A fine question. If I walk up to a woman on the street and talk her into having sex with me, that's considered harmless (except for what harm Margie would do to me when she found out). If I walk up to a woman on the street and pay her for having sex with me, that's considered a crime.
Whenever I hear of money being equated to speech and other political activity, I go back to the Medieval Church. Crusades were afoot, as the Church wanted to take back the Holy Land from the Muslims. But initial religious fervor only gathered so many troops — especially knights — for the task. So the Church lit on a great idea: a plenary indulgence for those who participated (see Pope Urban II and the Council of Clermont (1095)). Go off to the Crusades — thus performing a great and dangerous effort out of piety — and such a penitential act would mean the punishment (in Purgatory) for forgiven Earthly sins would be wiped clean. You'd have done your metaphysical time, as it were, performing community service.
This worked pretty well, but ultimately a certain unfairness became apparent. A person who was too old, or too ill, or too important, to go off to the Crusades was being robbed of the opportunity for an indulgence of this sort. Eventually the Church solved this problem, too, with a very modern-sounding idea: money is religious action.
Thus, rather than going off to a Crusade, you could accrue the benefit if you paid for someone else to go on your behalf. (I don't recall if it counted for the Crusader, too.) After all, it was a similar sacrifice and exertion, "from each according to his abilities," and so should be similarly respected and rewarded.
Of course, that was all well and good for those wealthy enough to be able to afford to send a whole Crusader off to the wars, but for those of more limited means — well, ultimately, there were opportunities to pay for a "share" of a Crusader: contribute to the cause, and you'd get, if not a plenary indulgence than a partial one, maybe a few hundred years knocked off your time in Purgatory (or off the time of a deceased loved one). It was a win-win for everyone …
… until the system (inevitably) spiraled out of control, and various church officials were offering partial indulgences (or even outright forgiveness of sins) for monetary contributions for just about anything (often money that simply went into the pocket of the wandering professional "pardoner" proclaiming such great bargains). And even when official, the causes for which indulgences were granted became more and more venal …
… until, ultimately, the abuses of indulgence-monger Johann Tetzel, who was drumming up money for the rebuilding of St Peter's Basilica in Rome under Pope Leo X (using, it was said, the catchy jingle, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs"), led to an obscure German cleric named Martin Luther to post 95 Theses objecting to the overall practice. And the rest was history.
And all because someone decided that money could be consideredthe same as religious action.
And that's what I think about someone drawing an equivalence between money and political speech/action. I can understand the logic of it, but it serves as the slipperiest of slopes into those with more money having more "speech," then to money simply buying political power in a way antithetical to the principles of men who enshrined freedom of speech as a protection against the growth and abuse of power.
The idea that money = political speech does open up a number of questions such as why is bribery bad or why can't I hire a prostitute as an expression of my sexuality?
Law professor tells senators: If money is speech, outlawing prostitution is unconstitutional
The decision was later followed by similar rulings in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, further eroding limits on political spending and contributions. The Supreme Court rulings have led to an unprecedented amount of money being spent to influence the outcome of elections.
Judges sometimes make unpopular rulings, which lead to loud, strident cries of "This violates the Will of the People! How DARE this judge make such a ruling?!"
Judges have two jobs. The first is to determine the facts, based on the evidence and testimony in a case. The second — especially as you climb up the chain — is to determine whether a particular application of the law, or even a law itself, is in keeping with higher law — a state constitution, or the Federal Constitution.
While constitutions are based, ultimately, on the will of the people, the nature of the constitutional system is that they are not easily or quickly or reactively changed. That's by design, because the majority is (as any of the Founders would have told you) an important power, but a fickle and not-always-trustworthy one.
Thus, it's not surprising that judges occasionally come up with rulings that are not in keeping with the immediate, here-and-now popular will. If we were purely a democracy in such things, we wouldn't need (or want) a constitution.
Impeaching judges (or, in some states, voting them out at the next election) provides some power the people, but it really needs to be reserved for cases of clear malfeasance or incompetence, not for doing things that are unpopular. If a judge is ruling based on a constitution in a way that's unpleasant or difficult or unpopular — well, then change the law or the constitution in question. A judge is not intended to follow the popular opinion — if so, then we'd simply allow lynch mobs to do their work and be done with it.
Hey, Mike Huckabee, Here’s Why Impeaching a Pro-Gay Judge Isn’t a Great Idea
On Monday, Mike Huckabee—former Arkansas governor, failed presidential candidate, and noted misogynist—called for the impeachment of Arkansas County Circuit Judge Christopher Piazza after the judge invalidated his state’s gay marriage ban. “The Governor,” Huckabee proclaimed in a statement, “should call a special session of the legislature and impeach the judge…
"Look, you have freedom of speech, but you can't go this far"
There's a very, very, very fuzzy line about how one represents one's employer when one is functioning in the public square. We've seen a lot of folks get in trouble over saying things in social media that their superiors (and/or the public) though reflected poorly on their workplace.
The most recent result of that is the Kansas Board of Regents revising their social media guidelines. Now employees (including University of Kansas professors) not only can't say anything that might create violence or disclose private or confidential information, but can't say anything that is "contrary to the best interests of the university."
Which will be judged, of course, by the Board of Regents.
Now, an employer has to look after its interests — and, in this case, the Board of Regents is apparently pretty darned scared of the Kansas Legislature, which holds the purse strings (just as the governor appoints the regents), and which had prominent members up in arms about a particular tweet by a faculty member after a shooting: "The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters." The lege, and some of the public, went bonkers, leading Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady of the Kansas Legislature to utter that lovely quote in the headline, in support of the new social media policy, adding, "I think having a clear understanding between faculty and the board of regents on what's acceptable and what's not is better for everyone involved."
I.e., don't say anything in public that might get the public upset.
What's particularly galling about this is how the regents and pols are trying to paint it as increasing "academic freedom" — apparently by providing clear guidelines about what you can't freely talk about. Except, of course, they don't. "Academic freedom" isn't defined by what the taxpayers or their elected representatives might get upset about. If you are looking after the "best interests" of the university, you are not acting freely. If posting an anti-NRA tweet is "contrary to the best interests of the university," then what about a tweet about climate change, or gay rights, or political candidates, or religion, or evolution?
(And, yes, that goes both ways as far as political orientation. I'd like to think I'd be just as outraged if someone who tweeted a very strong pro-NRA message in a very liberal state were being slapped down by a formal policy of this sort. _Especially_ where the employer imposing the policy is, in fact, the government.)
The only restrictions I can think of that might possibly be legitimate, aside from the other caveats in the policy would be making public statements that might cause serious concern among students or employees about whether contrary opinions (or simply being of the wrong race, faith, orientation, origin) might be dangerous to their grades or their employment — in some ways, exactly what this policy does. Of course, being on the outs with the prof, for whatever reason, is always risky — and sooner or later that means that opinions are going to bump up against each other, sometimes with unpleasant consequences.
But that's part of what academic freedom is about. Something that the Kansas legislature and Board of Regents seem to be forgetting in their desire to make "don't rock the boat" the foundation of speech and liberty (and the irony there for ostensibly liberty-loving conservatives is even more galling).
In Kansas, Professors Must Now Watch What They Tweet
Last fall, a University of Kansas professor criticized the National Rifle Association in a tweet. Wednesday, the Kansas Board of Regents approved a strict social media policy for university employees.
