Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

[fgoodwin]

Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

 

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15345126.htm

 

Posted on Thu, Aug. 24, 2006

Commentary

By Roger T. Severino

 

Live and let live. A simple concept, to be sure, but can we apply it to the growing conflict between gay rights and religious beliefs? The answer increasingly seems to be no.

 

Recently, Philadelphia ordered the local Boy Scouts of America chapter (the nation's third-largest) to renounce the national organization's ban on openly gay members or begin paying rent on its city-subsidized headquarters of 78 years. Some thought this issue was settled by the Supreme Court in 2000, when the Boy Scouts won the right to exclude members who rejected the Scouts' moral vision, specifically those who advocated for or engaged in homosexual conduct.

 

That victory, however, came at a cost. The Boy Scouts were banned from an array of government programs and government-affiliated campsites across the country. It appears that Philadelphia has now joined that list.

 

Make no mistake: Losing its rent-free home will hurt the Boy Scouts' charitable services to 40,000 local children. Maybe some of the 75 other community groups that receive free rent from the city can pick up that slack, maybe not - but this illustrates a broader point:

 

If the gay-rights movement is willing to trample on the moral beliefs of the Boy Scouts for the sake of "tolerance," will religious institutions that also provide social services and oppose gay rights on religious grounds fare any better?

 

Consider the latest battle over same-sex marriage.

 

Congress recently debated whether to amend the Constitution to define marriage exclusively as the union of husband and wife. In that debate, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.) described the attempt as "bigotry, pure and simple." But Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) supported such an amendment precisely because it would stop state and federal judges from joining Massachusetts in declaring same-sex marriage a civil right, one that inevitably will infringe on the rights of religious believers who disagree. As Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.) has argued, religiously affiliated social-service organizations will soon be forced to choose between "violating their own deeply held beliefs and giving up government contracts, tax-exempt status, or even being denied the right to operate at all."

 

Since the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a public-interest law firm that represents all religious traditions (including those for and against same-sex marriage), we do not offer an opinion as to which result is ultimately best for America. But as a matter of religious liberty, the arguments of Sens. Santorum and Brownback cannot be ignored.

 

Like the Boy Scouts, religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage will find themselves no longer welcome as partners in a variety of government social-service programs - from family counseling, to addiction programs, to job-placement services - and may even lose their access to public land for religious retreats, just as the Boy Scouts have lost their access to public land for their Jamborees.

 

In the employment context, religious institutions would be prohibited - on pain of "marital status discrimination" lawsuits - from firing an employee who publicly rejects the institution's opposition to same-sex marriage by obtaining one. Religious employers might even be forced, against their principles, to extend health and retirement benefits to their employees' same-sex spouses.

 

Religious universities that provide married-student housing would be required to provide rooms to everyone legally married, including same-sex couples, even if the university objects on moral grounds. And this problem is hardly speculative or alarmist - it's already happening on a small scale, even before the legal redefinition of marriage makes it much more common. For example, fair-housing laws have already been applied in New York City to require Yeshiva University to open up its married-student housing to same-sex domestic partners.

 

But the loss of these rights and benefits pales in comparison to what many houses of worship fear - the loss of tax-exempt status.

 

In the 1982 case of Bob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court found that when a charitable organization's policies become "at odds with the common community conscience," its state and federal tax exemptions may be revoked, even if the policies are religiously motivated. This decision allowed governments at all levels to revoke the income or property-tax exemptions of religious institutions that "discriminate" against same-sex couples. All it takes is a court, legislature, or tax bureaucrat to find that the "community conscience" demands it.

 

If courts continue to weaken religious-freedom protections - and if legislatures continue to fail to fill the breach - there might soon be nothing left to stop the state from steamrolling over all religious conduct that dares to oppose gay rights.

 

Live and let live indeed.

 

---

Roger T. Severino (rseverino@becketfund.org) is legal counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would like to respond to this but not get entangled in some kind of bitter debate.

 

The basic premise is that politics should be a way to get our roads fixed.

 

Religion should be a way to get our hearts fixed.

 

If we exclude certain groups from our highways and if we exclude certain groups from our religions, then many don't get to where they need to go.

