The Human Rights Campaign addresses a new advert from the National Organization for Marriage in which various very sad people decry the storm that is coming to sweep away their deeply held religious beliefs because of (gasp) GAY MARRIAGE.
There’s a storm gathering. The clouds are dark and the winds are strong. And I am afraid. Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples. They want to bring the issue into my life. My freedom will be taken away.
I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.
I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support same-sex marriage.
I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.
But some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish. Those advocates want to change the way I live.
I will have no choice.
The storm is coming.
But we have hope. A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage. Visit NationforMarriage.org. Join Us.
Ah … freedom as a zero-sum game. For you to be free takes away from my freedom, right?
Now, it’s no surprise that the people in the ad are not actually the real people affected by this, but it’s more surprising that, as HRC notes, the complaints are based on real cases:
The examples they cite in the ad are:
(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
HRC note that it’s a clash between privately held beliefs and people offering or dealing with services in the public sphere. None of them really have to do with same-sex marriage per se, just with laws against discrimination against homosexuality. Indeed, the ad doesn’t rather coyly treat same-sex marriage as the least of the ills being described (“But some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish. Those advocates want to change the way I live.”) before circling back around to attack same-sex marriage. This is like saying that “Some people who believe in equal rights for African Americans also mug people. That scares me! So help us defend against equal rights for African Americans.”
Be that as it may, the individual cases don’t actually hold up, aside from fearmongering TEH GAYZ ARE GONNA MAKE ME MISERABLE sort of stuff.
The first case, as HRC describes it:
The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
Or, put another way, would HOM say it’s acceptable for a Christian doctor who believes that Jews are Christ-killers to decline to treat one? Would they argue that their faith is being threatened? What about treating a black woman who’s suffering from pregnancy complications and has a white husband, if the doctor believes that God forbids mixing of the races? Nobody would (publicly) question that state and federal anti-discrimination laws based on race and religion should trump such religious beliefs, no matter how heartfelt.
The case here is the same. The basic principle is that a public profession cannot discriminate based on protected classes. It doesn’t make any difference whether you agree or disagree on whether the class should be protected, or whether your disagreement is based on politics, religion, philosophy, or this morning’s horoscope.
The second case is similar to the first.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
Again, it’s a public service. If the pavilion was run by the Klan, that wouldn’t give them the right to only choose white patrons. Nor because it’s run by a Christian church can they only hire it out to only Christian groups. Discrimination based on race and religion, even if religiously motivated, is not allowed. The same is true when the state includes sexual orientation in their protected classes.
HRC observes on the third case:
The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
That seems very straightforward to me. The educational curriculum is set by the state and the school district. The parent has any number of options in how to counter it, just as they do with the teaching of evil-ution and anything else they object to. But declaring that the classroom can’t teach anything in the curriculum that disagrees with a parent’s beliefs holds no more water than claiming that the local TV station can’t show anything on TV that disagrees with a parent’s beliefs, either.
And, again, none of this has to do with gay marriage, just with general WE WANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST TEH GAYZ BECAUSE OUR RELIGION SAYS IT’S NAUGHTY.
“A storm is coming” is just how folks who didn’t agree with civil rights for minority racial and ethnic groups in the 50s and 60s reacted to changing laws. Some of those folks claimed deep-seated religious basis for their biases, too. But having a religious belief doesn’t provide license as to how we interact with the law or the public, or at least it shouldn’t. A religious belief against war doesn’t let you skip out on paying taxes. A religious belief in beating your kids doesn’t ward off Child Protective Services.
People who believe that homosexuality a moral wrong have a lot of ways — protected ways — they can express that in their words and lives. Asking for a pass against discrimination laws just because their religion thinks they should discriminate isn’t one of them.
And it still doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage.
By points,
1) Doctor – I agree.
2) Church – I agree, but for a different reason. If a church professes to be Christian, a “love your neighbor” is a given tenet, then they need to accept their neighbors as they are.
