Category: 
National Public Radio is one of the most unbiased news sources out there. Here is a two part article on this very issue. Basically if you do not support the homosexual lifestyle that’s too bad. Here are a few examples:
The Methodist Church was forced to allow a civil union ceremony in a pavilion that they own because in general the pavilion was for public use. Not only did they have to let a lesbian couple use it, but in the mean time they also lost part of their tax exemption.
A doctor did not want to perform in vitro fertilization treatment for a woman in a lesbian relationship because it went against his beliefs, so instead he referred her to a doctor who would do the procedure. So far it has been suggested that the doctor go into a different line of work and it is believed the woman who sued will win her case.
A mental health counselor refused to provide services to a lesbian woman wanting help with her partner because the relationship went against the counselor’s beliefs. The counselor was fired.
There are many cases such as these that are happening in the United States, and that’s just with civil unions. It is believed by many that it will only get worse once homosexuals retain the ability to marry.
During one of NPR’s morning forums (If I recall correctly it aired Wednesday October 22, at 9am) there was a fairly prominent lesbian and a catholic man. I do not remember their names nor the names of their specific organizations. What I do remember is that the lesbian woman did *nothing* to assuage the concerns that people have about allowing homosexual marriages. She simply kept stating that it was a lie that homosexual marriages had anything to do with schools, that it’s a lie church’s will be forced to perform homosexual marriages or risk losing their tax exempt status and that homosexuals have a fundamental right to marry.
Yet, there’s all these other evidences that say these supposed lies are truths. After the judges overturned Prop 22 there has been a myriad of wacko things going on, like the lesbian marriage field trip. There’s already Coming Out Day being celebrated in schools, including an elementary school in Hayward without parents being informed beforehand. There’s also GLBT History Month which is in October. According to the official GLBT History Month website October was specifically chosen because public schools are in session at that time. New York is even going so far as to build a taxpayer funded homosexual private high school.
On the Official California Legislative Information website you will find information on various codes, including the Education Code. In the California Education Code Section 51933 you will find information on sex education from ages K-12. In it includes a requirement to discuss marriages and committed relationships. Hmm. . . so if homosexuals are allowed to marry then it will become a part of school curriculum since nearly all schools teach sex education (I can’t think of one that doesn’t). You can say that maybe parents could opt out but that’s only for a specific event. You can’t opt out of the beforehand discussions or the after-hand discussions.
I was talking to a friend at church about this subject. It basically came down to that it would be different if homosexuals just wanted to get married and life went on. It’s the fall out that has everyone up in arms. It’s the homosexual lifestyle being taught in schools, it’s people losing pieces of their freedom of religion. It’s insanity. Why should one group gain a right at the expense of another group’s rights?
I do think that homosexuals should be able to use their free agency to marry if that’s what they want. It’s when that starts infringing upon the rights of others I draw the line. If these issues were not present I would wholeheartedly be against Prop 8. Homosexuals want the right to marry, the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and others want to retain their rights to religious freedoms. Until this can be reconciled I have to say my stance is yes on prop 8, which really really sucks.
Recently:
- Out of the Mouth of Babes
- Hazel’s Talk on Jesus always obeying Heavenly Father
- Lazy Game Design
- Teacher-centered vs Child-centered Classrooms
- An Aesthetic Experience
- The Looking Glass Wars – Arch Enemy
- Whatever You Want.
- Woof.
- Facebook for me
- What Hazel wrote on the computer.
Comments
This entry was posted on Friday, October 31st, 2008 at 9:06 am and is filed under Families. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
The paper listed at the site (about the pavillion) seems to say that the issue is how the pavillion is used, generally. If the pavillion is only used for religious activities, then they could have successfully barred anyone from using it who didn’t express that viewpoint. This would go along with how any church can refuse use of it’s church to non members.
But the pavillion is publicly used — and once that door is open, then they can’t pick and choose who gets to use it based on religious issues. This would be like restricting the sidewalk in front of the church against non-members. That’s not permissible, because it’s a “public” space. The same argument could have been successfully raised if another religious group (say, Baptists) wanted to use the space.
