuals are still not a federally protected class.”
Probably true in these cases, but in the case of adoption, advocates for forcing adoption agencies to provide adoption services to same-sex couples are using another strategy – the “best interests” standard.
The reasoning works like this:
(1) State law requires that child placement be in the best interests of the child; (2) Adoption agencies, either licensed by the state or acting pursuant to a contract with the state, must comply with that standard in the law; (3) Adoption agencies do not have the discretion to refuse adoption services unless the refusal falls within the parameters of acting within the best interests of the child; (4) There does not exist definitive empirical data demonstrating that adoption by same-sex couples cannot, per se, be in the best interests of the child. Therefore, adoptions agencies do not legally have the discretion to refuse to adoption services to same-sex couples.
Even states that do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation can face the problem.
One need not support same-sex unions to abide by antidiscrimination laws. The photographer in this instance was the owner (with her husband) of a company that had been incorporated to do business in New Mexico under the laws of the state. She was not an individual turning down an assignment. Her business was judged a public accommodation under state law. The state law says it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. She clearly stated that she would not photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies, because it violated her religious beliefs. From reading the findings, it seems like an open and shut case to me (http://volokh.com/files/willockopinion.pdf).
I would be glad to argue in favor of same-sex unions or antidiscrimination laws, but it seems to me all that needs to be asked here is what are one’s obligations as a citizen (or what are a corporation’s obligations) under state law. We live in a pluralistic society, and it seems to me we have made a bargain to abide by the law–for the sake of public harmony–even in those cases when we are not particularly happy about it. It strikes me as a wacky idea in a pluralistic, democratic, capitalist country that a business feels it is sanctioning the lifestyle of its customers if it does not disregard the law iand refuse to provide them with its services.
“If your business is open to the public, you can’t discriminate.”
Shouldn’t there be room to distinguish between public services that are essential to a person’s dignity (housing, work, health care, education, food and water, etc.) and those that are not (adoption, wedding photographers, banquet halls)?
“If one doesn’t like particular people’s skin color, orientation or whatever, lie and say you don’t have time, it’s sold etc.”
GA, you wrote something like this a few days ago. Do you really advocate that the person lie? They should sin rather than offend someone?
Katerina,
I think what they are claiming is the only remedy for prior policy failure is not better policy but no policy.
So what is going to dictate our morality? Do we explain to society why same-sex marriage is indeed unnatural and the inter-racial one is not? Do we just cross our arms and let somebody else decide what is moral and what is not?
Katerina – you’re responding to an argument I’m not making. Of course we need to decide what is moral or not; I’m not arguing otherwise. I’m just wondering why discriminating against a gay couple ought to be treated differently in the eyes of the law than discrimination against an inter-racial couple? And, if it’s treated the same, how does that have any effect on “our understanding of sexuality and the role of the family in society?”
Do we explain to society why same-sex marriage is indeed unnatural and the inter-racial one is not? Do we just cross our arms and let somebody else decide what is moral and what is not?
Katerina,
But Catholics “know” that remarriage after divorce is immoral. And Catholics “know” that a mere civil marriage between two Catholics is no marriage at all. Should a company be allowed to refuse to do business with those who choose civil marriage when they should choose sacramental marriage, or those who are married and divorced? There’s no question in Catholic thought that they are wrong.
Also, I don’t see any justification for considering a person’s religion to be who or what he or she is. You can’t choose your skin color, but you can choose your religion. So should we be allowed to discriminate based on religion?
Ctd,
People may be making “best interests of the child” arguments in favor gay adoption, but they don’t really mean it. In Massachusetts, for example, the Catholic Church specialized in placing hard to adopt kids (siblings, kids with handicaps, etc.), many of whom would not get adopted otherwise. When they were told state law required they perform same-sex adoptions, they asked for an exemption, arguing that if they were not allowed to do adoptions according to their religious beliefs, they would be forced to stop doing them altogether, and many kids who otherwise would have found nice homes would suffer. The state’s response? It is better that these children don’t get adopted at all.
“But what if it was race!” As I’ve said before, I reject the analogy. But guess what? There are plenty of organizations that oppose interracial adoption. In fact, there are lots of black kids are stuck in foster care as we speak because social workers are wary of giving them to white parents. It’s a very strange world we live in, where if you have qualms about gay adoption you must be a bigot (because discrimination against gays is like discrimination on the basis of race). But if you have qualms about interracial adoption you get positive coverage in the New York Times.
Well, I think there are many issues, and many which are being put together which should not be put together. I don’t really have any answers, but I have many thoughts on the matter, some which don’t end up with any neat systematic response. So I will offer them as they are, in the state of confusion I find my mind remains on this matter.