 

FB

[fgoodwin]

I believe there are good people with deeply held beliefs on each side of many issues -- I try to remember that just because we differ in our opinions, doesn't make anyone a bad person.

 

The way things are going, I think that advocates for gay rights will eventually win the day. This article points to some possible unintended consequences when that victory ultimately comes.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

In reading the article, it sounds like the real problem is the Bob Jones decision.

[evmori]

FB,

Excellent! Very well put!

 

Don't gays have the same rights as no-gays? It sounds like they want tolerance of their lifestyle at any expense. That would make it special right over and above the same rights all Americans are afforded.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

Ed,

I think special rights are defined as one group wanting rights in excess of other groups. If gay people want access to the same opportunities as straight people, how is that special?

[Trevorum]

Before the Civil War, slavery was defended from the pulpit. It was a strongly held religious belief that people from Africa were ordained by God (the mark of Ham) to be subservient to white people. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm#bib) Our country eventually rejected this religious justification for slavery (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am13)

 

A religious defense of evil is nodefense.

 

[yellow_hammer]

Trevorum,

 

Equating the horrors of slavery with the economic desires of a relatively small but vocal group of sexual deviants is pure baloney.

[yellow_hammer]

Gernblanston,

 

There is no right that I have that a homosexual does not also have. They can marry just like I can - as long as the person is of the opposite sex. They can get insurance coverage for their family just like I can - as long as their family meets the definition that has existed for several thousand years. [Please don't point out that the Ugabooga tribe of Lower Watusi had a different definition until they were forced by Missionary zealots to change. I'm talking about the rule not the exceptions.]

 

Homosexuals want to change the rules that help to define the basic unit of society so that they can further legitimate their sexual desires. I just don't see how this can be a good thing for society as a whole. Where does it stop?

[DanKroh]

"There is no right that I have that a homosexual does not also have."

 

Speaking of pure baloney....

 

 

[evmori]

Exactly my point, yellow hammer, only you stated it better than I did.

 

"There is no right that I have that a homosexual does not also have."

 

Speaking of pure baloney....

 

OK Dan, what rights don't homosexuals have that I have?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[GernBlansten]

Ed et al,

You have a basic right to marry who you love. That's a special right because it doesn't apply to everyone.

[Trevorum]

YellowHammer,

I'm sorry if my post was misunderstood. I was not equating anything. My point is that religion can be used as a rationale for injustice. Using religious arguments to perpetuate an injustice is, in my opinion, unethical and immoral. Of course, you may feel differently.

[DanKroh]

In addition to the marriage right (and all the rights that go along with that) that Gern mentioned, gays also are denied the option to serve in our country's armed forces.

 

Also, not every state has anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation that guarantees their right to fair employment, housing, etc.

 

But there will always be those that try to spin every instance of discrimination into something else.

[yellow_hammer]

Gern,

 

I'm no law professor but I'm pretty certain that the laws governing marriage make no mention of love. There is no right to marry whom you love. Marriage is a social contract meant to (among other things) protect wives and children from nitwits who think that the tingly feeling they mistake for love is more important than duty.

 

DanKroh,

 

Assertion without facts fit my description of baloney just as well as flawed logic.

 

"gays also are denied the option to serve in our country's armed forces." Only if they break discipline by opening their mouths about their preference. Most any other sexual deviant can have a successful military career if they are discreet. Serving in the military is not a right, as a matter of fact all members of the military agree to give up some of their constitutional rights to be a member.

 

"Also, not every state has anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation that guarantees their right to fair employment, housing, etc." Just because there isn't a law against something doesn't mean there should be. I am certain that there is no such law in my state and yet homosexuals seem to be employed and living quite comfortably.

 

Trevorum,

"Using religious arguments to perpetuate an injustice is, in my opinion, unethical and immoral."

 

Your argument assumes that there is an injustice in the first place. I don't accept that there is in the case of homosexuals. They insist on behaving outside the norms of society but then insist on being fully accepted nonetheless. The "injustice" is one of their own creation.

 

*Logic* has and can be used to perpetuate injustice. By your reasoning it is immoral and unethical to use logic in an argument. That leaves us with feelings and the argument that if I "feel" it is right or wrong then it is right or wrong. That is a basis for anarchy not society.