I recall there being all sorts of foofoorah last census about all those horrible questions that were Horribly Infringing on Freedom as Given To Us By The Founding Fathers but Now Lost Amidst The Creeping Socialism of the Freedom Hating Obamanation.
I was poking through some census records, and noted the 1850 census (which would have included in it some folks who were kids when the Constitution was enacted) included such Freedom Loving and Not At All Intrusive questions as:
– Married within the last year – Attended school within the year – Persons over 20 years of age who cannot read and write – Whether deaf and dumb, blind, insane, idiotic, pauper, or convict
Too bad Michelle Bachmann wasn't alive then so she could have seen what Truly Constitutional Censuses were like back in the day.
Part of me objects to these sorts of examples as drumming up fear about "those crazy Muslims" and how they would "abuse" religious freedom-to-discriminate laws by "bringing Sharia Law" to our blessed shores, etc., etc., etc. Because, really, the last thing we need is more people fearmongering about "the Muslims."
On the other hand, it is probably worthwhile reminding legislators (et al.) that such bills aren't (indeed, cannot be) limited solely to Right-Thinking and Godly True Christians(TM), but can be used by anyone who can claim a sincerely-held religious belief as a means of turning down commercial transactions. That's not the only reason objecting to such laws, but it may deflate a few of the arguments behind such proposals.
To Kill a Religious Freedom Bill, Don’t Warn People About Christians. Warn Them About Muslims.
If you want to kill legislation that protects the right of Christians to withhold business services from same-sex couples, here’s one way to do it: Don’t warn people about Christians. Warn them about Muslims. That strategy was on display in the campaign against Arizona Senate Bill 1062, which would have…
In Texas, at least, the police can't go searching on your phone without a warrant — at least not while it's sitting in the property room. As the majority opinion had it:
'The Fourth Amendment states that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” The term “papers and effects” obviously carried a different connotation in the late eighteenth century than it does today. No longer are they stored only in desks, cabinets, satchels, and folders. Our most private information is now frequently stored in electronic devices such as computers, laptops, iPads, and cell phones, or in "the cloud" and accessible by those electronic devices. But the "central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment" has remained the same throughout the centuries; it is "the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects." This is a case about rummaging through a citizen's electronic private effects – a cell phone – without a warrant.'
Good. If there's probable cause, get a judge to okay it with a warrant. If there's not, keep your hands off.
Interesting article, and even more interesting comment section.
I have no problem saying that extrajudicial killing by the government is wrong (let's leave aside the diplomatic/geopolitical aspects of operating in another country when they've told us not to), except against a combatant in time of war, at which time the "due process" thing is covered by a declaration of war or legal authorization of military force.
The problem being that, while one can (as the Obama administration, and the Bush administration before them, does) claim that the AUMF and "War on Terror" make remote drone strikes against terrorists, even American citizen terrorists, legal under the rules of war (we'll also set aside collateral damage issues), the slippery slope of declaring all terrorists as enemy combatants who can be killed by drones (or tanks) is that it allows a corrupt, immoral, tyrannical, or even just incompetent administration to kill anyone simply by saying that, well, they had good (but, of course, top secret) information that the person killed was a terrorist, so stop complaining.
Whether you think Obama is the second coming of Christ or the Anti-Christ, that's a dangerous power for even a saint. And it's now in Obama's hands, and the next president's hands, and the next president, and the next …
So to my mind the question becomes not whether the death of the New Mysterious American Citizen being gunned for would actually be an extrajudicial killing, because it I think there's enough evidence to indicate they're not. The question is whether being able to treat "terrorists" (or "Commie spies," or other past or future threatening groups of individuals who don't wear uniforms of an attacking army) as a group we are at war with is a sound idea, if there are no barriers other than competence and moral fiber to keep that power from being abused.
Navy accidentally sends reporter an internal memo describing how to block his FOIA request.
The apologized and tweeted (several times!) about how committed they are to free and open access. Uh huh.
Navy Apologizes After Mistakenly Sent Email
U.S. Navy officials have issued an apology for their response to a News4 reporter’s request for materials related to the September 2013 Navy Yard shooting rampage.
A federal judge has struck down Florida's "Want a welfare check? Pee in the cup" law, saying it's essentially a search without any justification.
Florida's governor, Rick Scott, says he's only thinking of the children:
'Mr. Scott, who had argued that the drug testing was necessary to protect children and ensure that tax money was not going to illegal drugs, said that the state would appeal the ruling. “Any illegal drug use in a family is harmful and even abusive to a child,” he said in a statement. “We should have a zero-tolerance policy for illegal drug use in families — especially those families who struggle to make ends meet and need welfare assistance to provide for their children.”'
Of course, on that basis, Gov. Scott should be able to order urine tests for any user of state services. Entering a state park? Pee in the cup. Getting your driver's license renewed? Pee in the cup. Working in a state job, from janitor to governor? Pee in the cup.
Unless, of course, the only families where we have to worry about "harmful and abusive" drug environments for children are very poor ones. What about that, Governor?
quote: Judge Mary S. Scriven of United States District Court wrote in her decision that the state’s testing requirement was unconstitutional. “The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote. The ruling made permanent an earlier, temporary ban by the judge.
1. Various grandstanding GOP pols notwithstanding, nobody's First Amendment rights are in question here. A&E are neither Congress nor the government in general. Private individuals are not required to tolerate any and all views, and when it comes to a company that feels that an employee is behaving in a fashion that will lose them business, it's their prerogative to do something about it.
2. If Robertson is actually "fired" (or the show canceled), there may be some ground for suit regarding discrimination for religious reasons. A&E probably has a pretty strong case that Robertson's remarks harmed the network by attacking segments of its viewership — the courts tend to favor employers in such cases.
3. I find Robertson's opinions in the GQ interview (http://goo.gl/q5tHkV) objectionable, offensive, and doltish in several areas. Not content in simply condemning homosexuality based on Scripture, he plays at scratching his head over what turns gay men on and how illogical it is, especially since it's just a step from there to bestiality. He also goes on at length about how all the black farm workers he knew back in the olden days in the South were really happy and cheerful and sang in the fields, at least until all the civil rights and welfare stuff came along. Also, the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor is because "the Shintos" didn't worship Jesus. Etc.
4. As much as I object to his comments, I would probably not have suspended Robertson for them, given that they basically hired the guy and his family as speak-truth-to-power old-timey back-woods Christians and hunters and duck call crafters.
5. On the other hand, A&E's execs have a better sense than I (or anyone else) of the various costs and risks keeping Robertson around after his GQ interview, vs the costs and risks of doing something about it.
6. People who think A&E is a bunch of poopy-heads about this are certainly free to boycott A&E's programming, just as those who support A&E's actions are free to watch more A&E programming to drive its aggregate ratings up. Social opprobrium through boycott is a long-standing tradition, regardless of the political persuasion of the boycotters.
As for me, A&E has long since turned in to a trash network full of reality shows (including "Duck Dynasty") that I have absolutely no desire to go out of my way to watch; that has nothing to do with their stance on this issue one way or the other, just the type of shows they run.
Bryan Fischer Is a Dolt (Nobody Expects the Soviet Gay Inquisition! edition)
Hey, Bryan! Long time no natter. How are things going as Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association (AFA)? I hear tell you're be-bothered by a court ruling here in Colorado. Let's go look.
