If gays marry, churches could suffer

[fgoodwin]

If gays marry, churches could sufferhttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0605260218may26,1,1440466.story

http://tinyurl.com/zqu4g

 

By Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University School of Law

 

May 26, 2006

 

After an acrimonious session in which Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) stomped out and Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) bid him "good riddance," the Senate Judiciary Committee approved sending the federal marriage amendment to the full Senate.

 

The Feingold-Specter tiff illustrates the intensity of feeling about adding to the text of the Constitution what the founders surely thought was obvious: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." The need to reaffirm the self-evident was prompted by Massachusetts' judicial recognition of same-sex marriage, which motivated more than a dozen states to overwhelmingly proclaim otherwise.

 

With the states being so vigilant in defense of traditional marriage, is there really a need for the people to act? Yes. Activists are deployed across the country challenging traditional marriage, and it is more than likely that some additional judges will compound the Massachusetts mistake. This increased judicial approval of same-sex marriage will metastasize into the larger culture. Indeed, an insidious, but less recognized, consequence will be a push to demonize--and then punish--faith communities that refuse to bless homosexual unions.

 

While it may be inconceivable for many to imagine America treating churches that oppose gay marriage the same as racists who opposed interracial marriage in the 1960s, just consider the fate of the Boy Scouts. The Scouts have paid dearly for asserting their 1st Amendment right not to be forced to accept gay scoutmasters. In retaliation, the Scouts have been denied access to public parks and boat slips, charitable donation campaigns and other government benefits. The endgame of gay activists is to strip the Boy Scouts (and by extension, any other organization that morally opposes gay marriage) of its tax-exempt status under both federal and state law.

 

For technical legal reasons, it is difficult to challenge a religious group's non-profit status in federal court, but state court is more open. There, judicial decisions approving same-sex marriage or even state laws barring discrimination can be used to pronounce any opposing moral or religious doctrine to be "contrary to public policy." So declared, it would be short work for a state attorney general's opinion to deny the tax-exempt status of charities and most orthodox Jewish, Christian and Islamic religious bodies. If enough state lawyers do this, expect the IRS to chime in.

 

Punishing religious organizations for their moral beliefs might be thought contrary to the protections of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Boy Scouts have had little success defending these bedrock precepts. Penalizing the Scouts for observing their own handbook, say lower courts, merely avoids the immediate harm of discrimination, even as the bald-faced assertion that moral belief is a "harm" is anomalous.

 

For the moment, same-sex marriage is confined to a single state, but litigation is ongoing in 10 states from New York to California. Three years ago, the Supreme Court came close to endorsing gay and lesbian marriage when it declared that morality alone was no basis for lawmaking. The court is under new management and is acting more restrained. But the political lobbying and litigating are unrelenting, and the targeting of the Scouts reveals that same-sex success can come by indirection.

 

That churches can be made the collateral casualties of the same-sex marriage campaign is important to grasp. At a minimum it gives partial answer to the view of indifference that asks how gay marriage hurts anyone. When judges treat your religious community, its schools and its charities on par with the purveyors of racial hatred, it will no longer be necessary to ask. But then, it will also be too late.

 

Many share the view, as I do, that marriage is a moral reality incapable of redefinition by court edict. Others disagree. Sending the federal marriage amendment to the states allows for an honest and civil debate, which is far better than back-door vengeance against moral dissenters -- or is it a moral majority?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

This article doesn't contain much Scout content, and what it does contain is false:

 

The Scouts have paid dearly for asserting their 1st Amendment right not to be forced to accept gay scoutmasters. In retaliation, the Scouts have been denied access to public parks and boat slips, charitable donation campaigns and other government benefits.

 

Considering that this article is written by Douglas W. Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine, I can only conclude that he's deliberately lying.

 

First, the BSA, even if they lose the Balboa Park lease, will still have the same access as any other member of the public; the only difference will be that the PUBLIC will also have the same access as the BSA, instead of the BSA reserving "their" part of a public park for their members.

 

Second, they clearly haven't been "denied access" to Berkeley's marina - they still rent a slip at the same rate as any other member of the public. They don't qualify for 3 free slips, because they don't meet the requirements.

 

The same is true of their not qualifying for the Connecticut charity campaign - the BSA just doesn't meet the criteria.

 

___

Of course, this entire article is based on faulty logic. The government has recognized civil divorce for decades, and has yet to "retaliate" against e.g. Catholic churches that refuse to marry a divorced person based on the church's position that the divorced person is still married.

[evmori]

The post is calling the kettle black!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well Ed, if you're accusing me of lying, quote something I've said that's a lie.

