Glenn Beck Is Pro Gay Marriage

By Rod Dreher • December 11, 2012, 11:37 AM

Conservative firebrand Glenn Beck has joined a growing chorus of Republican commentators in defending gay marriage, laying out a strong case for ending government opposition to letting same-sex couples wed.

“Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people — I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that’s the Constitution,” Beck said during a recent segment of his online talk show. ”The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?”

From the Beck website report on his taped discussion with Penn Jillette:

Glenn agreed with Penn, noting that gay marriage does not “pick my pocket nor break my leg” and he doesn’t feel like the government needed to be involved. He said that as long as the government doesn’t come into his church and say he or his church (or any church) need to change their belief system and their practices, he doesn’t care. But right now, people of faith who may not want gay marriage in their church are being shut out of the conversation by activists and progressives.

“The agenda is to shut down my freedom of speech and my belief in – what you don’t believe in but I do deeply – The Bible. So I’m going to live my life the way I believe. That’s freedom of conscience,” Glenn said.

This is actually wrong, and misdirecting. Has no one explained to Beck that no one with more than a passing awareness of the issue believes that churches are going to be compelled to change their beliefs on homosexuality and marriage? His idea that churches (and Orthodox synagogues, and mosques) are going to be untouched by SSM is fantasy. Marriage law affects a myriad of other laws, and there is an unavoidable encroachment on religious liberty. This will be sorted out in the courts, but the real and serious and consequential conflicts do not disappear because one declares them non-existent.

This idea that the government should not be involved in marriage is wholly unrealistic; our entire society, including much of our legal framework, is built around the concept of marriage. For example, if the government did not recognize marriage (in whatever form), the constitutional protection spouses have against being compelled to testify in court against their spouses would be meaningless.

Whatever the flaws in Beck’s argument and vision, I think it’s highly significant because it shows that this is the route through which the populist right will come to embrace same-sex marriage. If conservatives are going to accept SSM, they ought to at least understand the full meaning, and the implications, of what they are accepting. Beck either does not see it, or will not see it. Don’t know which. But he is useful to the pro-SSM cause.

Posted in Gay Marriage. Tagged conservatism, gay marriage, Glenn Beck, same-sex marriage.

374 Responses to Glenn Beck Is Pro Gay Marriage

← Older Comments Newer Comments →

Turmarion says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:31 pm

Um, yeah, I do get that. I also get that there are lots and lots of gays out there who are actually bigots and who really do hate Christians and conservatives.

I don’t approve of hate and bigotry from either side in either direction; but one could argue cogently that gays have more and earlier reason to hate Christians and conservatives (who historically have maligned them, beaten them up, killed them, or sentenced them to jail at hard labor) than vice versa, no? I guy I went to college with used to regale us with stories of how he and his buddies used to go to the gay part of town, and one of them would try to pick up men. When a man accepted (thereby revealing himself as gay) the others would jump him and beat him up. A real weekend hoot. Another acquaintance of mine, a thirtysomething, once mentioned how he and his buddies “kept the gays in line” in his high school. As a sometime high school teacher, I’ve seen lots of kids that need to be kept in line, but I don’t recall any of them being gay.

So hatred and bigotry of gays against Christians and conservatives (though I don’t approve) is surprising because why?

And on the flip side, Christians and conservatives have been bigoted against gays and such because of how gays forced them into the closet, beat them up, killed them–oh, wait. Never mind.

My other point is that you say, “What I hate is the idea that opposing SSM can only be an expression of bigotry,” but seem surprised that many gays hold that view. I mean, that’s not good, but it’s surprising why? The discourse could be a lot more civil and irenic on all sides; but given the history, I think Christians and conservatives, while holding to their values, need to make more effort to be irenic and forgiving, given the sins of the past. That doesn’t mean rejecting one’s perspective or backing down; it does mean awareness of and sensitivity to context.
Richard Johnson says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:33 pm

“It’s becomes not what is right or wrong, but what is popular.”

Savia, I would ask your indulgence in answering a couple of questions.

1) In the aftermath of the Loving decision that struck down laws against interracial marriage, what happened to those religious institutions (churches, hospitals, schools, bookstores, etc.) that continued to discriminate, citing the teachings of their religious doctrine (Christian or otherwise)? Were these forced to close? Were their adherents arrested? What specific things happened to them as punishment for the practice of their religious faith?

2) How can our courts, or our legislatures, craft a law that legalizes same-sex marriages while still protecting your religious freedom without offering similar protection to those who practice racial/religious discrimination on religious grounds?

3) Given that the teachings of the Catholic Church and most Protestant churches hold that there will be a time prior to the return of Christ where believers will be persecuted for their faith, is it reasonable to expect the laws of man to protect you and other believers from that which your faith teaches is inevitable if Christ is to return?
Turmarion says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:34 pm

Me: And on the flip side, Christians and conservatives have been bigoted against gays and such because of how gays forced them into the closet, beat them up, killed them–oh, wait. Never mind.

And in anticipation of someone hauling out some lurid case of horrible thing X done by gay person Y against straight person Z, yes, I’m sure it’s awful and I’m sure these things happen and I’m sure they’re underreported; but it’s still not the same as consistent, systematic mistreatment of gays by individuals, society, and the legal system (which could throw you in jail for homosexual acts–e.g. Oscar Wilde) for centuries. No equivalence at all.
EliteCommInc. says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:35 pm

Church Lady,

What has occurred among most people is not really a turning on a more liberal view — It has been the constant and ceasless attack on people’s personal mistakes.

The liberal never ceases ooking for some sin. They are far worse than religious watchdogs. At least the religious watchdog has a motive of indictment so one becomes more consistent and thereby draw one to a higher ethic and standard.

The liberal sin seeker is out for one thing and one thing only — to bring your moral code down as an indictment against morality to justify their own behavior and accuse you of hypocrisy. Because therein lies the excuse for all manner of behavior — under the guise or we are all human. And in those spaces of guilt, what was not permissible — becomes not only permissible — but expected. Tell someone today that you are celibate — and they look at you as though crime has been comitted. My humaness is not an excuse for me or you to abandon accountability.

Just a bit more: The liberal is the child who is instructed not to lie. But in response to said instruction digs up some lie they may have heard you say. The motive of the child is to justify the lie and get you off their back — it’s the guilt trap. And in that guilt we have two choices: give in or say — lieing is an incorrect choice for you and for me. Drinking is an incorrect choice at your age. Drug use is an incorrect choice . . . my guilt or innocence notwithstanding.
Richard Johnson says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:45 pm

“I keep telling myself — “No way.” Since when , does a private citizen not have the right to determine whom provides service. It doesn’t matter if the couple were green. He can choose — no green people weddings. The suggestion that non-profit religious organizations would not be afronted in the same manner — seems to be false.”

Would it have mattered if the couple were…

…black?
…interracial white/black?
…interfaith Catholic/Jew?
…lapsed, divorced Catholics who had not received an annulment from the Church?

Where do we draw the line, EliteCommInc? And with what businesses? Do we give photographers these rights but not ambulance drivers? What about EMTs, doctors, and nurses? Can these people also cite their religion in refusing to treat a homosexual, or to allow the wedded spouse of a gay man to sit at his side in the ICU?