One the one hand, unjust discrimination which affects the personal dignity of people is wrong and evil. The Catholic Church has said as much, and documents specifically mentioned that gays/lesbians should not be discriminated against because of their orientation in relation to normative, universal activities (such as work, finding a place to live, etc). They cannot be prohibited from what is normative and necessary for life. The difficulty, of course, is defining what those things are: some will say marriage is normative, and should be allowed (I don’t agree, because the normative, original state is single. but nonetheless, there is a legitimate point of contention here, and even legitimate points made by gays and lesbians, even if I think their conclusions are wrong; and we must recognize their claims and the issues they bring out and try to find a just solution to them, if possible).
On the other hand, we are, in our own personal dignity, given certain kinds of freedom, and one of them is, the ability to choose those whom we associate with (once again, there is a limit to this, and what that limit is, is in question). For example, we can’t force people to become friends, but we can force people who don’t get along to be co-workers.
The problem is when these two concerns are brought into conflict, because when that happens, it makes things very difficult. We can and should all acknowledge it. And we can and should acknowledge our actions, whatever they turn out to be, should be capable of indicating respect for others, whatever we think of their actions. Christians should know everyone is in the image and likeness of God. And I often think that the parable of the Good Samaritan, if it were retold today,would be the parable of the Good Homosexual, and the impact and meaning of Christ’s parable would be understandable.
But things become more difficult in a society of free enterprise and business, and when dealing with businesses which are about luxuries.Important to such a discussion is how one’s refusal to work with others affects the other person. If I were a photographer, but didn’t want to do children’s photography, should I be forced to do so by a judge? I don’t think so. There will is always be someone else who would do it. In this way, I don’t think I should be sued for not doing children’s photography. It seems to me someone who would do such a suit is looking for easy money from the system. Or should I be forced to photograph for people 500 miles away, when they could find someone closed? Probably not.
When dealing with wedding photography, I have never heard before, that a photographer must be willing to take any heterosexual couple’s pictures, if the couple comes to them and wants to hire them (I could be wrong, and if so, let me know). I’ve always thought the photographer can say no (without even having to give a reason as to why). The same I think must apply to other kinds of wedding ceremonies. Since one photographer not doing a specific job does not eliminate the possibility of other photographers doing that job, and because the job is not necessary (though, more than a mere luxury, to be sure), I do think it would be the wrong decision to force a photographer to accept any and all possible clients who come to them with cash upfront.
Nonetheless, I also accept the fact that there is more involved in this case. The issue is deeper than photographers refusing to perform at a wedding. The fear is if one situation allows for a kind of discrimination, there is a slippery slope involved, and something which is more questionable and actually discriminatory can be defended by allowing a photographer not photograph at an event they don’t want to be at. I would be the first to say that there are times where people should be forced to do what they might not want to do. As an example, a cashier at a McDonalds should serve everyone who comes to them with money and proper dress, because McDonald’s is open to the general public. However, that, I think is one of the issues. What kind of business are we talking about: is it general or private? And what kinds of private work are acceptable, and what kinds are not? I don’t have an answer to this one, but I think this is the direction we need to explore. Even if we do, there will always be difficulties, and areas where there are no clear solutions. There will always be “border” cases. In such situations, I think all people involved should deal with it in charity. We don’t want to end up with a tyrannical society where freedom is eliminated, either on the general or personal level, and so we don’t want a society which accepts discrimination (on the one end of the spectrum), nor one which denies people the chance to determine the shape of their lives and the kinds of associatios they make in it as long as such associations do not harm others (on the other). There has to be something which can be worked out in the middle of both extremes.
Just to add to my questions/concerns:
Should a photographer be required to assent to nude pictures if their client wants them?
Gerald’s position is that it’s okay to discriminate against gay people so long as you are willing to lie about it.
That’s NOT my position. It is not ok to discriminate. What I meant was that I am surprised people would be dumb enough to express their disapproval and refusal when there are anti-discrimination laws.
Henry,
Would you have a citation for the Vatican claiming one is morally compelled to offer housing to a homosexual couple?
MZ,
I’m willing to bet the Vatican already offers housing to homosexual couples…
What kind of business are we talking about: is it general or private? And what kinds of private work are acceptable, and what kinds are not? I don’t have an answer to this one, but I think this is the direction we need to explore.
Henry,
The finding in the hearing on the case of the photographer was that the photography business was a “public accommodation,” which is defined as “any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private….”
Also from the finding . . .
The evidence in this case indicated that Elane Photography was a business publically
organized as a limited liability company and registered with the New Mexico Public Regulation
Commission to do business in New Mexico, pursuant to the New Mexico Limited Liability Act.
The company’s principal place ofbusiness and its registered agent were set out in its Articles of
Organization. Elane Photography offered its photographic services to the public through openly
accessible means. Elane Photography generally advertised its photographic services to the public and solicited customers through the internet, on its website and in the Yellow Pages. Elane Photography’s website advertising was available to anyone who wished to access it.
MJO – I’m falling out of my chair laughing. Thank you.
