Same_sex_marriage

Why Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty Can't Co-exist

Opinion by FRC
(June 16, 2009) in Society / Gay Issues
As more states-like Iowa-approve same-sex “marriage,” conservatives are claiming that freedom of religion is in peril. Same-sex “marriage” supporters accuse them of engaging in hysterical gay-bating. Who’s telling the truth?

Let me share some stories with you from an excellent news broadcast produced by National Public Radio. Then you decide.

Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle-that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman-was at stake.

The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption-a move that cost them $20,000.

Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn’t good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.

In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly-get out of the business.

In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her-a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway-even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.

In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony-and sued the photographer when she declined. An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them.

Convinced? Clearly, homosexual “marriage” and religious liberty cannot co-exist-because gay activists will not allow them to. As marriage expert Maggie Gallagher puts it, same-sex “marriage” advocates claim that religious faith “itself is a form of bigotry.”

Tune in tomorrow, for I want you to learn how you can help protect both our religious rights and marriage itself. I know this may sound alarmist, but it’s true. If we don’t work to stop this juggernaut, we may soon find ourselves hunted down at work, at school, and even at church-as others have been-by those determined to force us to accept as a moral good what God calls evil.

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • countryboy
    Can't Co-exist

    Your right there sick.

    - countryboyUS June 16, 2009 6:13PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Rice klowN
      Grammar please

      While you're out there calling people 'sick' for having a different gender preference, we would all appreciate it if you would try to make sense. 'they're' is the proper word for 'they are.' 'There' in this conext is just annoying. I mean, geez, they're not even pronounced the same... How hard is it?

      - Rice klowNUS June 17, 2009 7:12AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • MrBook
    further information

    "Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association."

    What isn't stated here is that the pavilion was made available to other couples without regard for their religious affiliation. The same thing would have occurred if the association had refused to rent to a couple based on their race / ethnic background.

    - MrBookUS June 16, 2009 8:07PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Rice klowN
      More specifically

      The pavilion was a 'public' pavilion that was owned by the church and the church only lost tax exempt status on the pavilion property itself. 'The church' did not lose tax exemption. This is the second time these RR folks have posted this 'untruth' that I have corrected here at opposingviews in less than a month I think.

      In fact I know that several more of these examples are pure half truth spin.

      Like the second story doesn't mention that the doctor didn't refuse anything until he found out they were lesbian. He had given her a full round of fertility treatments and then stopped just shy of impregnating her. They paid for services that the doctor rendered void by interrupting the months long procedure right at the most crucially time sensitive stage. The doctor should have lost his medical license, in my opinion.


      The rest of the stories have similar under-pinnings, but you get the point. The problem here is that the religious leaders recognize that an intellectual debate over these cases won't help them at all. They believe that the first ammendment means that religious organizations should be able to do whatever they say their religion tells them to do.

      Story three involving the Catholic Charities adoption agency was brought on behalf of the constitutional rights of the children to equal access to adoptive parents.Since the children are not transferrable to other adoption agencies, once in the charity's hands the children's access to willing adoptive and safe homes was reduced due to illegal discrimination.

      (this was written on my cell phone so I don't have copy and paste and I think I screwed up with the paragraph order. Sorry)

      - Rice klowNUS June 17, 2009 7:36AM

      Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • MrBook
        thanks!

        Thank you for the additional information on those cases. I suspected that there would be more to the story then was mentioned... but the pavilion was the only story with which I had greater familiarity.

        - MrBookUS June 17, 2009 4:54PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Angel
    These examples are unconvincing

    These examples are unconvincing for the following reasons:

    1) They all involve entities that step into the public sphere by offering public services (often for a fee).

    2) With the exception of the Massachusetts example, they all happened in states where equal marriage is not allowed, and thus can't possibly be a consequence of equal marriage.

    - AngelUS June 17, 2009 8:31AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Rice klowN
    Then what?

    Same sex marraige will be legal . What will you say then?

    Progress is the rule here, it always has been. All of these arguments were made during the mixed race marraige debate and you lost then, when will you people learn that you can't control people with religion and you certainly can't change what people want based on religious talking points.

    I find this entire debate should be moot. It so annoying when a person comes out and says that their religion is the basis for stopping other people from enjoying freedom and liberty.