More importantly, how have we drawn it in the past? I have searched and I have found nothing at all in our history that speaks to the kind of rampant “religious persecution” that you and others are talking about. Nothing. Not after the Loving decision, or after the passage of the 19th amendment, or after the passage of any of the civil rights laws of the 60s and 70s.
Chris says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:50 pm

The deep irrationality that this subject evokes never ceases to amaze me. The legalization of SSM will not require or force churches to change their beliefs or dogma or practice. However, when the churches or parachurch organizations function in the secular sphere, they are bound by the secular law of the land including anti-discrimination laws. Secular activities by religious persons or institutions are not and should not be governed by different legal standards than those which govern secular institutions. This principle is enshrined in current case law.

If the St Barsanouphius Old Calendar Orthodox Church in Resistance decides to rent its hall to the public to pay for prosphora supplies, it will must adhere to existing non-discrimination laws. If Fr. Ephraim and the parish council rent the facility to the public for wedding receptions for heterosexual couples or bar mitvah’s etc.. then they must rent the hall to Maurice and Steven for their wedding reception. If St. Barsanouphius wishes to avoid compromising their religious beliefs then it must avoid engaging in secular non-religious activity.

If devoutly Baptist Ona Mae Smith who runs the town Bed and Breakfast gives married couples a discount in the off season, she must extend it to a gay married couple. Religious individuals who engage in secular activities can not discriminate against persons on moral or religious grounds. Secular actions do not fall under the purvue of constitutional religious protection. This has been the case for decades. Hence, a wedding photographer can not refuse service to a gay couple simply because of religions scruples because the practice of professional photography is not religious in nature. A Jewish wedding photographer can not refuse to provide services to Muslms or Christians.

Folks all of these issues have been worked through in current case law and legal precedent in the realm of anti-discrimination law. The passage of SSM across the country will not infringe on religious rights because secular activity is not religious activity. If a Catholic hospital is forced to extend health care benefits to gay couples it is not a violation of anyone’s religious rights because the provision of employment benefits is not in any way a form of constitutionally protected religious activity.

The law does not allow for discrimination in secular activities when the persons or institutions engaging in that discrimination claim religious belief as a cover. Persons or institutions engaging in public, secular activities are bound by existing law. They are not immune from sanction under non-discrimination laws or review by the court system or torte actions because of their religious beliefs. What exactly is so hard to understand about this???
Richard Johnson says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:52 pm

“The people who choose this behavior have been apart of the american power structure since the countries founding.”

I’m glad the issue of chosen behavior has been brought up. There is much controversy over the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or not. People of good will come down on either side of the issues.

However, when it comes to religion, the answer is clear. Religious belief is *always* a choice. Perhaps it is time to ask the question of religious people that many homosexuals have been asked over the years.

Why should the law protect your choice and disregard the choice of others?
Siarlys Jenkins says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:56 pm

Has no one explained to Beck that no one with more than a passing awareness of the issue believes that churches are going to be compelled to change their beliefs on homosexuality and marriage?

His idea that churches (and Orthodox synagogues, and mosques) are going to be untouched by SSM is fantasy.

Does anyone find these two sentences mutually consistent? They appear to me to express diametrically opposite viewpoints.

I agree with the first statement.
Surly says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:58 pm

Rod–I’ve been bopping around South America for the last few weeks and so I hope you are still reading comments on this thread.

I have been reading your ominous predictions of the end of religious freedom if gay marriage is recognized by the gummint and I think it is time for you to lay out in detail exactly what situations (or use cases for us geeks) would result in the violation of freedom of religion that you so fear.

My experience is with the Roman Catholic church. They are pernickety about who gets to get married there. My now-husband was deemed unworthy to marry a Roman Catholic by the archdiocese in which they lived. He had never been baptized and was unwilling to go through RCIA so they bounced them.

we were divorced when he and I met and we married. My marriage was never annulled and so we were “living in sin” by the rules, so I could not take communion or serve in any capacity in the parish. Interestingly, even though the church refused to marry him and his first wife, they claimed jurisdiction after the fact because their marriage had been performed by a Methodist minister. By the time we looked into it my first husband had died, removing my barrier to remarriage, but they said he had to get an annulment because his marriage had been by a Christian minister. My parish priest at the time pulled me aside and told me we were “living in sin” and I could not participate in any way in the community. That’s when I started going to the Episcopal church. I know it sounds complicated, but when I was booted out by the local priest I was widowed, my unbaptized husband who the church refused to marry was divorced, we were civilly married, and that was deemed “living in sin.”

Based on our experience, I do not believe anybody should worry about religious freedom. If you have facts and data, as opposed to fearmongering, I welcome you to lay them out for us.
Rod Dreher says:

December 11, 2012 at 10:59 pm

The legalization of SSM will not require or force churches to change their beliefs or dogma or practice.

Except when it does — see Boston Catholic Charities. It’s astonishing to me that you can write an entire post giving examples of how religious organizations operating in the public sphere have to follow non-discrimination laws, or get out of the public sphere, and yet maintain that these organizations are not required to change their religious practice. Don’t you see that they are being compelled to do exactly that? You may think this is just and necessary, and maybe you’re right, but please recognize that this is placing a substantial burden on religious believers who do not share au courant beliefs about homosexuality.

Again, the standard view among pro-SSM people seems to be: Religious people who think SSM will affect them are paranoid, and besides, they deserve what they’re going to get.
cecelia says:

December 11, 2012 at 11:04 pm

SSM is a huge change in millenia of practice around marriage and norms. I think that it is naive to think there won’t be consequences to social change of such dimension – and not just as it affects religion. Some of those consequences may be positive some negative – I certainly do not know. But there will be consequences which may not be apparent for a long time or even anticipated. It is ahistorical to pretend it will not be so. Of course – unanticpated consequences are no reason to avoid change – although it is a reason to be cautious about change. I say again – many of these “liberalizing” trends are dependent on affluence and stable societies. So it concerns me that so little thought is given to unintended consequences of change and what happens to societies that have incorporated such changes if they encounter existential threat.

I do not think everyone who supports SSM is deliberately seeking to delegitimate religious belief and tradition – I think most haven’t really thought the whole thing through. Clearly though some people do want to delegitimate religion and tradition. Personally – I suspect radical feminists will do more to impact religious freedom because they wish to strike at actual practice based in core theology – such as ordination. Rod posted recently on an article in the Yale Law Review where the author seemed to propose that the paternalistic nature of religion should make religion subject to constitutional anti discrimination law. This seems much more serious than the sorts of issues we are likely to see regarding SSM.
Savia says:

December 11, 2012 at 11:16 pm

Richard Johnson,

1. I do not buy the claim that being homosexual is the same as being black. There is a difference between genetic pre-disposition and genetic determinism.

It has not been proven that pre-determined inclinations leads to certain pre-determined sexual actions.

A human being can imagine any activity, try it and the result will be pleasure or distaste. We are not born with these objects pre-determined.