I don’t know why you find MJO’s comment so humorous. It is a poor reflection on you that you felt his comment had any merit whatsoever.
C’mon, MZ – I took it as a wry aside, that’s all.
M.Z.
A couple things. For those things necessary in life, such as shelter, the Church says personal dignity requires that people can’t be forbidden them. Thus, even sinners are to be given the necessities of life (often said to be food, shelter, and clothing). It doesn’t require one to addres who these people are, and their orientation. This is of course addressed in the Compendium of Social Doctrine:
“365. An adequate solidarity in the era of globalization requires that human rights be defended. In this regard, the Magisterium points out that not only the “vision of an effective international public authority at the service of human rights, freedom and peace has not yet been entirely achieved, but there is still in fact much hesitation in the international community about the obligation to respect and implement human rights. This duty touches all fundamental rights, excluding that arbitrary picking and choosing which can lead to rationalizing forms of discrimination and injustice. Likewise, we are witnessing the emergence of an alarming gap between a series of new ‘rights’ being promoted in advanced societies – the result of new prosperity and new technologies – and other more basic human rights still not being met, especially in situations of underdevelopment. I am thinking here for example about the right to food and drinkable water, to housing and security, to self-determination and independence – which are still far from being guaranteed and realized”.”
Or:
“535. The social teaching of the Church is also fertile soil for dialogue and collaboration in the ecumenical sphere. This is already happening in various places on a broad scale concerning the defence of the dignity of the human person, the promotion of peace, the concrete and effective struggle against the miseries of today’s world, such as hunger and poverty, illiteracy, the unequal distribution of the goods of the earth and the lack of housing. This multifaceted cooperation increases awareness that all are brothers and sisters in Christ, and makes the journey along the path of ecumenism easier.”
It doesn’t have to be an issue of sexual orientation. Human rights require access to shelter.
As to the Church on sexual orientation, I think this is important:
“10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.” (Letter to Bishops On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html)
More than once, the Vatican speaks out against outright rejection of basic rights to people because of sexual orientation. Because, on the grand scale, shelter is a basic human necessity and right, it can’t be rejected to people because of orientation. The two go aspects of CST go together.
David
So a photographer should do pornographic pictures if a client wants them done?
Gerald,
If anti-discrimination laws were that easy to subvert, then they would be kind of pointless, no?
Well, it is ironic that no organization I can think of has more gay members than Catholic clergy, while at the same time they tell them now they’re usually not wanted. Without gay priests, the Catholic church would collapse. Talk about priest shortage.
Regarding the Church’s condemnation of “unjust discrimination,” how many people believe their own brand of discrimination is unjust?
Why would discrimination on the basis of religion be unjust? Religious belief and practice are not intrinsic or outside a person’s control, as sexual orientation and race are.
The provision of shelter would not be the objection of landlord. The objection of the landlord would be providing a place for fornication that the couple has made manifest is their intention. Such has been the basis for denying housing to co-habiting couples.
M.Z.
The problem, of course, is that they would then be thrown out the door and have no shelter, and so would be denied a basic human right. That’s the issue. The Church is clear on shelter as a basic human right. And the Church is clear (in many places) we can’t discriminate against people when it eliminates a basic human right.
BTW, this also relates to other issues, such as “illegal immigrants” entering into a jurisdction outside of their homeland. They are to be given basic human rights which trump the “positive law of the land” when that law overrides those rights.
This is also the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, if one reads it carefully, as to why the Colonies thought they could override the authority of England: because they thought England transgressed human rights.
Henry,
I think you are offering an overly broad interpretation of rights. The remedy in the shelter case would be to have the homosexual couple rent seperately. Quite frankly, offering and knowingly giving a couple a room would be formal cooperation and mediate cooperation with evil.
So a photographer should do pornographic pictures if a client wants them done?
Henry,
Below are the protected classes under New Mexico law. No one is suggesting photographers have to take pornographic photos. Although I suppose if your business is to take pornographic photos, you can’t discriminate on the basis of anything below.
Age (40 and over)
Ancestry/National Origin
Color/Race
Gender Identity
Medical Condition
Mental/Physical Disability
Religion
Sex/Sexual Harassment
Sexual Orientation
Spousal Affiliation
Veteran Status
M.Z.
I think you are offering a discriminatory interpetation of rights, on this case. It is the kind which allows for rejection of basic human rights to “illegal immigrants” because “the are amoral for breaking the law,” or to terrorists because “they are amoral for being terrorists.” Thus, making it that once one sins, one’s human rights are no longer guaranteed (because, if it is, you are cooperating with evil). One can always argue the illegals” should stay put” and since they didn’t, it’s ok to treat them as subhuman, or terrorists, since they are terrorists (declared it at least), have thus no human rights left because, if they wanted them, they would have done nothing evil.
Quite frankly, offering and knowingly giving a couple a room would be formal cooperation and mediate cooperation with evil.