Jack Phillips is a baker here who refuses to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. In the particular case in question, a couple who was to be married in Massachusetts (note that Colorado doesn't allow same-sex weddings) wanted a cake to celebrate with family and friends back home . The couple filed suit with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD), claiming the shop's policy, which Phillips clearly spelled out, was a violation of state anti-discrimination law regarding public accomodations (which includes bakeries). The CCRD ruled there had been illegal discrimination, and an administrative judge late last week affirmed that ruling.
At which point Phillips was dragged off to the gulag and flogged, then tied to a stake and burned to death for his faith.
No, no, I jest, Bryan. In fact, he wasn't even fined for the violation, though the judge did make a cease-and-desist order over the bakery's policy, and threatened fines if Phillips continued to discriminate in that fashion.
Cue the "Christians Are Being Persecuted for Their Faith!" chorus from you, Bryan, on your radio show:
'Would you be willing to do what this baker is willing to do: go to jail rather than violate your religious convictions?'
Note that while Phillips has indeed said he would be willing to go to jail if necessary, no jail has actually been threatened, just fines. In theory, a judge could find him in contempt of court if he failed to comply, which could involve jail time, but that's true for pretty much any court ruling.
Now, Bryan, I do have to admire someone willing to suffer for their convictions — whether that's monetary or even jail time. That doesn't mean I necessarily admire or agree with their cause, or that I think they should get a pass for it. The 9/11 hijackers were willing to (and in fact did) die for their convictions. IRA terrorists faced jail and worse in their bloody campaign against the Protestants in Northern Ireland.
Sure, this isn't a case of someone committing violence against others. It's about baking wedding cakes. But you can't trivialize the magnitude of what Phillips is doing, Bryan, without also trivializing the moral ground he's standing on — it's about baking wedding cakes, not Defending the Faith or Driving Out the Invaders or Fighting a Crusade.
'And, you know, this is something that you think happens in Cuba.'
By the way, Bryan, Cuba has a long history of discrimination against gays. Homosexual activity was illegal until the 90s (a lot of those brave folks who fled Cuba until then were, in fact, gay), and police harassment and social opprobrium are still fairly widespread. Cuba still does not allow same-sex marriage.
'This is something that happens in the Soviet Union.'
Which hasn't existed since 1991, Bryan.
'This is something that happens in Viet Nam, where people get sent to jail, or get sent to prison, for exercising their religious liberty.'
Viet Nam has traditionally (well, under the Communists) been harsh on Christians. Ostensibly the government allows religious freedom, though it exercises a fair amount of control over Christian communities. Foreign missionaries are not allowed in the country.
I couldn't find any information, though, on wedding cake baking policy there.
'I mean, that's how much control the secular theocrats have taken in our culture. The secular theocrats — this is like the Spanish Inquisition, this is the Secular Inquisition. And our secular theocrats have found this man guilty of heresy, guilty of idolatry, guilty of blasphemy …'
Actually, he's been found guilty of illegal discrimination. His professed beliefs have nothing to do with it and, in fact, are legally protected. Heck, if some other baker refused to bake him a cake because of his public religious stand, they would arguably be guilty of the same offense.
'… because he will not agree to the dogma of the secular theocrats. He is a heretic and he must be punished just like the Spanish Inquisition did for those that went astray from the dogma of the Church in their day.'
Really. I mean Phillips is being tortured until he declares his belief in gay marriage? He's literally being burned at the stake? Shocking!
And, of course, hyperbole of the highest order.
But you know, Bryan, it's funny to hear you speak up so stridently against suppression of freedom of conscience by calling to mind an example of … Christian suppression of freedom of conscience.
It's funny to hear you weigh in against state oppression of religious faith when you've argued in the past that Native Americans deserved to have their land taken by Europeans because they were filthy, immoral pagans [1], and that they should have all converted over to the invaders' religion [2]. Or when you've asserted that Muslims that want to immigrate to the the US should be forced to renounce their adherence to Islam. [3] Because that makes it sound like the only "religious liberty" you believe in is Christian religious liberty.
Which, in fact, is what you believe, as you've asserted in the past that the First Amendment "the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion," with you, apparently, getting to judge which Christian beliefs are orthodox enough to be protected (Mormons need not apply). [4]
Which is really funny because the Spanish Inquisition was a state institution (run by the Spanish Crown, using the Church) to … ensure Christian orthodoxy amongst the folks who had been forcibly converted from Islam and Judaism during the Reconquista of Spain from the Moors. Which is pretty much what you've argued for in the past regarding Muslims in the US.
Inquisition for Me, but not for Thee. Ain't that a riot, Bryan?
Of course, what's being discussed here is hardly about religious orthodoxy (even "secular religion"). Colorado has (along the same model as the 1964 Civil Rights Act) a "public accommodations" law. Public accommodations are (to quote Wikipedia) "entities, both public and private (thus treating private business enterprises as if they were part of the government), that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers." Private clubs and religious institutions are excepted.
In other words, if you open a business to the public, it's a public accommodation.
Under Colorado law, public accommodations cannot discriminate in services or customers based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or (since 2008) sexual orientation. In other words, a restaurant can't serve "Whites Only". A publicly available meeting hall can't refuse to rent to Jews. A store can't only sell brief cases to men, not women.
And in the case of a bakery, it is considered discrimination to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple the same as if it was refusing to bake a wedding cake for a Christian couple, a Mexican couple, or a Black couple, even if the baker has a religious opinion about such marriages. "I don't believe God meant for the races to be mixed" is no more a legally defensible reason to refuse service than "I don't believe God meant for two men to get married."
Now, obviously, that can raise some conflicts for owners of such public accommodations, such as a bakery that makes wedding cakes. They may very well have very profound feelings about mixed-race couples, or perhaps mixed-religion couples, or about the legitimacy of certain religions and what it means to be married under them … or that a marriage where one or both of the parties is divorced is, in the eyes of God, adultery, and therefore against one of the actual Commandments … or that Christians are a blight on humanity and therefore to support their marriage and subsequent breeding is an offense against the Universe.
What's a baker to do, Bryan?
The decision is pretty straightforward. You can decide that baking a wedding cake is not a religious act, and doesn't represent a personal faith sanction and support of the particular union taking place (any more than making a birthday cake is a particular religious endorsement of the birthday celebrator's personal life). Or you can quit.
Or you can pay fines for violating anti-discrimination laws.
That's not discrimination. And it's not the "inquisition." It's the compromise we all deal with in living in a society, even one that prizes, rightfully, religious liberty and freedom of conscience. A strong religious conviction is generally not a "Get Out of the Law Free" card. A Quaker doesn't get to withhold 19% of their federal income tax because they have a religious conviction against war and the military. A Rastafarian doesn't get to grow and smoke marijuana without worrying about a DEA drug bust, even though they consider it a sacramental herb. A worshiper of the Aztec gods doesn't get to kill human beings, even if that's what this week's ceremony calls for. A pastor doesn't get to drive 80 mph through a school zone just because he needs to get to church for a service. A Muslim baker doesn't get to refuse to bake wedding cakes for non-Muslims, even if he thinks that other religious are false and such unions sinful.