In most cases, Christians are mainly concerned about being told that they cannot teach their own sexual ethics, because it offends someone else. Therefore the attack on religious and parental rights.

It won’t be long before teaching Christian sexual morality is forbidden as discrimination.

2. We are also told not to seek persecution or to stop working for doing what is right.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

December 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Chris offers a good example of how a correct general statement of law can be expanded into wishful thinking.

Secular activities by religious persons or institutions are not and should not be governed by different legal standards than those which govern secular institutions. This principle is enshrined in current case law.

True. For example, churches that run businesses to raise funds pay taxes on “unrelated business income.” But, the proceeds of bingo in the parish hall are NOT taxed.

If the St Barsanouphius Old Calendar Orthodox Church in Resistance decides to rent its hall to the public to pay for prosphora supplies, it will must adhere to existing non-discrimination laws.

I know of no cited case sustaining such intrusion use of consecrated church facilities. Can you offer any? Or is this a matter of “I’d make a few changes if I ran the zoo”?

If Fr. Ephraim and the parish council rent the facility to the public for wedding receptions for heterosexual couples or bar mitvah’s etc.. then they must rent the hall to Maurice and Steven for their wedding reception.

Not the parish hall. Believe it or not, unless used regularly, for the PRIMARY PURPOSE of running a business, the property is not within the purview of civil rights laws. The rentals are “incidental” to the primary use, for the church’s religious mission.

If devoutly Baptist Ona Mae Smith who runs the town Bed and Breakfast gives married couples a discount in the off season, she must extend it to a gay married couple. Religious individuals who engage in secular activities can not discriminate against persons on moral or religious grounds.

This is a thornier question, and not yet thoroughly adjudicated. Chris’s view of what is right and proper may prevail, because Ona Mae IS engaged in commerce. I believe there are two lines of jurisprudence that could work in Ona Mae’s favor:

1) West Virginia v. Barnette, which barred school districts from requiring students to recite the pledge of allegiance. It was a general, patriotic, secular, obligation, BUT it was putting words in someone’s mouth contrary to their own conscience. A photographer at a wedding is a participant, in a sense that a grocer selling a can of beans is not.

2) The Open Housing law, passed in 1968, excludes buildings with four or fewer units, one of which is owner-occupied. That’s sensible, and a B&B, in the owner’s home, could be afforded a similar exemption. Ona Mae probably has no constitutional right to the exemption, but she could constitutionally be granted one.
Alex says:

December 11, 2012 at 11:22 pm

The legalization of SSM will not require or force churches to change their beliefs or dogma or practice.

Except when it does — see Boston Catholic Charities.

And Rod, you still have yet to answer how this is different from discrimination on the basis of religion. Boston Catholic Charities has, ever since its founding, been compelled to place children with Jewish couples, or Muslim couples, or atheist couples. Why is it that placing kids with same-sex couples is suddenly beyond the pale when they’ve been prevented all along from exercising their religious freedom to not place children with known Christ-deniers. Surely denying Christ’s divinity is as much as a sin (if not more so) than homosexuality, and yet Catholic organizations serving the public are not able to discriminate on that basis.

This is why gay people see this attitude as homophobic. When it comes to discriminating on the basis of the thing that is the single most fundamental part of Christianity, Christians don’t seem to care. But when it comes to homosexuality, they do. That’s kind of telling, isn’t it?
Alex says:

December 11, 2012 at 11:25 pm

@Savia:
C.S. Lewis, said, “relativism will end our species and damn our souls”

C.S. Lewis also said this: “The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question—how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”

That is, C.S. Lewis explicitly endorsed very separate civil and religious meanings for marriage.
Josh McGee says:

December 11, 2012 at 11:32 pm

Church Lady,

Thanks for clarifying…..comments can be hastily written. Yes, I was generally referring to traditional religious believers (as you correctly interpreted). Yet, with that clarification in mind, my point still stands, as you demonstrate when you say the changes are all for the good and blessed by God. That helps strengthen my point. Supporters of homosexual behavior and SSM see these changes as all for the good, thus are less inclined to be concerned (and by that I mean concerned enough to offer meaningful protections to traditional believers). As I said on a previous post, “This is America. We don’t negotiate with terrorists and we don’t compromise with bigots.” Once this was framed as a civil rights issue comparable to race (despite behavior being the significant component in this issue), religious conservatives lost all chance for real compromise in the long-term.

A long way of saying you are helping to affirm the point I was (however poorly) trying to make.

In seriousness, what measure/standard are you using to say affirming/endorsing homosexual behavior in the law is now being blessed by God? Based on a religious text/teaching? Or the momentum of the movement? Something else? Just curious…..

All the best to you!
EliteCommInc. says:

December 11, 2012 at 11:37 pm

Richard Johnson,

No.

The line is drawn when you in your business supported by your money decide who you wuill provide services to.

If you are not a public entity — my guess is you get to say,”I don’t do phoros of blacks, whites, greens, oranges —-”

“Do we give photographers these rights but not ambulance drivers?”

A photographer who works for themselves should never be coerced do business he or she does not want to do.

“What about EMTs, doctors, and nurses?”

These people work for public entities or private entities that serve the public. Medical personnell have a set of guidelines

“Can these people also cite their religion in refusing to treat a homosexual, or to allow the wedded spouse of a gay man to sit at his side in the ICU?”

I don’t have a clue who these people work for. And I am not sure what you men by treat. Medical personnell serve the public.

As for marriage, no person who’s faith and practice with long established traditions of an ethic that forbids homosexual relations — should in no manner be expected to violate their expressed religious practice. The question is a trap designed to create dillemas in which none exists.

When black people were not permitted into colleges — even public colleges and schools supported by their tax dollars — they built their own, they did home schooling. Seperate but equal was not about seperate — it was the lack of equality — tangibles.

Freedom of association is as priceless as the freedom not to associate.
Turmarion says:

December 11, 2012 at 11:38 pm

Just FYI, my emphasis:

So here’s a little reality check. Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced out of the adoption business because of marriage equality in Massachusetts. The organization voluntarily ceased doing adoptions after the state’s four Catholic Bishops got wind that gay parents had been adopting kids through Catholic Charities from an October 2005 Boston Globe story. Not surprisingly, all of this happened as the Massachusetts Legislature was wrestling with whether to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the statewide ballot, which the local Catholic hierarchy supported wholeheartedly.

The Globe reported that over the course of about two decades, Catholic Charities placed 13 children with gay parents, out of about 720 adoptions they facilitated during those years.For the record, those 13 children were considered hard to place with adoptive parents because they were older or had physical or emotional difficulties, meaning had they not found loving parents who happened to be gay, they’d likely not have parents. Catholic Charities was accepting state funds to provide adoption services and was thus bound by the state’s gay-inclusive anti-discrimination law not to reject qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation. Oh, and by the way, he non-discrimination law has been on the books since 1989—long before marriage equality was but a doodle on Mary Bonauto’s legal pad.

The Globe also reported that though Catholic Charities President Bryan Hehir didn’t love the idea of placing children with same-sex couples, he saw it as “a legal accommodation in the name of a greater social good.” The story later states that, “Hehir said that to his knowledge, his agency has never sought an exemption from the nondiscrimination language.”