M.Z.
What about a couple one or both of whom are divorced and remarried? What about letting your teenage son, with raging hormones, have a door to his room or close the bathroom door when he showers? What about running a hotel? Would all double-occupancy patrons have to show a valid marriage license?
David
I don’t think you get the point. My discussion is not primarily what is the law (I could make a law which says all people named David should be killed, but such a law is unjust and should never be enforced), but what is right and should be required and what should not be required.
However, there is another level; we do have a law. How does one interpret something as vague as it is? Since you have said pornography cannot be mandated by the law, what and how does one define pornography? Some would say display of eros is enough, which will happen at a wedding. Indeed, just look to 19th century understanding of pornography and you will see what I mean. There is a subjective dimension here, and I think that subjective dimension is being overriden.
Mr. Nickol,
A hotelier or a landlord inquiring about the purpose of seeking housing was not unusual and is still typical today. Morality does not typically look at a possible solution set and try to aprise the least offensive interpretation. Morality works off the assumption that actions have forms.
Henry,
Countries have restricted housing for refugees for example. I’ll ignore the terrorist question for the time being. Individuals have a duty not to further immoral conduct in so much as possible. Put another way, the primacy of conscience establishes that one has the right not to participant in an act they find unconsionable.
I am so gravely disappointed in Gerald A. To make all the common libertarian errors, to equate homosexual practice with race…just disappointing. It reflects a lack of systematic, coherent thinking, a refusal to allow the Catholic faith to shape his worldview.
Henry,
If you want an answer to what is just versus unjust discrimination, that may very well be another topic. The way I see this, it is a question of whether secular laws in a pluralistic society may include homosexuals as a protected class, and once that is done, is the law such an serious violation of some other group’s rights that they should be exempt. I just don’t see what the big deal is in requiring business incorporated within a certain state not to discriminate against homosexuals. It seems as ridiculous to me to claim that it requires cooperation with evil as to claim a restaurant owner or a supermarket has an obligation to refuse to sell food to an obese person.
As I understand it, there is a long history of Catholic thought on the responsibilities of Catholics to cooperate with government and to compromise or “cooperate with evil” when that is for the overall good. (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”) I would argue that antidiscrimination laws promote the common good, and that finding ways to uphold them, even if some of them are not in accord with your own personal beliefs, is preferable to finding ways to undermine them. As I said above, few people believe their own personal brand of discrimination is unjust.
M.Z.
Yes, the United States being one of them, and the Catholic Church arguing against the laws of the United States because they are acting against a greater law.
David: As I said, I am no arguing with answers, as much as pointing out there are elements which need to be considered. But just as I argued against M.Z. in relation to human rights, so I also argue with human rights with you. There are two dimensions here. It’s not a simple question. And I don’t think the answer is “the law says X” if the law overrides natural law. That’s the issue. I’ve said, and argue that we can’t discriminate against people on necessities, but I also think we can’t argue against personal liberty, either, when it regards to non-necessities. And to me, photography is an extra. In this way the question is not are homosexuals protected, but in what ways must they be protected, and what ways must personal choice for free association to be protected. I think both are necessary, but there is a point of overlap which is the point of difficulty.
To make all the common libertarian errors, to equate homosexual practice with race…just disappointing.
Irenaeus,
One doesn’t have to equate “homosexual practice” with race to argue there are similarities between racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And, by the way, it seems to me that the Catholic Church at the highest levels sanctions discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation alone by excluding celibate homosexual men from consideration for the priesthood.
It is not necessary to perform sexual acts to be discriminated against for your sexual orientation, as a great many gay young people could tell you. All you need to do is appear a little different, too sensitive, too interesting in “wrong gender” things, maybe a little too “butch” or too effeminate, and you can be ostracized for it. Who can blame people for shunning the “intrinsically disordered”? It is a lie to claim that people discriminate on the basis of what gay people do rather than what they are, and every gay person knows that.
Irenaeus,
Libertarians aren’t big fans of anti-discrimination laws to begin with, and certainly would never make an argument as silly as “What matters is what the government decides. Today, my state’s government agrees with me, not you.”
Henry,
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.[Emphasis added.] CCC 2241
Certainly laws are capable of being unjust. I happen to agree with you that our immigration laws are injust. However, you have been nonresponsive regarding the countervailing rights of states and persons.
M.Z.
Your response reminds me of so many who comment on VN when CST is brought out and used against the laws as they now exist.
Yes, there is a level of authority given to the government. But that doesn’t make all their decisions as just and worthy of being obeyed. Again, when rights are disregarded by the state, the law is null and void. That’s even the justification the US used for its own existence. And the laws for immigration in the US are broken; if one follows the laws on the book, they break the greater laws of human rights. Thus, when the state works against human rights, whatever the state’s laws state (kill the jews?) to follow them is to be complacent in the evil.