'And they're getting ready to send him, I mean, he is at risk of being sent to jail. And he says, "I'm willing to go there, if that's where you send me." So this is secular theocracy out of control.'
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." — Matt. 5:11-13
If Phillips wants to consider this religious persecution, he is as free to hold that belief as he is the belief that he's abetting a sinful same-sex marriage by baking them a cake (any more than the gas station they fill up at on the way to the chapel is abetting said marriage, or the McDonalds they stop at for a bite to eat that morning, or the Safeway that sells them paper plates and napkins for the reception). But that doesn't exclude him from the law any more than anyone else is excluded from it, and his choices are to follow it, pay the fines, decline to pay the fines and suffer further penalties, or choose another line of business where he doesn't have to feel religiously committed and supportive of what the purchasers of his product do with it.
Oh, Bryan. It’s been way too long since I’d engaged in faux dialog with you on one of your zany screeds. What’ve you got for me today?
The rush is on for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will, bizarrely, actually enshrine discrimination against values-driven businessmen everywhere in the United States.
Really, Bryan? We have “value-driven businessmen” in this country? Ayn Rand would be shocked!
In fact, if ENDA is signed into law, it will run the First Amendment through the shredder, leaving only confetti behind.
I have seriously considered multiple times Googling the phrase “will mean the end of religious freedom in the United States” Because I strongly suspect we’ve heard that about eleventy-dozen things over the last decade, let along the last thirty years.
ENDA would make it a federal crime to take sexual deviancy into account in personnel decisions of any kind.
Good Lord! You mean blacks who marry whites could get a job in town!? Damn commies!
Any and every employer who decided not to hire a crossdressing transvestite, for instance, would face a business-ending lawsuit whether the business is a Christian bookstore, a trucking company, or a daycare center.
What do you have against small businesses, Bryan?
So … what does gender identity have to do with driving trucks, Bryan?
I mean, what is it you’re arguing, really? That anyone should be able to say, “I find that [whatever that should happen to be] morally reprehensible, so I should be able to not hire them, or be able to fire them as soon as I find out about it”?
I mean, clearly, you’re all about making gays and transgendered people unemployable (to be followed, no doubt, about how such individuals are shiftless, jobless, parasites on society, just what you’d expect from deviants), but what other groups are in your sights? How about those mixed-race couples? I would never accuse you of being a religion-driven racist, Bryan, but we can both probably agree that they exist. Should they, “driven” by their “values,” be able to fire uppity blacks who marry whites because the Lord said the races should be kept separate? What about someone who thinks of Jews as Christ-killers — should he be able to fire any “hidden” Jew he discovers is employed by him? How about a woman who’s had an abortion — is she fair game to be kicked out of the Christian bookstore, or the daycare center, or the trucking company?
Where, precisely, does it stop?
For that matter, should a Muslim businessman be able to discriminate against Christians? Yes, yes, I know, Bryan, Muslims should be forced to renounce their religion if they come here, and be persuaded to convert abroad, because they are enemies of the United States, yada yada yada. We’ve heard you preach that before. But, believe it or not, the law doesn’t operate on “I think this is the way things are, so the law has to back me up, regardless of what you think the way things are.” There are, believe it or not, rules involved. And discrimination for the goose is discrimination for the gander.
ENDA would grant special legal protections in the workplace to those who are active practitioners of the infamous crime against nature.
Yes, marrying outside of racial bounds would be protected — oh, wait, I keep forgetting, that’s not the “crime against nature” you’re arguing should be open for discrimination against.
Not only would employers not be allowed to take such conduct into account, their businesses, livelihoods and careers would be in in jeopardy if they did.
Yes, believe it or not, if you do something against the law, there may be consequences. Incredible!
It is not only likely but a matter of virtual certainty that transvestites will begin applying for jobs at values-driven businesses just so they can get turned down and then immediately file the mother of all discrimination suits against businesses such as Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A.
As has happened on a nearly daily basis here in Colorado, where state law prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s been a horrible disaster, clogging the courts, leading to every Christian values-based company going out of business and … oh, wait, no it hasn’t.
In Colorado, 35 out of a total 516 job discrimination claims filed statewide involved sexual orientation, while just one involved gender identity discrimination in fiscal year 2011-2012. In fiscal 2007-2008, when sexual orientation and transgender became a protected status in Colorado, there were 21 sexual orientation and two gender identity claims filed with state agencies.
Help! My religious freedom is being repressed!
And I assure you, Bryan, we have no shortage of Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A stores. All of them still in business.
If you don’t think that’s a virtual certainty, you are clueless regarding the meanness, vindictiveness and cruelty of homosexual activists.
And when you talk about meanness, vindictiveness, and cruelty, Bryan, we can be assured you know whereof you speak. Regardless of what the record says.
Things are bad enough as it is, as photographers, florists and bakers have been fined, threatened with prosecution by government officials and driven out of business altogether by Big Gay. The last thing we need is to give these bullies a baseball bat they can take into any values-driven business and start trashing the place.
Lovely. Let me give you a clue, Bryan — when it comes to “baseball bats,” it’s not usually gay people on the dealing end.
A conservative business owner’s right to the free exercise of religion? Gone in a puff of hateful bigotry. His right to free speech? Gone. To even express his values when it comes to personnel decisions will put him on the rack. His right to freedom of the press? Gone. Even so much as writing a letter to the editor expressing his values will become a business-ending offense.
Just to touch bases here, Bryan, does a businessman who thinks women should be at home rather than competing against men in the marketplace, as God clearly dictates it — hasn’t that particular “religious freedom” already been disposed of in a “puff of hateful bigotry”? How about the hotel owner who doesn’t want blacks sleeping in his beds? Isn’t his free speech already gone? And, clearly, there aren’t any more people writing letters to the editor (or editorials) about how evil Jews or Muslims are, because as a protected class that would instantly end their business.
Big Gay is more powerful than all the other interest groups in the US … including the 3/4 of the population who call themselves “Christian”.
What’s that? Racists and bigots still seem to exist, be able to worship and speak out and write letters to the editor, but somehow Big Gay will be a more potent force than Big Woman or Big Jew or Big Negro? Inconceivable!
His right to freedom of association, to assemble a workforce that will reflect the values he wants his business to embody? Gone with the wind of intolerance.
Just as it was with his (note “his”) right to freedom of association in assembling a workforce of all men. Or all whites. Or all Protestants. Oh, oh those horrid winds of intolerance!
His right to petition the government for the redress of grievances? Gone. He will be presumed guilty for even holding to such antiquated and out-of-date ideals.
Please, please, Brian, tell me about someone who wrote a letter to their Congressman about this and got thrown in jail for it. Please.
What is even worse is that Congress is on the cusp of making it illegal to fire pedophiles. I am not kidding and I do not exaggerate. If we can’t take “sexual orientation” into account in hiring and firing, someone is going to have to tell us what a sexual orientation is so we will know whom to punish. That’s the job of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
The AFA last week exposed the APA for classifying pedophilia as just another “orientation” (their word, not ours) in its diagnostic manual, the DSM, the Bible of the therapeutic profession. Caught with their hand in the deviancy cookie jar, the APA is quickly seeking to backpedal, saying it was all just an unfortunate mistake, don’t you know, and promising to make corrections in subsequent print editions.