There’s also a difference between repressing someone’s religious views, and preventing them from restricting a public space for the enforcement of those views. So if the schools were forced to make people engage in homosexual unions, then that would be a repression of a group’s religious views.
But that’s not the same as stating that a school must permit discussion about homosexuals: discussion is not coercion. The infringement of a religious view (IMO) isn’t towards the child that may hear a discussion about homosexuals, but the teacher, who might have to discuss this matter even if it goes against their religion.
But even here, there isn’t a lot of legal backup: there’s still a difference between stating the facts of a situation and placing an affirmation/judgement against them. Like, there are religions that believe that eating pork is sinful, but they’re not exempt from explaining that pig farming is a source of the American diet. The first is a value statement, the second is a factual one. If there are kids who also feel that eating pork is sinful, the expectation that they know it’s a dietary source doesn’t mean they’re being repressed. However, if either the kid or the teacher were forced to say that eating pork is good, then their rights are being oppressed.
You’re right — a group does have a right to religious freedom, but Prop 8 didn’t enforce that: there are plenty of religious groups that forbid marriage against even a man and a woman of different faiths, and that wouldn’t have been altered had Prop 8 failed.
There are definitely cases where parents want to restrict information from their children (for whatever reason.) But that’s not religious expression — it’s not the expression of anything. The judgement against homosexuality is part of a religious view, and that’s still able to be done even if Prop 8 had passed.
Basically, freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from dissenting viewpoints. It does mean that the government can’t force a group to practice, or believe or act in a certain way. But by the same token, they (shouldn’t) be enabling a group to force another group to practice, believe or act in a certain way (or to not act in a certain way.)
The ability to marry, legally, confers the right of two adults to exercise their right to 1) enter into a contract and 2) negotiate the distribution/dispensation of their property.
The religious construct of marriage may (and does) differ — there are religious groups that feel that the man is the wage earner, the keeper of property (even down to the property of the wife) or vice versa. Or that people of different faiths, non-active members of a church (or removed member) can’t get a religiously recognized marriage. Or that women who aren’t virgins can’t get married — a religious group can construct any number of requirements of membership, and there are few legal barriers against it.
But that’s not the legal viewpoint, and that’s why a legal marriage may be unrecognized by a religious group, or a religious marriage be unrecognized by the law.
Although it’s over now, voting against Prop 8 wouldn’t force any religious group to honor any marriage between anyone it didn’t want to recognize. It also wouldn’t have forced any religious group to say that homosexuality is good. Although, it may be that they couldn’t say that it’s bad. I’d label that a requirement of neutrality, in the same way teachers aren’t supposed to tell the kids if they’re Democrats or Republicans (which is not a restriction of a person’s political views.)
I think you think it sucks, because…well, it does suck. But I think your logic behind why you had to vote for it anyway wasn’t quite hitting the real points of the issue.
The question is: how does this group infringe against my rights — but the first question should be, what exactly are my rights, if you know what I mean.
Also — I just wanted to mention that if a health care provider refuses services based on any beliefs, they should get fired. I’m not saying that a person can’t feel judgemental in their hearts, but denying service (especially that kind) because of a disagreement of viewpoint is wrong.
Just consider — if a policeman wouldn’t stop a criminal from robbing you because he wasn’t of your faith, or the farmer stopped growing food because of the fact that someone outside his group would eat it, or the teacher forbid to educate a child because of a different viewpoint, then we’d be forced to live in isolated self-sufficient pockets of total adherence to the same views, or society would collapse.
When a person has agreed to do a job, they do that job, regardless of how different they are from the person coming to them. Even the clergy can see that – I’m not Mormon, but I believe that if I came to a Mormon clergy person that they would provide spiritual counsel for me. If I went to a Mormon run restaurant, I’m sure they would feed me. Health care, especially due to its urgency, is going to have at least the same standard.
gah: undercaffeinated person here — I meant to say
” …The judgement against homosexuality is part of a religious view, and that’s still able to be done even if Prop 8 had not passed….”