So whenever a homosexual couple is denied an apartment a Jew is sent to the furnace. Once again, the remedy to bad policy is not the absence of policy.
David,
You say: “Why would discrimination on the basis of religion be unjust? Religious belief and practice are not intrinsic or outside a person’s control, as sexual orientation and race are.”
The underlying assumption of this seems to be that it is permissible to discriminate against someone for something that is within their control, but not for something outside of their control. But that can’t be right. There is nothing unjust, for example, about denying drivers licenses to the blind, even though their blindness is beyond their control. Likewise, one does not control how old one is, yet the the law makes all sorts of distinctions based on age (from voting to driving to social security) and there is nothing unjust in that.
I need to add that although I think the photographer’s behavior is, indeed, unjust discrimination, I don’t think the gov’t should be able to force her to do it.
I understand the tension between societal pressures and wanting to take one’s faith seriously. But the more I live in Toronto, the more I am puzzled by the american tendency to see gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) as a threat to society. Gay people don’t have to hide who they are, and they can get married, and religious communities like the RC Church are not pressured to change their traditions. Society has not fallen apart as a result.
Zach – Before you accuse me of being anti-american, of course I don’t think that seeing gay marriage as a threat to society is only an american tendency.
Michael I, same goes for Austria. You’d be hard-pressed to get people riled up, except for maybe some older people and SSPX types (like http://www.kreuz.net). It’s funny how gay stuff gets far, far more comments and outrage than the Iraq war, abortion, and so forth – you know, things that actually matter.
I dream of a world where people don’t care about other people’s sex lives. It seems to be the favorite concern of the religious.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with bigots refusing to do business – they’ll go out of business eventually. Capitalism is a great weapon of equality. It’s more important that the state doesn’t do it.
The antipathy against gay people is a relic, the younger and more educated people are, the more it is vanishing.
Michael I.,
haha! Oh I’d never do that again. I learned my lesson.
But funny because I’m not even contributing to this strange discussion.
But if I can add something, it would be to suggest everyone read the following document, if you want to understand why people get excised about gay marriage:
http://www.princetonprinciples.org/files/Marriage%20and%20the%20Public%20Good.pdf
Michael, I’d be interested to see you offer a thorough critique of the argument they present there.
I’m happy for these two – 84 and 87, the women have been together for over half a century. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25188169/
i understand though that those who don’t see wedding bells but ‘hell’s bells’ aren’t happy. If you think they could ‘go to hell’ for this, you’re bound to be afraid.
Gerald
What would Jesus say to them?
To us….”Ye without sin cast the first stone”
To them “Go and sin no more”
Gerald,
Exactly what is it that this lesbian couple gained by getting a marriage license? Clearly, having their relationship legally recognized wasn’t necessary for them to build a life together, love each other, be committed to each other, etc. So what did having the legal ceremony add that makes it so important? (and let’s not kid ourselves by thinking that it’s only people who are opposed to same-sex marriage who view it as being important; it is clearly gotten a lot of attention from proponents of same-sex marriage, yourself included).
I dream of a world where people don’t care about other people’s sex lives. It seems to be the favorite concern of the religious.
I think I see clearly the line of difference between our thinking when you say things like this. It’s pure liberalism. As I’ve said before, my thinking on homosexuality (and sex in general) is not inspired by liberalism (anything goes, but keep it private).
I dream of a world where people don’t care about other people’s sex lives. It seems to be the favorite concern of the religious.
So you’re not religious?
Which incidentally revives Blackadder’s question to Gerald: if the Catholic Church is racist, why are you a member?
Because being a cafeteria Catholic means never having to say “I’m Protestant”
The state law says it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. She clearly stated that she would not photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies, because it violated her religious beliefs. From reading the findings, it seems like an open and shut case to me
Seems to me that her problem was voicing her disapproval. Had she said: “We photograph weddings, we don’t photograph any kind of commitment ceremonies.” then the case would have been over. This lady didn’t offer that particular service on her list of offerings.
It would be like walking into a McDonald’s and accusing them of discriminating against Italians because they don’t server spaghetti.
It would be like walking into a McDonald’s and accusing them of discriminating against Italians because they don’t server spaghetti.
This reminds me of one of my favorite Mitch Hedberg jokes…
Crazy – this thread really blew up. I just wanted to get in on it :)
Marriage between a man and a woman is the very foundation of a good society. The state has a strong interest in promoting marriage and in keeping people married. I would like to see this accomplished through massive tax incentives ala Ramesh P., an end to no fault divorce, co-visitation requirements, and a refusal to extend civil recognition to anything other than one man and one woman.
We need not argue this on religious grounds. Kids need two married parents of two genders. Period.
jonathan – Is that comment a word-for-word copy of a comment you made on another thread on this topic? I just had major deja vu.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the very foundation of a good society.
I always thought it was, you know, the Triune God or something.