But meanwhile, the classification of pedophilia as just another orientation against which we must not discriminate continues in the print version, sitting right there for Jerry Sandusky-loving lawyers to use as a cudgel when they think the time is right. Men who admit they are sexually attracted to children will soon be able to apply for jobs at your child’s daycare center or elementary school, and there won’t be anything that can be done to stop them without the risk of being dragged into court.
You may think I hyperbolize. But the “sexual orientation” defense has already been used in court as a defense against charges of pederasty, and even the Harvard Medical School is already making the case that pedophilia is just like homosexuality: people, they say, are born that way, there’s nothing they can do about it, and the rest of us just have to get over our Judeo-Christian aversions and endure the risk.
So, yeah, I get it, Bryan. Slippery slope. If you make it illegal to fire Catholics, next thing you know they’ll be making it illegal to fire Mormons. Then the Jews will be protected. And then someone will argue that Islam is really a “religion” and even they will be protected. Eek!
Pedophilia is, at present, illegal, and for reasons that go beyond “Wow, that’s not the way I swing.” And, frankly, I’ve read the HMS article you linked to. I don’t think it means what you thing it means; it does indicate that there are no particular treatments possible, but it neither condones nor indicates that society just needs to “get over” it. Anything but.
So, no, Congress is not about to legalize pedophilia or, therefore, make it a legal requirement that pedophiles be hired at all day care centers. Nice try, though.
You know, you certainly can’t trust those Catholics in your workplace …
Founding father Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, said:
“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time…
“They therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure and which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”
Funny thing about Charles Carroll. He was a Catholic. Maryland law prior to the Revolution prevented him from entering politics, practicing law, or voting. Because, of course, Catholics were evil Papists, whose loyalty was to a foreign sovereign. People knew that, politically and religiously, and many of them felt that to invite Catholics into full participation in the American society was contrary to God’s will and would spell DOOM to our society.
Kind of like the gays.
Well, liberals are busy planting ENDA like an IED at the very base of our system of values. It’s time to disarm the device and the misguided souls in Congress who put it there. Just say a loud, unambiguous and unhesitating “No” to this misbegotten and freedom-destroying device before it blows up in your child’s face.
Why is it that the folks who so vehemently claim to follow Christ are the ones who most freely use violent imagery, either to describe their own struggle to characterize their opponents?
If the Civil Rights Act had a "any individual or business who feels, from a religious motivation, that they cannot serve people of a protected class — woman, blacks, Jews — then they are exempt from its provisions" clause … blacks would still be on the back of the bus, Jews would still be banished from the public country club, and women couldn't get a job in a lot of workplaces.
If someone can tell me why protection for gays is significantly different from protection for women, Jews, the elderly, blacks, Catholics … I'd love to hear it. Because all of those groups — hell, pretty much every group you can pin a label on — has been on the outs in some religious-based opinion or another. Letting someone run a public business and exclude gay customers because it makes them feel icky and God told them not to is no different from doing the same for Mormon customers, mixed-race couple customers, or Irish customers. No different.
Only the target varies, and if you let one group be a target, then every group is a target.
Illinois' new gay-marriage law "protects" churches from having to officiate same-sex marriages. But the Chicago Tribune worries; " similar safeguards aren't spelled out for pastry chefs, florists, photographers and other vendors who, based on religious convictions, might not want to share a gay couple's wedding day."
Equality in public accommodations, jokers… look it up. If you want to run a church, then run a church. Otherwise serving the public means serving the public.
Religious protections on gay marriage in doubt
Illinois’ gay marriage bill that awaits the governor’s signature doesn’t force religious clergy to officiate at same-sex weddings or compel churches to open their doors for ceremonies. But similar safeguards aren’t spelled out for pastry chefs, florists, photographers and other vendors who, based on religious convictions, might not want to share a gay couple’s wedding day.
ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) is a proposed law that would make it illegal for nonreligious employers to discriminate in hiring and firing based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That’s pretty much it — nothing weird or bizarre about the mechanisms involved (we have plenty of other non-discrimination laws), only controversy over whether those evil gays should be protected from losing their job.
The US Catholic Bishops — three of them in particular, Bishop Blaire of Stockton, Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco, and Archbishop Lori of Baltimore, but writing on behalf of the full United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — have sent the US Senate (which is considering ENDA) a letter expressing how “seriously concerned” they are about all this.
So, Your Graces, what do you have to say?
All people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected by other persons and by law. Furthermore, “work,” as Pope Francis recently said, “is fundamental to that dignity.” Thus the Catholic Church has consistently stood with workers in this country and continues to oppose unjust discrimination in the workplace. No one should be an object of scorn, hatred, or violence for any reason, including his or her sexual inclinations (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC],no. 2358).
All good, even laudable, so far, Your Graces. I’d almost think you’re about to come out in favor of ENDA.
Our dignity as children of God extends to our sexuality. Being a male or a female is a reality which “is good and willed by God,” and this complementarity is essential for the great good of marriage as the union of one man and one woman (CCC, no. 369). Sexual acts outside of marriage serve neither these goods nor the good of the person and society as a whole.
At the risk of seeming disrespectful, Your Graces, sez you. Short version of the above seems to be: “Anything sexual out of marriage, as the Catholic Church recognizes it, is without any worth or good.” To which I, again, say, “Sez you.”
(Actually, I probably say something a bit stronger, since one could argue that, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, my un-annulled first marriage, in the Church, still technically exists, so my current marriage is invalid and my relationship with my current wife adulterous, representing a sexual act outside of fully recognized Catholic state of marriage. I don’t personally know a single Catholic who would — to my face, at least — seriously assert that, but they could. Would you, Your Graces, and so suggest that there’s no good to myself or our society in my current relationship?)
Regardless, I see where you’re going. If there’s no value, no “good,” to non-marital (as you see it) sexuality, then there’s no value in protecting people based on their sexual orientation, “object of scorn, hatred” language already quoted notwithstanding.
Given these principles, the USCCB continues to promote the dignity of both work and marriage and to oppose unjust discrimination on any grounds, including those related to homosexual inclination or sexual identity.
But wait! You’re back on the side of protecting gays, etc., against “unjust” discrimination! So why don’t you like ENDA? Well, you then (after some introductory language) spell out a set of problems with the law:
Lacks a BFOQ exemption. ENDA does not include an exemption for a “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ), for those cases where it is neither unjust nor inappropriate to consider an applicant’s sexual inclinations. This omission also elevates “sexual orientation” discrimination within Title VII to the same and, until now unique, level as race discrimination (which allows no BFOQ), and above religion, sex, and national origin discrimination (which do).
Oh my God! Gays are being protected more than Catholics!
Except, what would the Bishops consider a BFOQ for sexual orientation? Race has that because we’ve decided there’s no time or reason when it’s at all an acceptible criterion for whether someone can fill a particular job. When is it okay to fire someone (or not hire them) because they’re gay?
Maybe the answer is that the other classes shouldn’t have a BFOQ. I’d certainly be willing to hear arguments about that — but criticizing the law because it protects sexual orientation more than other groups doesn’t mean the law is wrong, but perhaps some of the others are. Without examples, it’s impossible to say.
Lacks a status/conduct distinction. ENDA’s vague definition of “sexual orientation” would encompass sexual conduct outside of marriage, thus legally affirming and specially protecting that conduct.