At least not until the four bishops, led by Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, decided that Catholic Charities should be exempt from the state’s non-discrimination law, a move that was detailed in a March 11, 2006 Globe article about Catholic Charities decision to stop doing adoptions. When that proved to be a non-starter on Beacon Hill, the bishops simply elected to shut down Catholic Charities of Boston’s adoption services – despite a unanimous vote by the agency’s 42-member board to continue facilitating adoptions by gay people. As the Globe reported on March 11, Hehir and Catholic Charities board president Jeffrey Kaneb said the decision stemmed from their inability “to reconcile church teaching that placement of children in gay homes is “immoral” with Massachusetts law prohibiting discrimination against gays.”

From this, it would appear that Catholic Charities had been placing small numbers of children with gay couples for decades; that the law had been on the books for decades with no complaint from the hierarchy prior to 2005; and that the directors and board who actually ran the organization were against closing it. In short, it is at best misleading to paint this as the Big Mean State forcing the Poor Persecuted Church to “change their beliefs or dogma or practice.”

In fact, according to this article, the order to close Boston Charities ultimately came down from Rome; and according to this one, then-governor Mitt Romney apparently offered to try to get a bill through that would allow religious exemptions. I don’t know where that went, but the Church seemed unwilling to await the outcome of; and the governor, at any rate, far from forcing the Church’s adoptions out of business, seemed sympathetic to it.

So I think the “gays caused the closure of a vitally needed Catholic adoption agency” is at best a misleading or un-nuanced narrative, at worst just plain wrong.
EliteCommInc. says:

December 11, 2012 at 11:41 pm

My comment pertaining to the question one’s faith practices and same sex relations being a trap — might have been inappropriate — excuse me.
Sands says:

December 12, 2012 at 12:18 am

Rod: …and yet maintain that these organizations are not required to change their religious practice.

They’re required to change their business practices in a secular county, not the practices their faith requires. Catholic charities can keep helping the poor, and wedding photographers can keep going to church and taking communion.

But if we start granting religious exceptions to the law of the land, where do we draw the line? How does the government, without endorsing a religion, grant exceptions to the wedding photographer who refuses service for religious reasons but not to the guy who refuses to pay taxes because he claims that God spoke to him and commanded him not to pay?
Richard Johnson says:

December 12, 2012 at 12:23 am

RJ: “What about EMTs, doctors, and nurses?”

EliteCommInc: “These people work for public entities or private entities that serve the public. Medical personnell have a set of guidelines.”

So one loses their right to the free practice of their religion when they enter into employment with an entity that “serves the public” or that has “guidelines”. This is very interesting, and might well be a good point of discussion once the thread turns to the rights of religious teachers in public schools.

RJ: “Can these people also cite their religion in refusing to treat a homosexual, or to allow the wedded spouse of a gay man to sit at his side in the ICU?”

EliteCommInc: “I don’t have a clue who these people work for. And I am not sure what you men by treat. Medical personnell serve the public.”

Medical personnel offer medical treatment to their patients. We already have on the books in may states laws which protect these personnel from performing abortions or dispensing birth control/morning after pills. These exceptions are based on religion, and the advocates for these laws do not generally wish to have exceptions added in cases where the medical facility might be the only game in town.

Should these religious exemptions be extended to protect those medical personnel who, because of their religious beliefs, do not wish to treat homosexuals? By treat I mean doing such things as…

…stabilizing a patient and preparing him/her for transport to a hospital,
…providing direct medical care to a patient, either in a hospital, nursing home or medical clinic setting,
…providing indirect care (such as preparing HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals) to these patients.

EliteCommInc: “As for marriage, no person who’s faith and practice with long established traditions of an ethic that forbids homosexual relations — should in no manner be expected to violate their expressed religious practice. The question is a trap designed to create dillemas in which none exists.”

Oh, but these ethical dilemmas most certainly do exist. For example…

…this judge in Louisiana denied marriage to an interracial couple because he does not believe in mixing races.

……this county clerk refused to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple because he believed doing so would violate his religious beliefs.

EliteCommInc: “When black people were not permitted into colleges — even public colleges and schools supported by their tax dollars — they built their own, they did home schooling. Seperate but equal was not about seperate — it was the lack of equality — tangibles.”

I’m uncertain of just where you are going with this. I won’t cite the numerous cases regarding the “separate but equal” concept and how it was very much about separating, as any attempt to bring blacks into a white school were met with outrage and, in many cases, violence.

Where do we draw the line, EliteCommInc? Which religious belief gets protection and which gets tossed under the bus?
Richard Johnson says:

December 12, 2012 at 12:26 am

“So I think the “gays caused the closure of a vitally needed Catholic adoption agency” is at best a misleading or un-nuanced narrative, at worst just plain wrong.”

But it is such a good cudgel with which to beat the opposition. “You bas***ds! You killed ~~Kenny~~ adoption!!”
EliteCommInc. says:

December 12, 2012 at 12:34 am

Richard Johnson,

My position on the choiuce ofbehavior between consernting adults is very simple.

What people do in their bedroom is thekir business and I am not an advocate or snooping into anyone’s bedroom.

When it comes to the social construct of marriage a public and private union and relationship, and how that is codified – that is very much the people’s business.
Tessa says:

December 12, 2012 at 12:37 am

Tumarion wrote:

“So hatred and bigotry of gays against Christians and conservatives (though I don’t approve) is surprising because why?

And on the flip side, Christians and conservatives have been bigoted against gays and such because of how gays forced them into the closet, beat them up, killed them–oh, wait. Never mind.”

Well, we do mind actually.

What needs to be highlighted is how many destructive consequences there are in society because of the attitudes and behaviors of LGBT people with a homosexual agenda.

LGBT individuals cause billions of dollars of healthcare damage to society because of their irresponsible and dysfunctional sexual behaviors (see health care costs related to record rates of spreading HIV, AIDS, and syphilis).

Millions of LGBT individuals engage in and promote damaging, demeaning and dehumanizing sexuality attitudes such as hook-ups, promiscuity, sex outside marriage, production and consumption of porn, prostitution…

Moreover, there are plenty of LGBT people who are perpetrators of all kinds of harmful actions, behaviors, and/or violence to adults and children (sexual assault, abuse, harassment, aggressive unwelcome advances, battering, murder…). The majority have impunity for many of their destructive acts.

What this means is that there are millions of LGBT people who are quite privileged, unethical, and harmful individuals on a personal and social level.

On top of it, aside from destructive personal behaviors, they often promote the persecution and discrimination of anyone who disagrees with their homosexuality agenda.

Just because they have a homosexuality problem, they think they are right to normalize it and to hate anyone who questions their views. Is this surprising? Instead of taking responsibility for their dysfunctional sexual psychology and working to resolve their psychological problems, they go on a hatred crusade of others who have a wholesome and functional sexuality and a healthy way of establishing personal relationships, along with the corresponding ideology/religion.

Not surprising, but, yes, we do mind.