The state has a strong interest in promoting marriage and in keeping people married.
Why is that? This sounds awfully… statist.
Kids need two married parents of two genders. Period.
No, not period. Perhaps it’s ideal, but the extent to which they “need” it is certainly debatable. They certainly need much more than that, which leads me to question the idea that traditionally conceived marriage is necessarily the “very foundation” of a “good society.” Sure, it’s an important part of a good society, but the “very foundation”? Your view seems reductionistic.
Exactly what is it that this lesbian couple gained by getting a marriage license?
What did you gain by getting a marriage license ? It’s none of anyone’s business but theirs.
My relatives are getting married June 29th, after 20 years. The whole marriage ban initiative was financed by a bunch of Evangelicals in Orange County. Even if they succeed for now, the fight for equality never ends and in the end is always successful. Just a few decades ago, hacks could lobotomize gay people, police could hunt them, a few decades earlier they went to Dachau, Auschwitz and other pits of hell. And now we’re at a point where there’s not that much left to achieve with and for our friends and families. Once justice is set in motion, it flows like a mighty stream.
As far as the view of Catholics toward gay marriage is concerned, Katerina, support has drastically increased over just the last few years. According to a new Pew poll, 4% more support than oppose it. The ‘holdouts’ in general are blacks, old people, born-agains and people with little education. Only 11% of the rapture people support it, by far the lowest percentage in any group.
We have here a very interesting transvaluation of values. Those who were deemed the ‘morally good’ are now increasingly viewed as akin to racists.
Guess who’s to blame for kids being available for adoption by gay parents ? Yep, straight people. I know a wonderful couple, two men, professionals etc, who adopted 5 ‘problem children’ from a foster care agency dealing with developmentally and behaviorally challenged children. No cutesy little babies, children, from kindergarten to junior high. Siblings, all of five. You know the chances of them finding a home together ? Their straight birth parents were irresponsible, abusive junkies and those two men took them in. In fact, speaking from my wife’s professional experience, gay people often adopt ‘problem children’, because they tend to know first hand what it means to be shunned. Life rarely is ideal. But for the pope to say that these two men who took in these siblings are committing ‘child abuse’ is just a damn shame. Just like it’s a damn shame to say that my relatives are committing ‘intrinsic evil’. Just because of a variation of orientation for which they are not responsible. There is no malice in these people. They have the same right as I do to have their relationship recognized. Families don’t always work out in cookie cutter fashion – imagine what the now 80 year old parents thought way back when. But now it’s the most normal thing in the world.
Readers said I should tell my relatives that their behavior was immoral. Heh. Thanksgiving dinner. “Pass the mashed potatoes, please. By the way, your relationship – crying to vengeance from god”. That’d go over well :)
To be sure, I understand where those who aren’t simply homophobes hiding behind catholic rules are coming from – they thing that gay people are with one foot in hell or somesuch. If I believed that, I might want to say something, too.
It’s just that I don’t.
Exactly what is it that this lesbian couple gained by getting a marriage license?
What did you gain by getting a marriage license ? It’s none of anyone’s business but theirs.
Gerald, see, the first part of your response is good. The lesbian couple, we have to assume, “gained” the same thing that a straight couple “gains” when they get married.
But the second part of your response, that marriages are “nobody’s business but the couple’s” is horses–t. Marriage, straight or gay, is not a private possession of the couple.
No, I meant that whether or what they gained is their business, they don’t have to justify themselves to third parties. One could similarly argue that Catholics don’t really need civil marriage because, after all, they have church weddings anyway.
If it’s not a word for word copy, it’s close……the Triune God called for us to live Sacramentally. What better way, aside from receiving the Eucharist, than marriage? And unless one is an anarchist, which I certainly am not, conservatives recognize the role of the state in shaping behavior – such as overcoming the free rider problem with defense and policing, and in protecting the unborn, and in prosecuting criminals, and in my case in codifying marriage.
“Statist” is a vision of large scale and scope, of government organized “unity”
Finally, it is not ‘reductionistic’ to claim a foundation in what God has called ALL those who have children to do.
Gerald,
Excuse my insistence, but can you answer the question I posed up above?
In other news, an unrelated question for Michael I. – maybe you could do a post on this subject (removing it from this thread) – if you think it’s an interesting question:
who in your ideal society rules? If there can be said to be any government at all, then there exists two groups of people: the rulers and the ruled. Who are the rulers in your ideal anarcho-socialist society?
What did you gain by getting a marriage license ?
I’m not married, and if the state said tomorrow that it was going to get rid of civil marriages it wouldn’t bother me all that much. I don’t need the government to place its seal of approval on my relationships in order for them to be meaningful to me.
My guess is that gay marriage is important to people mainly because they view it as a sign of social acceptance. But this is a mistake. There isn’t any more social acceptance of homosexuality or even of gay people than there was a couple of months ago (there may even be less, as people understandably don’t like it when a couple of judges try to dictate social policy to everyone else).
the fight for equality never ends and in the end is always successful.