    Religion is the oppressor here, not the victim. No one outside of the religious right believes that religion is a victim in the same sex marraige debate and it disgustingly insulting to our intelligence for you to act as if allowing two consenting adults to get married according to their own conscience is an open attack on YOU!

    - Rice klowNUS June 17, 2009 9:35AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • NoNeed4Tyranny
      Thank You for Debunking the RR

      Thank you, Rice. The spin that the Religious Right (RR) puts on these stories makes them into lies...wait, isn't lying a sin? Doesn't that mean they are sinners? Doesn't that mean that businesses/ church lobbies/therapists/photographers (and every other discriminatory party listed above) should deny services to the RR, people committed to a life of sin by propagating misunderstanding and discrimination?

      Wait...that 'sin argument' is BS...and, these days, it is exclusively reserved for discriminating against gays. This is one of the many reasons religious arguments fail: 'Everybody is a sinner' but only a select few are persecuted by the church on any given day. Go to a service or mass for yourself! There is rarely preaching to the family-beaters, wife-cheaters, child-molesters, and drug-abusers in their own congregations...but those GAYS with their disgusting needs for equal treatment, recognition of their love and desire for family need to be stopped at all costs! That stupid message trickles down narrow-minded citizens who think they are fulfilling 'God's Plan' by denying other humans (i.e. gay citizens) equal treatment.

      If the churches actually focused on love and respect rather than judgement and persecution, same-sex marriage and religious liberty COULD co-exist and be celebrated by everyone. As it stands now, however, love between consenting adults does not seem to fit the hate-filled teachings of many churches.

      - NoNeed4TyrannyUS June 17, 2009 3:36PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • tek
      as usual

      Nicely stated Rice.

      - tek June 20, 2009 3:43PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • greling
    The Mormon's Catholic Charities Lie

    "In Massachusetts, Catholic charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. "

    This is total B.S. there are several things wrong with this statement.

    First, those charities were never told that they had to cease granting adoptions by the state. What they were told was they if they wanted to continue to receive *state funding* (a.k.a. "public money ) they had to accept gay couples or no longer see the free money. The state simply required they abide by the state's anti-discrimination policy like everyone else. Since gay residents of the state pay taxes just like everyone else, it would be unconstitutional to use their own money to discriminate against them. By not acting as it did, the state would in effect would be endorsing religion and subordinating the civil rights of gays in the process.

    Second, it's not like those charities didn't want to grant gay adoptions. Most of them did. It wasn't until the higher-ups in Vatican sent an order for the gay adoptions to cease that they began to refuse gay couples. I repeat, the charities wanted gay adoptions, but Big Brother Ratzinger and his buddies out on the Holy See said no-no, nix, nada to that. Hence, the real reason these charities were forced to close their doors was because of the Vatican itself. The charities were happy let gay couples adopt, but when the Vatican forced their hand the other way and break the law , they had no choice but to close.

    Third, what annoys me most is that despite the fact that the Mormons repeatedly used this one-liner lie about Catholic charities in their crusade to discriminate against gay couples in California and get Prop. 8 passed, they did all of this while having their own adoption charities in Massachusetts alive and operating. Their charities don't get state funding and so they are permitted to discriminate against gays, single people, and people of different religions.

    What's really behind this lie is that the people pushing it want state money to endorse religion. They also want religion put back in schools and shoved down innocent children 's throats. They want a theocracy, and in over 30 states they are winning.

    - grelingUS June 18, 2009 2:55PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • tek
    more trash from the FRC

    I really should just have a generic title response "FRC misleads again". Now, before you think I am going to bash the FRC any further in this post please read on.

    I am absolutely pro-marriage for gays. I am also absolutely pro-choice for ministers NOT wanting to marry gays. This is not a contradiction. Clerics and other mythologists should be allowed to discriminate their services. I realize this is a tightrope that can be abused, so let's stick squarely to the subject of marrying two people. As it applies to the religious, the marriage service given by any one mythology is conducted under the auspices of that religion 's creed. There are plenty of churches that will "marry" gay people. Choose one that does. It is entirely improper to allow litigation against a cleric who denies a marriage rite to whomever they choose.

    Do you really want to be married by someone who doesn't respect your union anyway? Would you have the most joyous of days tainted by the contempt of the clergyman? Each church is free to hate and descriminate as much as they like on many issues, given that they confine that hatred, or ignorance, or bigotry to their own flock of sheep.

    - tek June 20, 2009 3:40PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...