The more I think about the Vermont legislature’s vote to recognize same-sex marriages in the Green Mountain State, the better the result seems. More than anything, their legislation answers the most serious concern raised by social conservatives: that state recognition of gay marriage would mean churches would be required to perform such ceremonies or lose their tax-exempt status.
Throughout the fall campaign on Proposition 8, opponents of the measure charged that those pushing its passage were lying when they suggested “that churches will lose their tax-exempt status for preaching against same-sex marriages. . . . This greatest lie of all is also potentially the most damaging to the No campaign, because it instills fear that our secular marriage laws if allowed to stand will intrude on church practices.”
I don’t dismiss the social conservatives’ fears as readily as does the blogger I quote above. What he sees as a “lie,” I see as a legitimate fear, particularly given the way courts have limited the free expression of religion over the years.
And the best way to answer the fear is with affirmative legislation spelling out the rights of religious institutions to define marriage according to their particular creed, as Vermont did. Some may say such provisions aren’t necessary. And maybe they’re not, but people do fear judicial tyranny, especially when a state Supreme Court acts in direct contradiction to the will of the people.
(That said, maybe even an explicit law won’t be enough to prevent capricious judges from imposing their will on the people as David Benkof contends here.)
Still, the religious liberty provisions serve to answer a charge against state recognition of same-sex marriage leveled by social conservatives. They help deflate that argument while protecting religious freedom.
I see as a legitimate fear, particularly given the way courts have limited the free expression of religion over the years. Have there been cases that limited the ability of churches to preach? Or has the free expression of religion been “limited” by not being allowed to dominate the public square the way it used to? The only cases the right uses when claiming this will happen come from other countries (ie, no 1st Amendment protection).
“especially when a state Supreme Court acts in direct contradiction to the will of the people.” Like when the (federal) SC made inter-racial marriage legal against the “will of the people.” It’s probably better that we don’t have courts protect the rights of the people, right? The current popular opinion should control the rights of the minority, right?
Still, the religious liberty provisions serve to answer a charge against state recognition of same-sex marriage leveled by social conservatives. They help deflate that argument while protecting religious freedom.Agree! Bonus: They also serve to show when people are lying, as those who claim these objections are the “real” problem, both conservatives and liberals, refuse to change their position/vote even when these fears are addressed by specific legislation, suggesting either bias or cowardice as the true reasons for their opposition. In many cases, we can look at their public statements to know the cause.
Concerning fear, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Their real fear is that of civilized society accepting gays and lesbians as people, and that their view are seen by more and more people as antigay. Their main fear has partially been realized with most of the young generation supporting gays as equals.
Oh I don’t dismiss their fear either. In fact it’s quite reasonable that they should fear revenge for what their bloc has done to homosexuals for the past century. No intelligent gay or lesbian person should fall for their cop-out of just being anti-same-sex marriage, or ‘compassionate’ towards homosexuals with ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ bullshit, considering how most of them opposed homosexuals before the 90s. Remember, they’re the ones that supported ‘antisodomy’ laws, continue to fund exgay ministries and conventions to use them as a political tool, and the total marginalization of homosexuals. They’re simply being politically correct because they sense their undiluted message will go wrong with the mainstream.
So yes, they should fear about being seen as the villains they trully are. But no one should silence them, just like Fred Phelps and David Duke should be free to spout their hatred. They are free to choose what they say and if they feel compelled to remain silent by social attitudes and not government, then that’s their own damned problem.
The tax-exempt status is more from the Church side. It is a reaction to every liberal assault, because libs always threaten with that first.
The real problem is discrimination suits. They have damages, fines, and lawyer fees.
Private schools and clubs as well.
These would all be Balkanized in the worst fashion, and that schism will be exploited by political hacks.
The real issue though, is Trial Lawyers.
Here in Maine, we also addressed religious concerns. The bill before the Maine legislature is titled “An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage & Protect Religious Freedom”. No church will be forced to perform a gay marriage if it goes against their creed. Let me tell you, it sure takes a good chunk of fight out of the opposition.