Unless by “in the end” you mean “in Heaven” then this is not true. The fight for equality is not always successful. It loses, as often as not.
Just a few decades ago, hacks could lobotomize gay people, police could hunt them, a few decades earlier they went to Dachau
Have you considered the possibility that there might be a third option besides favoring gay marriage and putting gay people in ovens? That one might accept the Church’s view on human sexuality without wanting to kill gay people, or lobotomize them, or even harangue them over Thanksgiving dinner?
Gerald,
Even the Michael I. sees that you have abandoned reason.
Can’t you see that nobody is saying that you should stop loving your gay relatives? You should love them, that is your duty, you should desire what is good for them and you should want them to get to heaven. Nobdy here has suggested that gay people should be denied basic human rights. Nobody here has “cast a stone” against anybody–they have preached to gospel.
All of us have relatives who are serious sinners whom we continue to love. All of us have people whom we love who have committed terribly evil acts. Most us us probably know and love people who have even descended to the terrble evil of taking a life and may even be unrepentant about it, but we still love them. We struggle with how to love them and what to say, and how to help them get to heaven. But what we don’t do is call evil good, and sometimes we are ostricized and rejected because of this. Sometimes we are accused of throwing stones, sometimes we are cast out of our families…this is our cross.
Difference being that I don’t think that they are ‘serious sinners’. Nor should it matter to the government what various religions consider to be sins.
Gerald,
If I’m not mistaken, you are friends with Father Rutler, correct? Have you considered talking to him about this issue?
GA,
It is not up to you to decide if it is a serious sin.
You are in danger of heresy if you become adamant in your denial of a truth repeatedly defined by the church. Please seek some spritual direction so that your conscience my be formed by the church.
ben,
M.Z. said above, regarding housing discrimination against same-sex (or “fornicating”) couples: “Quite frankly, offering and knowingly giving a couple a room would be formal cooperation and mediate cooperation with evil.”
How do you love your gay relatives on the one hand, and avoid “formal cooperation and mediate cooperation with evil” on the other? Certainly, by M.Z.’s standards, you could not treat a relative in a same-sex relationship as you would treat a married son or daughter.
Blackadder. I used to advocate gay marriage. Then I tried to embrace the church teaching on the subject matter. While I never thought homosexuality to be ‘evil’ or ‘immoral’ I’d grant the ‘disordered’. Recently, due to reading about gay history, family, and the blatant disgust for gay people expressed by many a ‘staunch Catholic’ (not that I’d count you among that), I have, so to speak, returned to my own vomit :) SSRIs also helped to de-radicalize me. I joked with my wife, “give a Catholic an SSRI and you get an Episcopalian.”
I believe in the distinction between a malum in se and a malum prohibitum and believe homosexuality to be the latter, something judged to be bad by various institutions rather than bad in itself.
I’ve read plenty of Catholic stuff on the topic, the Ratzinger letter among them. I found it horrifying, as did my wife. It’s equally impossible to convince me that, shall we say, fellatio interrupta is the manner mandatory for Catholics.
(SSRI = selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor)
Gerald,
I know where you’re coming from, believe me. I also find the homophobia expressed by many people, including many Christians and Catholics, to be shocking and disgusting. It isn’t an easy thing, being gay, and having a marriage license from the state that you only got because four judges said so isn’t going to make it any easier. But the fact that gay people have been (and in many cases still are) treated terribly doesn’t mean that the Church’s teaching on human sexuality is wrong.
Blackadder – the Church, probably understandably so, doesn’t do ‘second best’. Examples: “If you have sex, at least use protection”. Obviously, men and women are designed in complementary fashion. That doesn’t keep me from supporting committed, stable gay relationships (more common among lesbians than gay men, but men in general are creation’s problem children).
Interesting article on brains and how lesbian&male and gay&female brains may have commonalities
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25195286/
And unless one is an anarchist, which I certainly am not, conservatives recognize the role of the state in shaping behavior – such as overcoming the free rider problem with defense and policing, and in protecting the unborn, and in prosecuting criminals, and in my case in codifying marriage.
That’s funny, I thought the clearly stated position of conservatives (you used the term, not me) on the state was only to protect our borders and to make sure no one interferes with the “free” market, not to “shape behavior.” That’s creepy.
who in your ideal society rules? If there can be said to be any government at all, then there exists two groups of people: the rulers and the ruled. Who are the rulers in your ideal anarcho-socialist society?
I would distinguish between ruling and governing. Social grouping would be much smaller than it is now, allowing an authentically participatory government and thus, no “rulers.”
I don’t need the government to place its seal of approval on my relationships in order for them to be meaningful to me.
You have characterized yourself as a “conservative,” no? How does this “conservative” position jive with jonathan’s “conservative” position?
