- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Lesbian Chai Feldblum-Gay Marriage Means Less Religious Rights
Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum
believes that when same-sex marriage is legalized, which she argues
is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will
lose religious rights. This is the same Chai Feldblum who has been
nominated to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC).
Feldblum, speaking at a Becket Fund Symposium in December 2005 stated the following:
[L]et
us postulate, for the moment, that in some number of years an
overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in this country will have
changed their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in
society, including access to civil marriage. Or, indeed, let us
postulate that the entire country is governed--as a matter of federal
statutory and constitutional law--on the basis of full equality for
LGBT people....
Assume for the moment that these beliefs
ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation and that provide same-sex
couples the same societal supports currently available to opposite-sex
couples, including access to civil marriage....[G]ranting this
justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden
on those religious people who believe acting on one's same-sex sexual
orientation is a sin and who may feel they are aiding and abetting sin
if they rent an apartment to a gay couple, allow a gay couple to eat at
their restaurant, or provide health benefits to a same-sex spouse....
Let
me be very clear...in almost all the situations...I believe the burden
on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full
equality will be justified....
That is because I believe
granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government
interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if
"pockets of resistance" to a societal statement of equality are
permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual
exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive
means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people...
Not
surprisingly, following her nomination to the EEOC, Feldblum requested
that her name be removed from the subversive document she signed in
2006 entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All
Our Families and Relationships," which begins with this troubling
statement:
We, the undersigned--lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers,
artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers-- seek to offer
friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing
governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of
partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families. In so
doing, we hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics
as they exist in the United States today.
We seek access
to a flexible set of economic benefits and options regardless of sexual
orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.
The
"Beyond Marriage" authors seek to have "Committed, loving households in
which there is more than one conjugal partner" as well as "Queer
couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another
queer person or couple, in two households" be recognized as families
and accorded all the benefits of traditional marriages.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Beliefs protected by legislation?
If someone's belief in a god or religion is swayed by an incompatible way of life, it should be. Faith that endures is tempered by understanding.
..................................................
Only by exploring the logical extremes of an argument can we find a reasoned perspective.
Constitution Needs a Freedom From Religion Amendment
It's time we added "and from" to the "freedom of" guarantees in the US constitution .
Religion, while keeping many otherwise unstable individuals from destroying themselves (according to the Pope's recent proclamation), contributes to the destruction of many healthy people's lives through discrimination , condemnation and relationships poisoned by belief in an alien being who rules the Earth.
..................................................
Only by exploring the logical extremes of an argument can we find a reasoned perspective.
"Freedom of"
Isn't in the text, but is instead a common interpretation. The text already applies a "freedom from" sentiment and therefore a "freedom from" text is not needed.
The text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
Seperating the agenda from the issue at hand
While I guess it can be argued that many people championing for gay rights also have other illegitimate intentions, this does not mean we should oppose gay marriage altogether. If we see many of these other circumstantial things promoted by Chai Feldblum come to pass, then we can fight those separately from the gay rights issue.
Besides, if she's promoting gay marriage, isn't she basically forcing herself into religious traditions anyway???
illegitimate
"While I guess it can be argued that many people championing for gay rights also have other illegitimate intentions, this does not mean we should oppose gay marriage altogether."
What illegitimate intentions do gay marriage supporters have?
"Besides, if she's promoting gay marriage, isn't she basically forcing herself into religious traditions anyway???"
As long as she is dealing with the secular side of marriage then no, she is 'forcing herself into religious traditions"/
Let's extend and reverse this silly argument.
My cousin does not believe that women should be allowed to work out of the home. It goes against his ultra-conservative Christian views. Does that therefore mean that he should legally be allowed to discriminate against women in employment as manager of a pizza shop? As I see it, running a pizza shop has as much to do with one's gender as one's sexual orientation does.
Let's flip this on reverse. Many gays and non- Christians have a sharp distain for conservative Christians. It violates their conscience to have anything to do with them. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the First Amendment includes not just "freedom of religion " but also includes the more secular "freedom of conscience" and "freedom of association". Should we conclude from the arguments implied in this article that it should therefore be legally permissible to fire someone when we find out they are Christian? Should Christians be forced to hide their religious identity when they find out their boss is a Muslim or atheist?
After all, being a Christian is 100% purely a conscious choice. You can choose not to be Christian far easier than someone can overcome the strongly-rooted biological basis of their homosexuality . Being gay may not be caused by one single gene or even be entirely genetic, but there is plenty of research to show a biological basis. The same cannot be said for religion. On this basis, should religion be offered any protection at all? It's not like it's comparable to race or gender.
You'd first need to rewrite the first amendment.
I don't see that happening.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
at the bottom of a hole, yet still digging
[G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to ____ people will likely put a burden on those religious people who believe acting on ______ is a sin and who may feel they are aiding and abetting sin if they rent an apartment to a ____ couple, allow a ____ couple to eat at their restaurant, or provide health benefits to a _____ spouse....
Let me be very clear...in almost all the situations...I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting ____ people full equality will be justified...."
I do not see how ones religious orientation grants anyone license to deny legal services to anyone. Would it be permissible for members of one religious group to discriminate against other religious groups because those outside their religion were 'living in sin'?