I’d want to read the language itself before I agree. That said, I’m not sure that’s the worst thing in the world — not so much that I’m inclined to specifically protect everything, but I tend to think that behavior outside the workplace is not germane to the workplace — and cannot think of examples where legal sexual conduct outside of “marriage” should be a firing offense.
Or is this simply a way of finessing with that whole sin/sinner thing? In other words, you don’t think people should be discriminated against for being gay, but if they act on it, which is de facto “outside of marriage” (as you define marriage), then that shouldn’t be protected. Love your fellow man, but don’t hold his hand, or else you can get fired. Is that it?
Supports marriage redefinition. Based on experience in state courts, it is likely that ENDA would be invoked by federal courts to support the claim that, as a matter of federal constitutional right, marriage must be redefined to include two persons of the same sex.
Hmmm. Just like the Civil Rights Act supported the claim that, as a federal constitutional right, marriage must be redefined to include two persons of different races? I’m trying to see the down side here.
Rejects the biological basis of gender. ENDA’s definition of “gender identity” lends force of law to a tendency to view “gender” as nothing more than a social construct or psychosocial reality, which a person may choose at variance from his or her biological sex. This provision also fails to account for the privacy interests of others, particularly in workplace contexts where they may reasonably expect only members of the same sex to be present.
Issues of gender identity are thorny ones, though I think that anyone who says gender is solely about mind or solely about body is seeking for way too simple an answer. That said, I really don’t think transexuality involves a passing fraction of the population, and I don’t think making it protected for employment purposes is going to lead to a flood of people deciding to live out lives as the opposite sex (though, if it did, I’m not sure I’d be all that alarmed).
More to the point, why is there always this crazy paranoia about guys sneaking into the girls bathroom (or vice-versa)? I have a lot of problems seeing lots of people pretending to be transexual in order to ogle the folks in the other locker room … disregarding that cross-dressing would allow such a thing today, even without ENDA. And if it’s a matter of people feeling “uncomfortable” — well, some white people felt “uncomfortable” sharing bathrooms with blacks, too, and somehow civilization hasn’t fallen.
Threatens religious liberty. ENDA could be used to punish as discrimination what many religions — including the Catholic religion — teach, particularly moral teaching about same-sex sexual conduct.
Really? Hyperbolic, much?
Has the Civil Rights Act legally punished any churches for moral teachings about miscegenation or how the White Man is God’s True Blessed Creation? Or about how Jews are going to Hell, or Muslims are demon-whippers, or Christians are cannibals? Or that Catholics are idolatrous followers of a false prophet of the Whore of Babylon, who worship a pagan goddess and will all be sent directly to the Fiery Furnace? Or how women shouldn’t work and just keep pushing out babies? Because I’m not seeing how ENDA would magically do more than that regarding this matter, though it sure makes for some scary, spooky, ominous fearmongering.
Moreover, the bill’s religious freedom protection, which is derived from Title VII, covers only a subset of religious employers, …
Given that the Catholic Church believes that any “company” (based, I guess, on the owner, or president, or chief stockholders, or a vote of the board of directors) that thinks birth control is a moral ought not be exempted from providing insurance coverage for it, the Church’s desire to enshrine a wider category of “religious employers” seems suspect to me.
… and as a result of recent litigation, is uncertain in scope.
I.e., some appeals courts have ruled that a private, for-profit, non-religious company may not claim a right to religious freedom. Eek.
Recent experience also shows that even exempted employers may face government retaliation for relying on such exemptions.
I’d love to hear some examples of “government retaliation”, your Graces. Are we talking Branch Davidian-style raids on compounds, or jail time in reeducation camps, or (worst of all) stripping of tax-exempt status?
As long as the Westboro Baptists are still walking around, with all that they teach and preach, it’s hard for me to worry about the Catholic Church being “retaliated” against.
On the other hand, if you mean that government procurement regulations prohibit subcontracting to companies that act in a discriminatory fashion, cry me a river.
While we must oppose ENDA for the above stated reasons, the Conference stands ready to work with leaders and all people of good will to end all forms of unjust discrimination, including against those who experience same sex attraction.
Wait, really? Pull the other one, Your Graces. You’re dead-set against unjust discrimination, but you want to leave plenty of wiggle room for what you consider just discrimination. You want to be sure that there are “bona fide” loopholes, that more companies can claim a religious exempton, that various terms are specified narrowly enough that nobody sneaks through with something you consider immoral (like actually acting on that “same sex attraction”), and that the law enshrines what your religious teachings say about Real True Marriage™.
We are grateful to live in this country where every group enjoys the right to hold to its beliefs, organize itself around them, and argue for them in the public square in the service of the common good. We therefore invite further discussion with you and your staff on how we might move forward in a way that addresses the various concerns raised in this letter.
I’m grateful I live in such a country, too. But when it comes to acting on beliefs, we’re restrained by trying to work together in a country where such beliefs come into conflict. You would heartily support a law that protected Catholics from employment discrimination, I’m sure. You would argue against letting companies off the hook if they objected to Catholicism. You would debate against people claiming that calling Catholicism “Christian” is a meaningless expansion of the term. You would fight against the perception that it would mean legal recognition and approval of “un-Biblical” behavior. And you would certainly consider it worthless if it only protected believing in Catholic dogma, but not actually being “caught” going to Mass. And certainly you wouldn’t agree that to pass such a law would infringe on the religious rights of the Protestant majority.
That you’re unwilling to see how your own arguments could be used against your own interests shows a blindness to what those interests truly are, as well as a grave misunderstanding of what this country is that you’re so grateful for.
NYC will raise the age at which people can buy cigarettes from 18 to 21.
The only good thing about this is that it brings the age in line with the age of drinking. But, c'mon, folks — if someone can enroll in the military and get married and take on a full-time job and vote for President and sign legal contracts … then I think we really need to leave the question of whether they ought to be smoking (or, for that matter, drinking) to them as well.
And, yes, that's all dangerous, with possible life-changing consequences — but so are all those other things I mentioned.
I am no fan of smoking, by any means — but I can't cognitively justify this.
The Pledge of Allegiance and the "Persistent Appetite for Orthodox"
Tribalism is a hard habit to break, or even tame. Tribes demand common clothing, common rituals, common oaths, common symbols. And woe betide any nail that stands up; it will certainly get hammered down.
Embedded Link
The Persistent Appetite For Orthodoxy
Seventy-three years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Americans could be forced to recite a loyalty oath to the nation. In Minersville School District v. Gobitis, a majority led by Ju…
This is really a shocking story — not that it happened so much as that the person who did it was so open about it. Pennsylvania's first openly gay legislator, Brian Sims, stood up to speak about the SCOTUS ruling on DoMA — and was silenced by opponents through parliamentary procedures. Why?
'One of those lawmakers, conservative state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), told WHYY that he believed Sims' comments would be a violation of "God's law."
"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," Metcalfe said.
Yes, decide someone is speaking in "open rebellion" against "God" and you are morally justified in shutting them up. Crikey.
It did give Sims a chance to make an even better riposte, though: 'A few months ago I reminded this House that we put our hands on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.' Those words, apparently, are not being heeded by some of his colleagues.
(And, in answer to +Zachary Cook's question below, folks like Metcalfe get a say for the same reason that folks like Sims should — because everyone should get a say, even the "authoritarian, delusional creeps." Because shutting one person down creates a precedent to shut anyone else down.)