Even the Michael I. sees that you have abandoned reason.
Hmm one of my fingers feels itchy.
David Nikol,
Of course I wouldn’t treat a realtive in a same sex relationship the same as I would treat one who was married. It wouldn’t mean that I would not love them. Love demands that I try to get my relatives to heaven, that means that I will not invite my gay relative to stay with his partner overnight in my house, but they are both still welcome for dinner. Love demands that I bear witness to the good of married love to my gay relative, and show him the path to heaven, not that I alienate him from the good witness of christians by heaping abuse on him. We preach most often and most powerfully by how we live our lives…this is the demand of love. Love does not throw stones, Love carries the cross.
ben,
What if your gay relative is flying in from 3000 miles away for the holiday and not exactly financially flourishing? Why would you not consider his, say, sleeping in your basement, and his partner, say, sleeping in a spare bedroom?
Eating under the same roof is all right, but not sleeping under such a roof, but two floors away is not….?
Unless one locks them in, they still might commit “intrinsic evils’ while everyone’s asleep ;-)
Gerald,
I have another long drive. Thank your for many outbursts of laughter in the way.
Do they make male chastity belts, by the way?
By participatory government, do you mean democracy on a small scale? In that case, the majority of people rule.
Well, Mark, I am sure fetish stores carry them. There used to be anti-masturbatory devices for boys – torture devices really. About a hundred years ago they were advertised in regular magazines. Along with the fairy tale that one goes blind from masturbating. On the other hand, I did need contacts at an early age :P
A couple of points:
0. Empathy, please: Okay, lots of people don’t empathize with us gay folk. That’s no reason not to empathize with those of us with orthodox Christian beliefs on sexuality. Quite the opposite, really. And genuine empathy, please, not you’re just ignorant and fearful.
1. ‘Discrimination is all the same’: Thankfully, Blackadder’s new post has dealt with this. I don’t think Katerina is compelled by law or morality to photograph a pro-war rally. I would urge everyone to think about things they wouldn’t photograph. These would be instances of discrimination, some just, perhaps some unjust.
2. Christian teaching on homosexuality = homophobia: Really, on blogs such as Vox Nova, we should be past this phase and into more mature discussion. Please read the writings by folks such as Eve Tushnet, John Heard, and Ron Belgau.
Of course I wouldn’t treat a realtive in a same sex relationship the same as I would treat one who was married.
Ben,
Would you go to your gay relative’s home for dinner, or would visiting a shared home be too much like acceptance of that relative’s relationship?
I know a lot of parents help their newly married children out financially with loans or gifts (and sometimes long after they are newly married). Would it be wrong of parents of children in same-sex relationships to help with rent or groceries? Should parents of college-age gay children pay for them to go away to college, or should they keep them at home and try to control their behavior?
Would there be any difference in the way you would treat a gay relative in a same-sex relationship and a relative who was divorced and remarried outside the Church?
By participatory government, do you mean democracy on a small scale? In that case, the majority of people rule.
This is, of course, not the topic of this thread, but yes I would say democracy on a small scale, but understood as real participatory democracy — not simply electoral politics — that would ideally lean more toward consensus and less toward “majority rule.”
“That’s funny, I thought the clearly stated position of conservatives (you used the term, not me) on the state was only to protect our borders and to make sure no one interferes with the “free” market, not to “shape behavior.” That’s creepy.”
Conservatism varies by country and circumstance. I have an upcoming post on Edmund Burke that explains why, and why I agree with him.
It’s nice to be able to agree with Gerald Augustinus regarding every last thing he’s written on this thread!
Conservatism varies by country and circumstance. I have an upcoming post on Edmund Burke that explains why, and why I agree with him.
If you believe the state’s role is to “shape behavior” then ‘conservatism’ probably isn’t the term you would want to use.
There’s plenty of modern (post-Enlightenment) conservative thinkers who argue as much, and would also disagree furiously with statists/socialists about size, scope, and function, all of it particular to circumstance. I’ll consider Burke, the father of most of it, sometime this week (and arguments from circumstance, leaving open the door for shaping behavior, is why Richard Weaver and other conservatives argued the minority position, which is that Burke was not a conservative). What unites them all is approach, sentiment, anti-utopianism, and anti-ideology.
What libertarians and conservatives agree on, and what all conservatives agree on, is that there should be no state organized “unity”, which was the calling card of progressivism (many, many, many of whom admired and studied Mussolini’s efforts for such unity), socialism, and the totalitarian socialisms, national and international (Nazism and Communism, who appealed to very similar constituencies).
^5 digby – we just can’t talk about the USA :-P
Since when has the right to discriminate existed? Is this what some people refer to as “religious liberties”? Proponents of slavery and segregation leaned heavily on religion to justify their actions. It is high time for society to reject the use of religion as a vehicle for bigotry.