Look what happens when a group of people with a highly dysfunctional idea of sexuality, like those with a homosexuality agenda, becomes dominant in society. The stereotyping of homosexuals as “victims” is nothing more than propaganda. Liberals want to dismiss and destroy awareness of how much violence and harm they perpetrate in society.
Peter H says:

December 12, 2012 at 12:38 am

I’m pretty sure that Beck made a similar statement two years ago.
Richard Johnson says:

December 12, 2012 at 12:46 am

Savia: “I do not buy the claim that being homosexual is the same as being black. There is a difference between genetic pre-disposition and genetic determinism.”

I understand that you don’t buy it. I don’t buy the notion that there is a professional football team in Illinois, but that doesn’t change the facts of the case. My acceptance of it is irrelevant.

Science is learning more about the nature of sexuality, and as this article shows, it’s looking as if there may well be a biological root to our sexuality. More research is needed, most definitely. But your “buying it” or not really won’t have much outcome on the issue.

Savia: “In most cases, Christians are mainly concerned about being told that they cannot teach their own sexual ethics, because it offends someone else. Therefore the attack on religious and parental rights.”

Savia, where in the US is it illegal for parents to teach their children that it is against God’s word for whites to marry blacks? Or that there is a similar prohibition against Jews marrying Gentiles?

Where have such laws been passed, Savia, that make it illegal for parents to teach these beliefs to their children?

Where is it illegal for parents to teach that men are the head of women, as Christ is the head of the Church, and that women must submit to the leadership of men?

Where is it illegal to teach your children that the Catholic Church is the Biblical “who*e of Babylon” and that the Antichrist will be a Pope?

All of these things are taught by Christian parents yet today, without legal sanction. Why should we believe that Christian parents who teach their children that homosexuality is wrong or that God has condemned homosexuals will be arrested for doing so when it has not happened to any of these other groups?

I’ll take up your other points later. Thank you for the answers.
RB says:

December 12, 2012 at 12:49 am

The LDS church’s position on homosexuality is similar to the Catholic church’s position–that is, one has a choice whether or not to act on any inclination, born or acquired. All people are called to chastity, and sex is reserved for marriage.

If you’re interested in an LDS scholar’s view on how heterosexual marriage benefits children and society, look up “’Some Things That Should Not Have Been Forgotten Were Lost’: The Pro-Feminist, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Peace Case for State Privileging of Companionate Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage”, V.H. Cassler, SquareTwo, Vol. 2 No. 1 (Spring 2009).
EliteCommInc. says:

December 12, 2012 at 12:53 am

Richard Johnson,

as for choice. I am unaware of any study that notes this behavior as biologically.genetically based. The studies that have been done are not only inconclusive, but they demonstrate that such behavior is not even stable. For example , as men who engage in this behavior grow older the revert to traditional male – female pair bonding.

And if they did find sucha gene or biologic basis. The homosexual is faced with a perplexing dillemma. Does he or she seek to manipulate the gene to invoke a normal biologic or live with the abnormality?
EngineerScotty says:

December 12, 2012 at 1:03 am

Would you have a problem with a flamboyantly homosexual caterer being forced to cater to a Catholic wedding against his wishes because the Church refuses to officiate same-sex marriages?

No. A “flamboyant homosexual” caterer who offers his services to the public ought to provide services to anyone willing and able to pay his fee, particularly if the customer is an individual (or in this case, a couple).

But see below.

That is of course a hypothetical situation. What about celebrities who cancelled scheduled events in Cincinnati after the 2001 riots because they disliked the city’s mentality and handling of the situation? Were they not in their right to choose where and for whom they would and would not exercise their profession?

Now here’s an interesting question. To what rights ought non-discrimination laws extend to institutions? Should a devout Catholic caterer be able to decline to be hired by GLAD, based explicitly on opposition to the “gay rights agenda” (whatever that may be)? Should the “flamboyant homosexual” caterer hypothesized above be permitted to tell the local Roman Catholic diocese to get lost, should the bishop want to hire him for a retreat? Should a caterer with strong views on race relations be permitted to refuse to work for the NAACP, or alternatively, the KKK? And what of boycotts of Cincinnati, or San Francisco, or Chick-Fil-A, or Starbucks, or whoever else?

In my mind, all of this is–and ought to be–A-OK. Anti-discrimination laws ought to protect individuals from adverse discrimination due to membership in protected classes. This is a matter of basic human rights, including specific rights given in the Constitution. But institutions are not people (legal fictions regarding corporations notwithstanding), so I have little problem with not extending as generous of protection to them.

One other point–in most business transactions (excluding barter transactions where money does not change hands), you have a “customer” (he who pays the money and receives the goods or services) and the “merchant” (he who provides the goods/services and receives the cash). Generally, the merchant is not permitted to discriminate arbitrarily against customers, as one customer’s money is as green as another’s. Customers, OTOH, may have many reasons for choosing one good/service over another (including personal dislike for the merchant); different suppliers’ wares may not be substitutes for one another. As boycotts are refusals to buy and not refusals to sell, it would be awfully difficult to demonstrate malice in such a case, even if such cases could be brought.

The exception to the above principle is the employment relationship. The employee is the “merchant” of his labor, and the boss is the “customer”; what the employee provides to the employer may not be as easily substituted. Yet here, the discrimination laws work in the other direction–you cannot refuse to hire black people, but you certainly can refuse to work for them if you so chose. This is a big reason discrimination cases in employment are frequently harder to prove; an employer may have a valid reason to choose Mr. X over Ms. Y unrelated to any protected class to which they may belong; whereas in the case of retail, one customer’s money is good as another–it’s much more difficult to justify refusing the business of someone willing and able to pay.
philosopher says:

December 12, 2012 at 2:14 am

The profound non-equivalence of these two things seems highly relevant to the discussion:

Chris – “The legalization of SSM will not require or force churches to change their beliefs or dogma or practice.”

Rod (glossing Chris) – “Religious people who think SSM will affect them are paranoid…”

It seems to me that no one is disputing or would dispute that religious people* would be _affected_ by SSM. There are ways of living their lives that are being foreclosed upon, for those who would live in close adherence to those traditional religious tenets. In general, they cannot have all aspects of their public life brought into harmony with these incredibly important aspects of their private life. For example, such persons who want to have a flourishing, large-scale business that _also_ operates in strict accord with their religious principles… simply will not be able to do so. I see no reason why proponents of SSM need to deny that this would be felt as a loss, indeed a profound loss, by those people.

But I also don’t know of any SSM proponents who _do_ deny that. What one loses is the capacity to live one’s public life in a kind of close harmony with one’s private life. Yet what is totally unthreatened is that private life itself. The life of the religious practices themselves, the life inside the pew or inside the home or inside the heart. That private/public line is a pretty sharp one in our liberal society (“liberal” here in the philosophical, not partisan political, sense). When Chris writes of the “beliefs or dogma or practice” of a church, it is this private realm that he is addressing (I think — he can correct me if I’m wrong). And so he is right:

But “religious freedom” has only ever been meant to apply with a wide-open throttle to that private realm. One has a right to one’s private beliefs and practices. One has no equivalent right to having those beliefs and practices mirrored in or in harmony with or in any way deferred to by the public world. We do (as noted e.g. towards the end of Siarlys’ comment) provide for a bit of leeway in parts of the public world that are extremely proximate to the private realm, such as the rooms in a B&B where the owners reside. (I don’t think that they apply if the owners live off-site, but I’m not sure.) But the law tends to be fairly stingy with such extensions, and there is always going to be litigation around the edges, just as with any other right, and especially when one basic right comes into conflict with another one.

