Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal?

Recommend (0) Comments (2)

Religious liberty is under attack by those seeking to redefine marriage. By conveniently defining “religious liberty” in the narrowest sense, Lambda Legal tries to get away with casually dismissing the consequences of its agenda. This clumsy sidestep, Lambda seems to believe, frees it to avoid talking about real threats to religious liberty – threats that the Alliance Defense Fund has seen increase precipitously in recent years. Lambda tellingly limits religious liberty to the confines of a house of worship, and uses only the most extreme situations to mock concerns about religious freedom. Lambda also suggests that if same-sex couples seeking “marriage” can get goods and services elsewhere, they will never target those who believe in true marriage. Not true. The illusory comfort offered by Lambda that the existence of alternatives precludes anti-liberty lawsuits is an easily unwound deception.  

A quick look at some Alliance Defense Fund cases makes clear that religious liberty is threatened when the homosexual agenda is advanced:

-           A lesbian couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Department of Civil Rights authorities against a Methodist ministry for declining to rent its beach pavilion for a same-sex ceremony. Despite the availability of many different local facilities, the couple decided to make an example of the Methodist group by filing the “discrimination” complaint. The Methodists have allowed religious events and weddings at its worship pavilion and have opened the pavilion to boardwalk passers-by should one want to rest. This, the women contend, makes the ministry’s private property a public accommodation. In the course of the “investigation” of this religious body for discrimination, New Jersey authorities have revoked the tax-exempt status on one parcel of its property. Now the state has taken to the bizarre exercise of questioning whether or not this distinctly Christian ministry, which has operated in the state since the 19 th century, is a religious organization in order to exact maximum punishment.

-           A small photography company in Albuquerque was found guilty of “discrimination” by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and ordered to pay $6,600 in attorney’s fees because the photographer declined to photograph a same-sex “commitment” ceremony. Although the couple could have picked from myriad photographers to photograph the ceremony (which they eventually did), they still chose to pursue their complaint against the photographer. The fact that alternative options existed provided no religious liberty protection, and the same-sex couple used the NMHRC as a weapon to punish the young photographer.

-           ADF filed a lawsuit in federal court in Atlanta on behalf of a counselor fired from her job at the behest of the Center for Disease Control because she referred a lesbian who sought advice on how to repair her same-sex relationship to another counselor. The second counselor saw her immediately and provided service that the lesbian herself characterized as “exemplary.” The lesbian nonetheless filed a discrimination complaint that prompted the CDC to demand the counselor’s termination. The fact that alternative options existed provided no protection for religious liberty here.

-           A health clinic declined to artificially inseminate a lesbian because of the doctors’ belief that children should not intentionally be born into a home lacking a father or a mother. Despite being referred to another clinic and despite subsequently giving birth to three children though artificial means, she still sought vengeance and sued the clinic. Despite the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the California Supreme Court ruled against the clinic’s doctors August 18 declaring that "the 1st Amendment's right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the . . . antidiscrimination requirements.”  

This list focuses on U.S. cases and does not cover many frightening cases in Canada and Europe. The oft-repeated false assurance is that the First Amendment protects Americans from the increasingly obscene suppression of religious beliefs we see in other countries. But obviously, the First Amendment wasn’t an impediment to the religious liberty violations outlined in the above ADF cases. If the homosexual legal agenda gains momentum and First Amendment rights are further eviscerated, it is not hard to imagine pastors, priests and rabbis being hauled in for “discrimination” for declining to preside over same-sex “weddings” or for preaching a Biblical message on homosexual behavior as has already happened abroad. The increasing use in American courts of foreign precedent (and public opinion polls!) compounds the threat.  

The Lambda reference to denominations willing to “bless” same-sex unions changes the argument not a bit.   Said denominations may hold such ceremonies right now. The “unions” just wouldn’t be recognized in most states. So the argument that imposing same-sex “marriage” on Americans somehow expands religious freedom is not to be taken seriously.    

Widespread marriage redefinition and the elevation of sexual acts over enumerated First Amendment protections can only hasten the erosion of fundamental liberty and increase the types of attacks covered here. That Lambda Legal, whose aggressive agenda has led to the suppression the public exercise of faith, refuses to be honest about the religious liberty implications of its work – when they are well aware of those implications – should give all religious believers good reason to fear the loss of their basic freedoms.  

Recommend (0) Comments (0)

The freedom of religion is very important and discussions about it should be thoughtful. To argue that states’ anti-discrimination laws should not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation is to argue that those same laws should not protect against discrimination based on religion or any other important category that our laws identify. That does not respect the freedom of religion. Some individuals have religious objections to other people’s religions, as well as to equal roles for women or to marriage for same-sex couples. There is no integrity to arguing that anti-discrimination laws are fine as long as they apply only to other people. Conflicts between different people’s civil rights have been around for a long time, and our democratic society has developed well-established rules that attempt to work things out for the best of everyone as a whole. The discussion should be guided by those time-tested rules, putting the good of all people first rather than the good of some people first.