 

And, by the way, do you dispute what I wrote about the inaccuracies in this article?

[Bobanon]

I don't necessarily believe that churches would suffer. If religion promotes discrimination maybe they need to die out. I say let it be and allow the whithering hand of superstition to grip us no more. I for one do not seen the omnipotent creator as anything but a loving God. He may not be interested in the affairs of man, but he is still a force of unconditional love, and the face it the god of the bible is anything but loving, especially unconditionally.

 

First of all it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to define marriage. Marriage in the eyes of government should be wholly secular and seen as a contract between two people of lawful age. Religion should not work into the equation in any form or fashion.

 

Second how much of the gay marriage issue and band is being promoted behind the scenes of the U.S. insurance industry. They could stand to loose money possibly if gay marriages were or are accepted univerasally across the U.S. I can see the insurance industry fighting this one tooth and nail, and possibly see them as the root of the anti-gay forces.

 

 

[evmori]

No Merlyn, I'm not accusing you of lying. I would never stoop that low. My point, which you missed, is you don't like it when someone employs the same tactics you employ! Don't look in the mirror much do ya?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

No Merlyn, I'm not accusing you of lying. I would never stoop that low. My point, which you missed, is you don't like it when someone employs the same tactics you employ!

 

What "tactics" are you referring to?

[Eagledad]

This is to much.

 

>> I for one do not seen the omnipotent creator as anything but a loving God.

[BrentAllen]

I'm afraid Professor Kmiec is too late with this column. Uncle Teddy (Kennedy) has already declared that anyone against homosexual marriage is a bigot. No matter what your religion says, if you are against the practice, you are a bigot. Uncle Teddy says so. I guess he only plays a Catholic on tv.

[NJCubScouter]

Wait, I thought the BSA was doing just great despite the gay policy and the Dale decision. Isn't that what I keep reading in this forum? What's this guy talking about?

 

Most of the article is nonsense. I am not sure what he means by churches being penalized for "opposing" gay marriage. Does that mean refusing to perform gay marriages? Churches are obviously free to decide who to "marry" and who not to. I don't think my Catholic wife and my Jewish self would have gotten a warm reception if we had wanted to be married in most Protestant churches, and we wouldn't have expected to. You don't even need a church (or any other religious institution) to get married. So I don't know what the author is talking about.

 

I will say, I don't believe for a minute that Arlen Specter thinks that the Constitution should be amended to prohibit gay marriage. This is all a political thing. I don't know why anybody cares who else is getting married to who anyway. It doesn't affect my marriage.

[evmori]

Slash & slander!

[Fuzzy Bear]

If one wanted to prioritize what is important in politics, one should begin with finding where our money is going instead of where is all of the dust being kicked up. Our national debt may well put us back into the dark ages where we belong with all of the political moralizing. The Chinese view of intermingling politics and religion is that it makes for the worst of all possible conditions. We can still be proud because our super-hero has won the day with pockets over stuffed with our cash. FB

[DanKroh]

Barry says: " That way over time real religious moral folks over time will come to except the gay beheavior as normal."

 

Excuse me, but I am a real religious, moral folk who already accepts gay "behavior" as normal. So, in fact, does the American Psychiatric Association, so you are going to be hard pressed to define it as "abnormal" in any sense other than a Biblical one (and a Biblical interpretation considered faulty by the many Christian denominations and theologians, at that). But I guess I don't count, since I'm not a Christian, and therefore can't really be religious or moral.

 

This article is an editorial opinion piece. As such, I don't expect it to be filled with facts. However, as such, I do find it to be a load of tripe. I'm a bit surprised a law professor can't understand the difference between "punishment" and "consequences of the law".

[DanKroh]

Barry says: "Marriage is really just a religious thing. The only reason gays want the Government to define marriage is so their behavior is to it as moral."

 

So I guess the 1049 or so benefits available to married couples that are not available to couples who have a civil union have nothing to do with it?

 

So I guess these federal benefits not available in civil unions are irrelevant and unimportant:

Access to Military Stores

Assumption of Spouses Pension

Bereavement Leave

Immigration

Insurance Breaks

Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner

Sick Leave to Care for Partner

Social Security Survivor Benefits

Sick Leave to Care for Partner

Tax Breaks

Veterans Discounts

Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

 

And those don't even begin to cover the additional benefits available at the state level.

[Hunt]

The anti-same-sex amendment is such a transparently phony political ploy that it almost qualifies as an intelligence test for anybody who takes it seriously. The Republicans know that it isn't going anywhere, and most of them don't really care about it, but they hope to energize their "base." Kmiec must know this too, if he's really a professor.