This is why it has seemed to me, and continues to seem to me, that the discussion of “religious freedom” in this context needs to take note of the fact that what is being sought after here, by defenders of the traditional religious believers, is a very special _extension_ of the existing set of rights that operate under the banner of “religious freedom”. That doesn’t mean that they don’t deserve those rights, or that it wouldn’t be a matter of good law and/or good politics to make a deal that would provide them those rights. But it does make clear that this is not an issue that can be settled merely by saying that “religious freedom is being encroached”, and expecting even vaguely widespread agreement that that is even prima facie a bad thing. Encroaching on religious freedom of the private realm _is_ automatically a bad thing, a very bad thing. Encroaching on religious freedom in the public realm … just is not the same, and especially not when it comes in conflict with things that are basic rights, such as those that pertain to protected classes.

In short: no one denies that the traditionally religious would be deeply, negatively affected by the institutionalization of SSM. What is denied, rather, is that they would be affected _in any way that they currently have any right not to be affected_. And if they really want such a right, they had better start figuring out how to make a political bargain for it.

*(Just as an aside: That’s just “religious people” of a subset of faiths, of course, whereas the religious people of a number of other faiths, such as UU, would be affected primarily _by having all of the weddings they celebrate in their faith counted as legitimate by the state_. That effect seems to me as much a plus for religious liberty as any of the effects on parachurch practices that Rod is so concerned about.)
Church Lady says:

December 12, 2012 at 2:46 am

Savia, Elitecommie, Carlo, etc.,

You are certainly entitled to see things your way, but your comments here only convince myself and most liberals that you are simply wrong on virtually all counts, which is hard to accomplish, but you seem dedicated towards that end. We can’t all be right on this, and so I have no shame in making it clear that I reject your views in toto, and put my faith in an understanding of God and religion that also finds the courage to reject these anachronisms of a less enlightened era as errors that persist over time in traditions corrupted by sin. I’m sure you feel the same way about my views. I am quite content to let God render his own verdict in due course.
Church Lady says:

December 12, 2012 at 3:04 am

Josh,

Yes, I agree that there is little concern among liberals, secular and religious, for protecting some sort of “religious liberty” to discriminate against gays or SSM in the public sphere. We live in a civil society with equal protections afforded to all, and we want to keep it that way. A lot of blood, sweat and tears have been shed over the last two centuries to accomplish this, and we’re not about to give it up simply because of someone’s religious beliefs in the inferiority of homosexuals and their relationships.

As to this becoming a civil rights cause, exactly what options were offered by religious conservatives? As I recall, there was never anything remotely like a compromise on the table when religious conservatives thought they could win at the ballot box, in the courts, in the legislatures, and in public opinion. They were certain of their righteousness, and also certain that they would prevail. It’s only now that they are clearly losing, that they are complaining that gay rights advocates are being mean and uncompromising, and should offer some sort of “religious liberty” exemption. If they had made such an offering long ago, it would of course have been accepted. But now, it’s clear they are only trying to salvage some small victory from their losing cause. This only goes to show what amoral characters many of them have been all along, exhibiting no charity towards gays until they are forced to, and then wanting something in return for it to boot.

As to why I feel that God gives the gay rights cause His blessing, it’s really a very simple thing, if one simply sees the world through the eyes of a God who is loving and forgiving, and offers Him unqualified thanks for his indiscriminate love. I could of course quote many scriptures, and you could quote back others, but the reality is not in books, but in the living power of God’s love, which is available to all. The cultural traditions of mankind are not some fixed rule given by God long ago, but something always open and amenable to change and enlightened insight that strips away the errors of the past, making possible a living path writ in love, not a dead one writ in stone.
Travis says:

December 12, 2012 at 3:39 am

Freedom of association is as priceless as the freedom not to associate.

When one voluntarily chooses to operate a public, for-profit business, that activity is not association, it is commerce.

Just as commercial speech may be regulated far more closely than other kinds of speech, it is long settled law in the United States that commercial activity may be regulated far more closely than persons freely associating in social or political contexts.

The police power of states to enact laws prohibiting discrimination in commerce based on any number of personal attributes has long been upheld by courts.
NGPM says:

December 12, 2012 at 3:57 am

Here’s my doomsday prediction: gay marriage will be instituted and will fail, like all other ridiculous libertine social experiments related to individual emancipation, but along the way the rate at which larger civic “society” if at this point it can still be called that becomes unlivable will greatly accelerate.

Faced with such a situation, the Christian must be prepared to withdraw from larger society, not as Menonites, but as something “in the world but not of it” to a degree that has not been seen since Roman times. Ours however is a doubly difficult task, for the night of infidelity descending upon outer society is blacker than any indigenous paganism and totally lacking in any viable perennial culture.

(Or, at least, any viable perennial culture that does not depend on cheap oil. That’s one of many problem with these discussions related to “social science”: people rarely think to take all variables into account.)

But it is a worthy Cross to bear, for if we can be that salt and that light for those poor souls in the dark who may at some point sense that the dearth of UV and the hypotonic solution that is banal, plastic, modern culture is killing them off and search for something higher, then when it does die off, we can scrape the fragments from the ashes and start over, having learned from our mistakes.

(And pray there’s enough of us left at that point to confront Islam. So turn your energies toward stopping the mass migratory menace…)
Linda says:

December 12, 2012 at 5:01 am

Glen Beck made a similar statement about gay marriage a couple years ago – think he was on O’Reilly’s show.

Rod said, ” This is actually wrong, and misdirecting.” Rod did not provide any evidence to support his statement.

As others have pointed out, the Catholic Charities example is an Apple to Orange comparison. Which of the states were gay marriage is legal did not include a religious liberty exception for churches?

The US has selectively restricted religious liberty since at least the mid 1800s. Laws against what is considered child abuse contradict Bible verses, including the teachings of Christ.
Clint says:

December 12, 2012 at 6:00 am

Boston Globe, December 29, 2011:

“Catholic Charities in Illinois has served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. But now most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois are closing down rather than comply with a new requirement that says they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2011/12/29/illinois-catholic-charities-close-rather-than-allow-same-sex-couples-adopt-children/Km9RBLkpKzABNLJbUGhvJM/story.html
Surly says:

December 12, 2012 at 6:42 am

Rod–I will ask again for specifics as to how CHURCHES will be compelled to act against their beliefs.

Boston Catholic Charities is NOT a church. It is a 501(c) 3 organization, as are the majority of non-profit hospitals and universities that are affiliated with religious denominations.

You have conflated churches and non-churches before, when we were discussing the infringement of Obamacare on freedom of religion. It is sloppy and it makes you look ill-informed.