It was the day America died. Or marriage. Or marriage in America. Or Americans’ marriages. Or something.
See also, The End of Christendom and Jesus Wept.
It was the day when five Supreme Court justices (or one, if you’re just counting Kennedy’s swing vote) destroyed Democracy, thwarted the Will of the People, made us a Tyranny, and Did A Real Bad Thing.
And it was all over two simple words, consisting of three letters: “I Do.”
Yes, not only can gays marry in California again (or will be able to once the state gets its paperwork act together, unless someone who actually hasstanding decides to challenge the strike-down of Prop 8), but for gays in states where it is already legal, the Federal Government will be required to recognize those state marriages (they way they recognize all other state marriages) and provide the same benefits (and responsibilities) under the law as they do marriages between two ostensibly straight people.
It’s really that simple. And yet, based on the rhetoric out there from some of the religious zanies in our society, you would think that there are now Legalized Gay Rape Gangs dragooning our innocent children into Mass Gay Polygamous Marriages in Christian churches that they have desecrated by their very entrance.
Mike Huckabee, Spokesman for Jesus
Let’s start off with former Governor Mike Huckabee, who summed up the SCOTUS decision like this:
My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: “Jesus wept.”
Y’know, I tend to find glib assertions about how Jesus would react to modern events and political developments more than a bit annoying, not to mention hubristic. I mean, it’s one thing to say that Jesus would favor food programs because he, y’know, actually talked about how virtuous it was to feed the poor (we can debate over whether that should be through private charity or through taxes and government spending, but the basic principle is sound). But Jesus never talked about same sex marriage. Really. So that makes it a second-hand guessing game as to how Jesus would have felt about it. My inclination is to think that he would be less concerned about the plumbing and more concerned about the emotional commitment of the couple involved, but you don’t see me tweeting, “Hey, I’ll betcha Jesus is really happy about these rulings.”
(Or, as one commenter to Huckabee’s tweet noted, “I’d weep too if I had Mike Huckabee pretending to speak for me.”
Second, for a former governor and former presidential candidate, Huckabee is being either unintentionally or willfully incorrect in the SCOTUS rulings (either of them). In the Defense of Marriage Act case, they didn’t say “same sex marriage is okay.” They said, “If a state decides that same sex marriage is okay, the federal government can’t treat such married couples differently under federal law.” Or, to quote them pricesely:
The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
I mean, that has nothing to do with the merits of gays getting married, any more than federal law giving certain benefits (and responsibilities) to married couples means that the federal judgment thinks asinine celebrity marriages are okay, either. On the contrary, the feds don’t have any say in it, they ruled. Indeed, they didn’t strike down the DoMA provision that said other states don’t have to recognize what those gay-lovin’ states do. But in cases where individual states have sanctioned marriage between gays, the Feds themselves can’t ignore it. Again, from the decision:
By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
The Prop 8 case didn’t even get into the merits of the ballot proposition; it was simply a technical decision that the folks appealing it had no standing to do so. Happens all the time.
It is becoming increasingly and abundantly clear that what secular law now calls ‘marriage’ has no semblance to the sacred institution of Holy Matrimony. People of faith are called to reject the redefinition of marriage and bear witness to the truth of Holy Matrimony as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between one man and one woman.
Except marriage as covenanted in the Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony hasn’t been the law of the land since … well, ever, in this country. We have church marriages, yes. We also have civil marriage down at the courthouse. We even have marriage between people who aren’t Catholic, or even Christian — I mean, is a Buddhist wedding the same as “Holy Matrimony”? Bp Paprocki’s assertion that only his church’s brand of wedding and marital bliss is the One, True Marriage is remarkably myopic (not to mention insulting), even if you assume he’s generous enough to recognize non-Catholic Christian religious ceremonies as such.
The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.
Fischer (and Huckabee, et al.) all seem to labor under a misapprehension as to why laws are passed and how they are tested against the Constitution. Their idea is “Anything we like and agree with should be legal; anything we dislike or disagree with should be illegal.” This is usually mixed and mingled with populism masquerading as democracy: “The majority feel this way so it must be true (and, thus, legal)” and “We have tradition on our side, which is like super-uber-democracy of the ages.”
While most of them would disagree with the idea per se that God’s will can be ascertained through a popular vote, in cases where they are looking for a particular outcome, they are more than happy to depend on “the will of the majority” to tyrannize the minority — and will continue to claim same even when the majority is slipping or has slipped away from them.
Back to Fischer. Federal law does not provide certain benefits (and responsibilities) to marriage as some sort of moral judgment or religious mandate. It is not an extension of Judeo-Christian holy law. Instead, such federal laws serve a secular purpose, noting that marriage helps (in theory) promote stability of relationships, both emotional and economic, as well as providing for child rearing, old age and illness care, etc. Also, such marital relations are characterized by mutual consent.
That becomes far more problematic with polygamy (which tends to be less stable), pedophilia (lack of consent), incest (consanguinity and emotional health issues), and bestiality (lack of consent).
Also, what does “normalization” mean? That now, because gay marriages are recognized on income tax forms and for estate taxes, that everyone’s going to be doing it? Sorry, Bryan — if I were single, I would not be looking for some hot dude to pick up on, certainly not as a tax dodge. I simply don’t swing that way. If by “normalization” you mean that people will think it normal, if unusual (note to Bryan: the population of homosexuals in this country is larger than the population of Jews), that’s probably true. Since Fischer considers homosexuality a bad thing, he considers people thinking of it as normal as a bad thing.
But his laundry list of things next up to become “normal” makes little sense. Bestiality and pedophilia not only provide no societal benefits (to warrant government support), but are highly problematic in and of themselves. Incest is a bit dodgier, especially since even current US state law ismoreinconsistentthan most people think — but, again, that’s a “state” decision at present, something most conservatives usually applaud except when the states do something they dislike (that laws against first cousin marriage are a relatively recent event in US history is also ignored by most “traditionalists”). Polygamy will likely also come up for a debate (as such luminaries as Glenn Beck and Rand Paul warn) …
… which leads to one thing about what Fischer implies is true, however — the djinn is out of the bottle as far as simply asserting that X (anything), which is not normal today and prevented by tradition and by (certain interpretations of) religious scripture, cannot be legally allowable tomorrow (if it isn’t already). Society appears willing to look at such taboos and examine whether they still make sense. That isn’t license, but a healthy engagement with reality.
Tim Wildmon, Prepared for the Great Persecutions to Come
Now, we must warn against the coming persecution, the barrage of criticism and the aggressive action of the homosexual agenda to indoctrinate and change the thoughts and convictions of Americans to accept this lifestyle as the new normal. In addition, the trend of classifying statements that have a biblical foundation as ‘hate speech’ is one that AFA will do everything in its power to prevent.
Shenan Boquet, Who Thinks Nobody Expects the Gay Inquisition!
Along the same lines, we have Fr. Shenan J. Boquet of Human Life International:
Finally we note that these decisions do not bode well for the freedom of those religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church, who can only uphold the true definition of marriage. We expect that persecution of the Church will increase as opponents of true marriage demand that no dissent be tolerated, and that religious institutions participate in performing ‘marriage’ ceremonies for same-sex couples or suffer charges of discrimination. We are prepared for these inevitable events, and we stand in solidarity and hope with all who defend marriage.