3) School – I disagree. To a point. You seem to argue that the state knows what is best for the majority and allows difference of opinion in “separate but equal” conditions, i.e., a private school. I agree that any discrimination should be stamped wrong, but blindly following the state puts too much trust in a system. I am not trying to compare the United States to Nazi Germany, but I would argue this type of blind acceptance of what the state tells you lead to some of the problems Germany got into.
Loving your neighbor does not mean accepting them as they are. If your neighbor is an axe murderer, clearly loving him doesn’t means you ignore what he is doing that is wrong, or loan him your whetstone when he complains the blade getting dull.
If the church in this case had a private facility that they simply allowed people to make use of, then it would be up to them to decide who could or couldn’t. Since it is a facility that they are renting out, they make themselves open to federal (and state) non-discrimination laws regarding public accomodations, etc. They become, at that point, a public business, and the fact that they are a church becomes irrelevant to the rental part of their activities.
Regarding the school, this one I pondered for a while, because I think that there can be some accomodation here. It’s a balancing act, because on the one hand, you don’t want one person’s beliefs dictating the curriculum for all (going to the lowest common denominator); on the other hand, you don’t want the curriculum to be tromping on the beliefs of a minority in the class.
The key here should be curriculum matters, vs. non-curriculum. If something is part of the educational content of the school. the ability to accomodate parents who claim it violates their beliefs becomes narrower; we allow it (or have in the past) for things like sex ed, but I’d hate to allow parents to pull their kids out of class if “evil-lution” lessons are being taught. At some point, if you’re going to a public school, then your control over what is taught comes through school board elections, etc.
When I was a teacher, I can recall that I was asked (by the administration) to avoid certain holiday art activities (Halloween in particular) because of the religious beliefs of the parents of one or more of the kids. That was easily accomodated (though a bit sad for me). But when it gets into actual “education” sort of bits, I have much less tolerance — especially, as the article notes, the parents involved have other options (including teaching their kids, in no uncertain terms, that they consider gay marriage to be wrong and sinful).
That’s different from blindly accepting what the state says, I think.
Hi Dave,
First time visiting your site – credit to a blog post by decrepit old fool. I am a conservative (I think) Christian preacher and believe that homosexuality is contrary to God’s design – based on Biblical doctrine. I do not believe that gay folk are more ‘evil’ than myself. I believe we are all fallen. Enough for context. I haven’t seen the storm video – I’ll have to check it out. But assuming you are being fair and accurate, which it sounds like you are, I am in agreement with you on the issues. No doctor, especially one professing faith in God, should refuse treatment to a sinner of any stripe. I would draw a line if say sex change operations were considered treatment but Idoubt that’s what the case was about. If a church goes into public enterprise – it’s public enterprise. We all have to deal with that. There’s a difference between collecting offerings and renting facilities and services. And, there is a reason they’re called public schools. I struggled over various issues when my kids were in them. In the end I pretty much decided that the truth will bear comparison. I did pull my kids out f a couple of classes – one in particular, the teacher wanted them to perform certain native american rites, imagine an animal spirit helper until they had a vision of it, etc. That wasn’t teaching about native american religion but practicing it. I am trying hard to understand the perception of Christianity as ‘hateful’. Your post is helpful. Thanks. I’ll try to catch up with the storm video and check it out for myself.
Hi, Terry. Thanks for commenting, and welcome.
Since you agree with my basic positions, I can’t question your comments that much. I’ll note that some folks would consider sex reassignment surgery to be something more than elective, but I suspect a referral would be considered a adequate response if someone had moral qualms over actually performing such surgery.
I am sure that, sooner or later, I will disagree with something non-factual (or interpretational) that my daughter is taught. When that happens, my intent is to tell her what *I* believe, and (if germane) why.
As a self-labeled Christian, I don’t consider Christianity “hateful.” I do think there are some hateful people who claim to be Christian, and I think there are people who feel that their treatment by Christians has been hateful.