Here is the IRS info on non-profits. They are quite different from churches. The IRS can audit Catholic Community Services. They cannot audit St. Bartholomew Episcopal Church.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements—Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations

[Note from Rod: I haven't confused them; it's just that I consider religious organizations (e.g., Catholic schools, Jewish charities) to be extensions of churches, synagogues, etc. I think they should be free to be run as the religion sees fit -- even if that means that I get discriminated against. I would draw the religious liberty line in a different place. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but I find it frustrating that people don't seem to grasp that religion is not only what people say and do inside their churches; it's also what they *do*. -- RD]
Marguerite says:

December 12, 2012 at 7:05 am

In a morally sane society, the suggestion of this perverse idea being on par with Sacramental marriage wouldn’t even be uttered. A society that has forsaken God has gone mad with its own perversities.
John Mark Ockerbloom says:

December 12, 2012 at 7:28 am

It’s also worth pointing out that Boston Catholic Charities, unlike many other private adoption agencies in Massachusetts, had a contract with the state to place children on its behalf (and thus had agreed to place children under the conditions that the state that hired them had specified).

Other Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts that don’t have such contracts, such as the Fall River diocese’s “Adoptions by Choice” program, are still placing children, and as far as I’m aware are doing so under Catholic criteria they’re happy with.

The outcome in Boston (where staffers who had been enthusiastically placing children with gay couples resigned, and the hierarchy shut down the archdiocese’s adoption placement agency) was a disappointment all around, but at multiple levels it involves the general principle of “you work for someone under the criteria they set” rather than infringements of fundamental freedoms. Namely, if you as a social worker choose to work for a church, you’re supposed to do your work according to the church’s rules. And, if you as a church agency choose to work for a state, you’re supposed to do your work according to the state’s rules. In either case, if you don’t like that, you can work for someone else instead. Where’s the religious freedom threat in this case?
Brendan Doran says:

December 12, 2012 at 7:51 am

So Progressives foot soldiers of the State march [swish] towards you whining “Justice” and despite thousands of same attacks…you engage as if this were some novelty?

This is about power, and power only. Religion and family are an obstacle to that power, so these rather childish and hysterical people [gays] are whipped up into a lather and pointed at both.

There’s nothing to discuss. Any plea to the Constitution, religious rights, there is really nothing to discuss. It will be framed in their terms in any case. It’s about POWER.

These Historical memories of persecution are about as true, valid, and personal as Sandra Fluke’s martyrdom at Georgetown, or the Winter Soldier tales of atrocity. Conjured nonsense in other words. Where exactly where you beaten up and persecuted at? Selma perhaps? Everyone else claims it, why not you?

Learn. Learn to be relentless as they are. Don’t appeal to fairy tales about justice and fairness. Recognize you have only those Rights and Liberties you’ll defend.

This is the forging of a religion – bonds – and your chains.

Apply all the tactics and strategems of the enemy with the same cunning they do, and recognize you are their ENEMY, they are foot soldiers in a WAR, that war is DECEIT, CUNNING, and RUTHLESSNESS, and proceed accordingly. Treat with them in every conversation as a deceitful enemy at war with you, for they are. Also recognize they are acting as agents of the Progressive State, so you have no recourse or refuge in the Law.

Stop dealing with every foot soldier of the Progressive State who marches against you as a free agent who can be reasoned with and a just solution arrived at. That is not how wars are fought or won. Be implacable and fierce, offer nothing but no and make it clear you’ll not be trod on lightly. Bravery is not a quality I see in this enemy if that helps you. They rely on deceit, appeals to justice, crying victim as they prey but above all your forbearance. Forbearing forever into degradation, submission, slavery is the key part of their plan. It falls apart when that doesn’t happen.

Don’t forget to smile.
John E_o says:

December 12, 2012 at 7:52 am

And Rod, you still have yet to answer how this is different from discrimination on the basis of religion. Boston Catholic Charities has, ever since its founding, been compelled to place children with Jewish couples, or Muslim couples, or atheist couples. Why is it that placing kids with same-sex couples is suddenly beyond the pale when they’ve been prevented all along from exercising their religious freedom to not place children with known Christ-deniers. Surely denying Christ’s divinity is as much as a sin (if not more so) than homosexuality, and yet Catholic organizations serving the public are not able to discriminate on that basis.

I really hope that Rod addresses this point as well as Tumarion’s expansion of the facts surrounding the Boston Charities case.

[Note from Rod: This isn't difficult. The Catholics believe that the natural, God-ordained order of things is for children to be raised in families with a father and a mother, not a familial order based on something they believe to be a great sin. You may not agree with them, but from the Catholic point of view, a Muslim or atheist husband and wife make for a morally licit home environment for children in ways that a same-sex couple cannot. -- RD]
grendel says:

December 12, 2012 at 8:47 am

” but I find it frustrating that people don’t seem to grasp that religion is not only what people say and do inside their churches; it’s also what they *do*.”
JohnE_o says:

December 12, 2012 at 8:50 am

[Note from Rod: This isn't difficult. The Catholics believe that the natural, God-ordained order of things is for children to be raised in families with a father and a mother, not a familial order based on something they believe to be a great sin. You may not agree with them, but from the Catholic point of view, a Muslim or atheist husband and wife make for a morally licit home environment for children in ways that a same-sex couple cannot. -- RD]

Thank you for replying.

My response is that when the Catholic Church spins off an affiliated organization that acts as an agent of The State, then that church has to play by The State’s rules – “Render unto Caesar” and all that.

If Catholic Charities only took in children born to Catholics and only placed them with Catholic families, then I would agree that they have the right to discriminate according to their rules.

But they didn’t – they chose to act in the secular realm. Once there, the secular rules apply.
grendel says:

December 12, 2012 at 9:05 am

” but I find it frustrating that people don’t seem to grasp that religion is not only what people say and do inside their churches; it’s also what they *do*.”

Rod, I think people get that. They really do. But religious liberty in this country has never, and I mean never, meant that a person is exempt from laws of general application just because the laws contradict his religious beliefs.

What you seem to hold as an essential and even self-evident part of the definition of religious liberty has no basis in how religious liberty has been understood in US jurisprudence. It is frustrating to us, those on the other side of this debate, that you do not seem to recognize this fact.

Yours is a radical extension of the notion of religious liberty. There may be some fine arguments for your position, and you are welcome to make them, but really, stop pretending that the rest of us are dense because that is not how we do not take as a given your understanding of religious liberty. If you want to redefine religious liberty, go for it, but at least recognize that’s what you are doing.
Richard Johnson says:

December 12, 2012 at 9:15 am

EliteCommInc: “I am unaware of any study that notes this behavior as biologically.genetically based.”

I linked to an article about one in my response to Savia. I will link to it again so you don’t have to go back and sort out previous posts.

http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic–but-it-arises-in-the-womb

If you have access to JSTOR or wish to purchase the entire article, it is here: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/668167?uid=3739640&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101438357623
Sean Scallon says:

December 12, 2012 at 9:20 am

“Second, it matters because whatever else Beck is, he’s the kind of guy who knows how to appeal to the common man. If I were pro-SSM, I would a thousand million times rather have Glenn Beck on my side than, say, George F. Will. Beck legitimates a pro-SSM position for a certain class of righties who wouldn’t give a flip about what conservative/GOP elites say.”