“Hate speech” is, of course, politically protected speech, nor have there been any cases I’m aware of where preachers have been hauled off from the pulpit for speaking out against homosexuality. Every state that has passed laws to recognize gay marriage have included copious exceptions to make it clear that nobody is compelled to give a religious blessing for same (nobody, as a parallel, has insisted that Catholic Churches have to marry Muslims or face a religious discrimination suit, since that’s clearly protected policy by the First Amendment).
On the other hand, there may be social consequences that will have to be dealt with. Fifty years ago, someone who overtly militated for gay rights (let alone gay marriage) probably wouldn’t have been invited to a lot of public speaking events; I suspect that, increasingly, people who overtly militate for criminalizing homosexual behavior (or at least keeping them in the closet) will face the same sort of social opprobrium. That isn’t persecution, it’s social reality; it may be rude, but it’s human, and legal, regardless of whether the person speaking out against gays is doing so ostensibly based on the Bible or not.
Tony Perkins Does Not Play a Lawyer on TV or Anywhere Else
However, by striking down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA, the Court is asserting that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself has enacted. This is absurd.
No, it isn’t. The Court is asserting that the definition of marriage has traditionally been defined by the states, and the federal government has accepted each state’s definition.
The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government.
I’m not quite sure how Tony can handle those two sentences together without his head ‘splodin’, but … actually, yes, the states should be able to do so. That’s called “federalism.”
The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers. For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their ‘marriage?’
Scare quotes!
Actually, the discussion of incest above applies here, I suspect, in the realm of first cousin marriages. Thirty states have laws forbidding first cousin marriages (though only a handful criminalize first cousin sexual relations), but most of those still recognize marriages from out of state — and in all cases, the US recognizes their marriage if it was valid in the location where they were married, not based on their current location.
So in DOMA case, feds can’t trump state def of marriage. But in CA case, feds can—by judicial fiat. This is jurisprudential incoherence.
Now that’s actually an interesting argument, until you realize that the California / Prop 8 case, that’s not an accurate summary. First off, SCOTUS punted the Prop 8 case, basically saying the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case (any number of court cases, including to the Supreme Court, get punted based on standing). They said nothing on the merits of the case itself — though I’ll note that both cases were a matter of how the law applied to the US Constitution and being treated equally before the law. In the DoMA case, it was a matter of whether the feds were constitutionally justified, by statute, in discriminating against people that a state said were equal under the law. In the Prop 8 case, the question was whether the state itself could positively declare that people were not equal under the law through ballot proposition; SCOTUS did not evaluate the merits of that case.
The bottom line issue in both cases (even if the Prop 8 one was ducked at SCOTUS) was the extent to which a law is, or is not, constitutional. That’s not incoherent — that’s the way our judiciary works (and is applauded by the likes of Reed when the decision is one they like).
It is clear from today’s two rulings that the ball has been moved down the field to a point where the pro-gay marriage side is in the red zone. Whether they can be stopped from crossing the goal line depends solely on the prospects of having a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Bill forgets that the whole reason we had DoMA and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was that, even twenty years ago, conservatives couldn’t round up the support for such an amendment. It seems highly unlikely that it could happen today, given the majorities needed in the chambers of Congress and the number of state legislatures that would have to approve it. But I’m sure he’ll keep raising money for it.
Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America wants us to think of the children:
The Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of reams of research showing that the best household arrangement for children is a married mom and dad. It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations. It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America.
Except, of course, these rulings had little to nothing to do with that. I mean, even if every gay person in the US went out married another gay person (unlikely, given that not all straights get married) and they adopted kids (also hardly universal, but let’s assume), the numbers involved would be insignificant compared to the kids in troubled homes based on straight marriage. It seems to me that the CWA (et al.), if they are so concerned for children, should be tackling those problems, not the edge cases of gays who marry and adopt — even if the research demonstrated what they are claiming (it doesn’t), and even if one assumed a false alternative of “if you didn’t allow gays to marry other gays, then they would settle down in happy, healthy straight relationships and raise happy and healthy children.”
Marriage predates government and civil authorities. No civil authority, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage was not created by religion or government and is ontologically a union of one man and one woman. For any Court or civil authority to think it has the authority to redefine marriage is the height of hubris.
Given the breathtaking broadness of marriage traditions around the world — who can marry whom, and when, and how many people can marry, and who needs to give permission, and in whose name the marriage is celebrated, and what the property and power are around marriage — across both time and space, Staver’s statement is similarly breathtaking in its myopia. Even a simple review of the Bible demonstrates that. And even if one believes in a particular Deity, the idea that civil authorities and society as a whole don’t redefine marriage all the time is simply willful blindness.
Staver does go on to demonstrate a broader agenda, though:
While today’s decision on DOMA did not redefine marriage, it has provided the foundation on which to do so. Today’s decision is the equivalent of the 1972 contraception decision involving unmarried couples and the so-called right to privacy on which the 1973 abortion decision in Roe v. Wade was constructed.
I read that as not just rolling back Roe v. Wade, but rolling back the ability of unmarried couples to buy contraception. Yeah, Matt, let’s go for a constitutional amendment on that.
Richard Land, Who Also Knows What Marriage Really Is
Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention runs a parallel Marriage = Marriage message:
Defining marriage for the American people is way above the Supreme Court’s pay grade. God created marriage, and He has defined its parameters, regardless of what the majority of Supreme Court justices might think.
God defined marriage at the dawn of time as one man and one woman. What God has defined, the Supreme Court may not redefine.
Really? I don’t recall Adam and Eve’s relationship being defined as “marriage” or “matrimony.” Indeed, they were created without knowledge of Good and Evil, which makes it difficult to consider them consenting adults, among other things.
That begs the issue of whether we should be passing law based on Bible history (and, if so, that gets us back into all the other interesting variations on marriage law discussed in the Old Testament).
Note, of course, that the SCOTUS decision didn’t “define marriage for the American people” or “redefine” marriage. It said that the states define marriage, and that the federal government should take its cue from them.
* * *
So, aside from some cheap laughs, what do we have?
People who think homosexuality is against God’s Law. That’s certainly their personal religious prerogative.
People who think American Law is supposed to reflect God’s Law. Except when taxes are involved.
People who think the Supreme Court should be ruling based on what those people believe the popular opinion is. Or else on the Constitution. Or perhaps on those people’s interpretation of God’s Law. When SCOTUS gets it right, the justices are Wise, Sage Protectors of American and Jesus. But when SCOTUS gets it wrong, then clearly the justices are Godless Liberal America-Hating Heathen.
People who are having a hard time adjusting to not having the loudest voices and biggest presence in room.
At the same time, we now have a Federal Government not dictating to states that their recognition of same sex marriage is invalid on the federal level. And we have gay married couples who will get to file federal income taxes jointly and get family discounts on estate taxes. Not the end of the Republic, but a nice step forward for civil rights.
I have a lot to say about this (beyond the lengthy rewtweeting), and will say it anon … but for the moment, let me just say that I am overall pleased with both rulings, and gobsmacked / wildly amused by the IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!!! reactions from the Usual Dolts.
Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional; paves ways for same-sex marriages to resume in California
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that legally married same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples with its Defense of Marriage Act ruling.
On Proposition 8, the Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex unions in Calif., but avoided ruling on gay marriage nationwide.
