There is a media blitz by the “Christian Right” over SB899 “An Act Implementing The Guarantee of Equal Protection Under The Constitution Of The State For Same Sex Couples” in newspapers, on the radio and on the internet.
There is one point that I want to make first, SB899 already has provisions in the bill that allows exemptions to churches and clergy from performing same-sex marriages. They want to go beyond this and allow for exemptions from anyone based on religious beliefs.
The main thrust of their campaign is an ad called “The Gathering Storm” and in the ad, they make several claims,
1. Their first claim is from a California doctor who lost a law-suite to keep from performing artificial insemination for lesbian couples because it was against her religious belief.
The court ruled that the State had a “compelling interest in ending sexual orientation discrimination” so yes she is being forced by the State to insemination lesbian couples. However, what would you say if she had demanded the right not to perform artificial insemination on an interracial couple or on a Muslim because it was against her religion? Do you think it would still be OK for her not to inseminate them?
2. Their second claim is about a New Jersey church that punished because they refused to rent to out a pavilion on the boardwalk for the marriage of a lesbian couple.
Yes, they were denied their tax-exempt status because they refused to rent to out a pavilion, but the rest of the story is…
“The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled today in favor of a same-sex couple who sued the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association for banning civil union ceremonies at the town's public boardwalk pavilion.
The Division ruled that the couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, have "probable cause" to claim that the ban violates New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination. Today's opinion was based on the boardwalk pavilion's being public by nature of its historic use, open to everyone for decades without restrictions. In fact, the Camp Meeting Association had for years advanced that very argument, by applying for – and receiving – state tax breaks under New Jersey's "Green Acres" program that requires facilities to be open and nondiscriminatory to all.”
3. They then point out that a parent in Massachusetts complains that the school system is forcing the teaching of same-sex marriage as normal.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruling they held that public schools “have an interest in promoting tolerance, including for the children (and parents) of gay marriages.”
However, the state of Massachusetts does not require any school system to “teach” same-sex marriage. In addition, school systems teach evolution and that the world is not 7000 years old nor flat.
4. Lastly, they argue that allowing same-sex marriage would change the way that they live.
They have never said how allowing same-sex couples to marry would affect their lives. Just how would marrying two people, who happen to be the same sex and who are in love affect them? Is it because they would they have to sell flowers to them? Is it because they would they have to serve same-sex couples in restaurants? Is it because they would they have to rent out apartments to them? However, it has been against the law since 1991 to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so this bill would not change anything.
So in other words, the “Christian Right” is asking for “Special Rights” to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
I also wonder how we are going to prove that it is a religious exception. Are we going to give them a test their knowledge of their holy book? Maybe you could discriminate if you attend church more than once a month but if, you attend church only three or four times a year you cannot discriminate. Are we going to have a list of religions that it would be OK for them to discriminate? Members of religion X can discriminate but if you are a member religion Z can’t because the are accepting. Or could a person just say it is against their religious beliefs and be allowed to discriminate?
No comments:
Post a Comment