Really? So you can appeal to the common man by indulging in conspiracy theories and theorists and saying the most stupid, moronic things possible? Well, par for the course I guess. After all it is, as John Derbyshire put it “lowbrow conservatism.” I guess all the “highbrow” conservatives need better PR agents.

That “certain class” or righties would be better hiding their money under a mattress than continuing to be fleeced by Beck and the minions of Conservative INC. Say what you want about Will but he doesn’t view his audience as an ATM machine. the way Beck and those like him do. Did you read the Pearlstine article Rod? It’s the same thing sold to the same people because the salesmen know they’ll buy. They’ll buy anything.
Alex says:

December 12, 2012 at 9:28 am

The Catholics believe that the natural, God-ordained order of things is for children to be raised in families with a father and a mother, not a familial order based on something they believe to be a great sin. You may not agree with them, but from the Catholic point of view, a Muslim or atheist husband and wife make for a morally licit home environment for children in ways that a same-sex couple cannot.

Okay, but I’m certain that you would not find this attitude to be timeless and that as recently as a few generations ago in majority-Catholic countries, a Catholic orphanage would have taken a very different view about placing a child in a home where it would not receive a baptism nor be raised in the Church. Why do you think that attitude has changed?

And there are certainly adoption agencies in these modern times who have sought to only place children in home where the “correct” religion was practiced, and such discrimination was judged illegal. I remember a case from about ten years ago when it was an Evangelical Christian adoption agency not placing children with Catholic parents. They believed that they were following God’s requirements, just as the Catholics believe that they’re following God’s requirements in not placing children in same-sex households.

Why does the religious freedom of the Catholic agency deserve to be respected but religious freedom of the Evangelical agency doesn’t?

If you do write protections for religious freedom for adoption agencies into the law, it seems to me that you have two choices:
1. Write it broadly enough that now you’re also protecting the Evangelicals in their desire to discriminate against Catholics.
2. Write it narrowly and explicitly call out same-sex couples as uniquely targetable for religiously-motivated discrimination.
Which choice would you take?
Richard Johnson says:

December 12, 2012 at 9:31 am

“As I recall, there was never anything remotely like a compromise on the table when religious conservatives thought they could win at the ballot box, in the courts, in the legislatures, and in public opinion.”

This is a valid point. In the past when the idea of civil union laws was first put forth, religious conservatives were strongly opposed to such notions, even if they provided clear and specific protections for religious institutions and individuals.

In Vermont, for example, a backlash against that state’s civil union law caused some nasty confrontations during the primaries that took place after the passing of the law. Much of this backlash was driven by conservative Christian response to the law.

It’s fair to ask conservatives what kind of compromise they would accept now, given that in the past there was no compromise that they would even consider.
Church Lady says:

December 12, 2012 at 9:56 am

I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but I find it frustrating that people don’t seem to grasp that religion is not only what people say and do inside their churches; it’s also what they *do*. —

Everyone acknowledges that religion is what one does, but nevertheless there remain limits to what aspects of religion are protected from the law. The private and personal aspects of religion are fully protected, but not the public and economic aspects of religion. Religious people don’t live by different laws than everyone else. Religious and non-religious people alike get to live as they wish in their private lives. But in their public lives, they are constrained by the same laws.

A hospital is not a Church. Running a hospital, or a school, is not a religious activity, unless it is confined to the private sphere of a Church’s own membership. Adoption agencies are not religious organizations, and placing children in homes is not a protected religious act.

This is all very simple. As much as you like to complain that your critics keep confusing these things, they do not. It is you who are deliberately confusing the public and the private, in order to get around laws you don’t like. You never had a problem with these laws as long as they only affected other people and their religious conscience (or lack of same). Now you are making claims that simply lack authenticity.

In making the claim that religion is what people do, you seem to be suggesting that religious freedom from state interference means that the state simply cannot constrain what people do, if they have a religious motive, or create a religious organization that becomes affiliated with that activity. This has never been how religious freedom has been seen before, and I think you need to acknowledge that. What you are claiming as a domain of protected religious activity has never before been claimed under our constitutional government. It is essentially creating a religious exemption from the laws in relation to anything a religious person does, since now religion is defined as everything a religious person or their organization does.

I’d really like to know where, as a legal principle, this ends? We all know you’ve taken this tack as a way of trying to insulate your own religious tradition from having to acknowledge in the public sphere the civil rights of gay people, and abide by any potential anti-discriminatory laws that might affect them. But legal principles can’t single out one group for only partial protection under the law. So to allow this, you seem to be in favor of allowing all forms of discrimination, and complaining that if religious people and organizations can’t discriminate according to their religious conscience, that is an intolerable limit on their religious activity, even though it has nothing to do with any overtly religious activity on their part. Or is anti-gay discrimination an actual sacred religious activity in your view, to be set apart from the public sphere, as essential to the practice of your religion as prayer or worship or Bible study?

You constantly leave these questions begging, and yet complain that everyone is misunderstanding you. I don’t think we do. I think we understand you very well.

I also have to ask, is this how you want people to define and recognize your form of traditional Christianity – as a religion defined by its desire to discriminate in public life against people it deems as lacking the proper qualifications under their religious dogma for basic civil rights? Because if that’s what you want, that’s what you’ll get. And you can be sure, it will certainly lead many people to think very lowly of your religion. No law can protect your religion from being thought poorly of. I can defend your right to think and believe whatever you like, and to live your private life however you wish, but not to act on those beliefs in the public sphere to the detriment of other people. No one has that right.
Mairin says:

December 12, 2012 at 10:23 am

Besides the affront to my Faith sensibilities, SSM poses….their remains my outright disgust towards the dysfunctional, disordered and unimpeded LUST displayed by homosexuals and their rage.

All the homosexuals I have befriended in my life, have been outwardly fun…until I got to know them. People tend to find me easy to talk to…so I get to hear their lifes woes. Sadly enough, EVERY SINGLE ONE, of these homosexuals had been molested as well as had messed up families…alcohol, neglect, absent fathers, slutty mothers whose boyfriend’s hurt the children…parents who didn’t notice what the neighborhood homosexual was doing to their son….and some had a mix of these horrors.
My “gay” friends had drinking problems…some did drugs and most of them contemplated suicide. Underneath, there was nothing “gay” (happy) about them. They were suffering: Not from rejection-liberal place- but rather, from the self-imposed excesses of anonymous sex and the unrequited desire for completion that cannot be found in that society. Even their “monogamous” relationships were rife with cheating. SSM won’t cure what ails them. It is a deep-seated issue of self-loathing because they were used as innocent children as sex toys and no one helped them heal…hence the rage and self-destructive behaviors and the childish temper tantrums to be seen as a Sodomite, as opposed to a person. Their preoccupation with sex and lust devalues every other aspect about them, rendering themselves to a rutting thing.

How can I say this? Because it is what homosexuals have told me…

Several times on discussion boards I have been attacked for being a “breeder” and a “hater”. I have children, true. But, I do not hate anyone, but feeling sorry for homosexual is not off the table.