I think this is particularly clear in the debate over gay rights, marriage equality, etc., where a very vocal portion of the Christian community literally demonizes gays, scoffs at the idea of loving relationships between same-sex couples, and portrays attempts to gain *civil* (vs. religious) recognition of such relationships as a Satanic plot to overthrow civilization. To people on the receiving end of such rhetoric (which is not difficult to find from prominent conservative Christians), it’s hard to argue that Christianity is not hateful but loving, not condemning but welcoming. I believe that such an approach is, in the long run, more harmful to Christianity (and, more importantly, to Christ’s message) than helpful.
I think there’s room to have moral beliefs that are more strict than the law. I even believe it’s understandable when there are social results from that. I believe the disconnect comes when people of faith (of whatever creed) restrict the actions of others, by law, based solely on religious doctrine, whether that doctrine is shared by others or not.
Sorry if I ramble. Again, thanks for leaving a comment, and hope you continue to read and dialog here.
Thanks again Dave,
I’ll try to be careful not to commit thread jacking or be a troll. I am only just learning the conventions of blogging and have been burned on this before! I agree, there are hateful Christians as there are hateful people in any group. And maybe a lot of the ‘hate’ in not conscious or intentional. The thought I often seem to pick up though is that to believe homosexuality is wrong is by default to hate gays and be a ‘homophobe’ The same thought with being prolife is automatic hatred of women. I find this troubling. But let me not violate my intent not to jack this thread. I don’t feel compelled to prohibit civil marriage for gays and I see the problem with deciding that any group within a society shouldn’t have full access to the civil structure. But, I wouldn’t perform a gay marriage as a minister. This is frequently seen as hateful. I do not find that I hate gays or anyone else. Perhaps my definition of hate is more personal than institutional. I struggle.
Well, so far I don’t see any sign of your jacking the thread, so no worries.
I think it’s possible to separate the two, but it’s also easy to see why some people (both some of those who declare homosexuality to be wrong and those who are homosexual) would see them as closely entwined, and let that entwining blur the distinction.
Let’s say, for example, that your beliefs are that the people of Rome were ultimately responsible for the death of Christ, and so being of Roman — or Italian — descent is a mark of evil, and all things Italian are wrong, from architecture to cooking. You can say, well, hate the Italianate, but love the Italian, in the hopes that such people will declare themselves no longer of that descent, but of one more acceptable. But for someone (such as me) who bears a fondness for his Italian family, and history, and food, it would be difficult to not see that as hatred of *me*.
And if, in the face of some intransigent Italian-Americans continuing to make pizza, and tell stories of the Old Country, and march in Columbus Day parades, you decided to extend your moral condemnation into banning Italian restaurants, destruction of immigration records from Italy, and forbade people who refused to denounce their Italian heritage from being full citizens of the United States, making them unable to vote or hold office (though still having to pay taxes) … then it would be very easy for me to see such actions as being hateful toward *me*, even if you asserted that you were doing solely out of your moral beliefs as to the evils of Rome.
In turn, if I started going on marches, and seeking to have such laws overturned, and flaunting my Italian heritage, and speaking out against the basis for such discrimination, certainly there would be some folks who would accuse me of having an “Italian-American Agenda” and being a hater of the Anti-Italianates, a long tradition upon which our country was founded.
So is believing homosexuality is wrong the same as hating homosexuals? With care, I don’t think it has to be. But the actions that extend from that may be hurtful, and divisive, and oppressive, and it’s not going to be easy to not personalize that conflict, from either side, to demonize those who disagree with you. If someone is disagreeing with you on what you feel is a clear moral point, and flagrantly disregarding what you say, it’s hard not to turn your anger on them. And if someone disagrees with you on a clear moral point, and feels you are imposing your morality on their own moral code which is different, it’s hard for them not to turn their anger on you.
(Note that this assumes everyone is acting from personal moral convictions, and that we’re not dealing with political power games or simple contrarianism.)
I think that anyone who would want a minister to marry them would not want it to be someone who was doing so against their moral beliefs.
What society considers to be matrimony cannot dictate that status to God. On the other hand, we can’t let what one person or group says God believes marriage to be dictate that to society. I believe that the religious and spiritual part of my own wedding made it very, very special to me and to my wife, but that doesn’t mean I think that people who are married by a justice of the peace or county clerk are somehow not “really” married. Declining to officiate at a marriage that you cannot morally support (for whatever reason) is not hateful, though it may hurt someone who expected you to.
Thanks again. Perhaps some of the trouble rests partly in the political difference between the time of Jesus in which Christianity was born, and the present. Jesus & co. didn’t labor in a Christian culture. Duh! The people of God have a long history of turning the blessings into a curse. Backing up, Paul said the things he said about homosexuality but made no efforts to effect cultural, political, or national law. He kind of gave up his status in two dominant and authoritative cultural strands to be a Christian at all. We are in a completely different context. We have been empowered. Perhaps we have not made the best use of it. Keeping more on subject. I said I did not feel compelled to legally prohibit gay marriage. A complication is that we live in a country with judea-Christian underpinings and there is a traditional majority understanding of marriage. And yet our government has a secular/civic function. Unless homosexuality itself should be made illegal (NOT ADVOCATING THIS) then full access to the civic structure seems a necessity. I have a hard time picturing Jesus saying that gays (or prostitutes or roman soldiers or any other group) should be denied the basic benefits of society. I’m rambling again. For a lot of these reasons, I’m not much on direct democracy – including the ballot initiatives relating to gay marriage, definition of marriage etc. Thin line to mob rule. At any rate, the difference between the personal and institutional definitions of hatred I mentioned, may rest partly in a class possession of power.
Arguably, the conversion of Constantine and the establishment of Christianity as the official imperial religion was the worst tihng that ever happened to the faith as taught by Jesus. He seemed quite disinterested in temporal power; the church (as a whole) has ever since sought it and used it to its ends, usually with sadder results the more successful they were.
Quite true. And, to hear some Christians, that would make you a radical and unbiblical.
Certainly. But tradition is different from morality. Tradition, in the marital realm, made marriage a proposition of property exchange for many, to be entered into in the teens, to be performed only among equals, and certainly only among the same racial and ethnical and religious backgrounds. I love tradition, but it’s always worth questioning. We’ve changed much of what it means to be properly married — the circumstances and the participants, not to mention traditional behavior and roles within marriage. I don’t think that’s been all a bad thing, nor do I think extending that to gay couples is outside of the scope of those changes.
Agreed. Access to government services, privileges, and rights are not a function of spiritual morality (one would think politicians would be the first to understand that).
Agreed. Indeed, Jesus did most of his reaching out to folks who were outcasts from society (and in a time when society, in terms of its function, was much less about government and much more about human relationships).
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.”
Agreed. That’s what a constitution — underlying laws that control the rest of the legal structure — is for, to restrain the tyranny of the majority. A reason why Iowa (and the US) are admirable in their structures to allow for constitutional change, but only slowly, while California’s initiative system makes it far too easy.
Given that most folks are fundamentally conservative (i.e., they prefer that most things not change, unless convinced it’s clearly for the better), then those who have institutional power will tend to resist attempts to change things, not necessarily for the reasons behind the status quo, but for the sake of the status quo per se. The more that change is threatened, the greater the fear behind it. Thus, in this case, the apocalypitic tones adopted by so many conservative commentators about the End of Civilization if gays are “allowed” to marry. Looking at places where it has, in fact, been allowed to happen, in the US and and abroad, demonstrates neither the Wrath of God nor Gay Rape Gangs roaming the streets and stealing our kids. But the arguments don’t come from a rational basis, but a fear of the unknown, of the Other, of Change. And to paraphrase Yoda, fear leads to anger over the situation, to anger at those who are pressing the situation, and thence to hate — even when those who are resisting are, in fact, supposedly speaking on behalf and in defense of a religion of love.
Thanks much Dave. Have enjoyed the conversation and found it profitable. I’ll let this one rest for now. But I imagine I’ll check in later.
Terry
You’re welcome back whenever you like, Terry. Thanks.