For example…..?
I get the sense that gays should be “out and proud”, but not those damn dirty Christians and Jews. I suppose that would include gay Christians and Jews.
I wonder when we should get around to gay liberals for what their bloc has done. Most recently, that dumb bitch Perez Hilton.
You mean like those responsible for the No on Prop 8 initiative. such as Equality for All? Absolutely. They’re to be accounted for how bad they screwed up. But the way this blog chastises the gay community offers very little in construction and lots in placating social ‘conservatives’ by deeming their objections as equaly valid. Even straight conservative commentators at the Secular Right blog aren’t falling for it. It’s as offending as Obama placating the Islamic world. Too many people fell for the ‘appeal to tradition’ trap of those that wish them back in the closet.
The problem with Vermont as well as some of the other states is that they built the premise of gay ‘marriage’ on a liberal activist notion. As gay people, we should be the last to embrace more governmental involvement and regulation. 99.9% of the people that I know who’ve gotten married, did it in a church. Can any of us really say that with our lifestyle we need some type of extra protection? Statistics show that gays on average have higher household income. I really think we should leave the institution alone or else risk a big backlash.
The more I think about the Vermont legislature’s vote to recognize same-sex marriages in the Green Mountain State, the better the result seems. More than anything, their legislation answers the most serious concern raised by social conservatives: that state recognition of gay marriage would mean churches would be required to perform such ceremonies or lose their tax-exempt status.
That’s not a serious concern – that’s fevered, homophobic paranoia. You’ve got to be a crazy person to think that there are people that want to spend their wedding day forcing a bunch of uptight, Christian assholes to hang out with them. Think about it – would you want Micheal Moore to officiate your wedding?
This is too stupid.
[Levi, if I write such stupid things, why do you spend so much time reading this blog and commenting to my posts.
Just wonderin’. –Dan]
I mean the gays who make absolute fools of all of us by harassing folks they don’t like. I mean the ones who whine about tolerance and equality, yet have no trouble displaying their own hatred and bigotry.
I, and far too many of us, are damn sick and tired of being “represented” by these folks. Whether you like it or not, we’re embarrassed by Pride parades, Folsom Street Fair, Southern Decadence etc. We’re tired of selfish people who’d rather wallow in their misery and make everyone around them miserable instead of grabbing their sack and getting on with life.
To be honest, I couldn’t give a rotten damn about “gay marriage”. I don’t need someone else’s validation for my happiness. I outgrew the idea of trying to force people to like me back in high school. I’m happy with my partner of 12 years and don’t concern myself with alleged “1,100 rights” (which nobody seems to know what they are) we’re supposedly being denied. We’ve got our shit together, we work hard, love each other and could care less what the folks down the street think.
And no, I don’t think that there’s a damn thing that the alleged “gay community” has done for me. I don’t even know who they are, if they really exist. And it’s beyond clear to me, based on experience, that the rainbow flag doesn’t mean squat. I was taught that it stood for inclusion and tolerance. Unfortunately, it only means inclusion and tolerance of those you want to get in the sack with. I outgrew that 12 years ago.
So if you want to wrap yourself in the flag, with a trick, and convince yourself how miserable and rotten your life is in the greatest country on earth, that’s your problem. Just don’t try to tell me that I have to join in. We’re too busy living.
Oh and the position of the GP blog, in essence, is that you can catch more flies with honey. Or, as I like to say, you won’t make friends and influence people when you take a shit in their shoes.
I usually avoid the parades, but if they bother you on how much media attention they receive, how about you create your own outdoor gay event that’s family friendly in spite of the parades, and try to get the media to focus on it?
Great then. Hopefully you and your partner carry your powers of attorney on yourselves in case something happens, and hopefully none of you have an estranged family that will try to challenge it.
Actually, there is something that the ‘gay community’ did for you whether you acknowledge it or not. Would you have come out of the closet before the 1980s? Honestly I can’t see gay conservatives of your type fighting against the awful conditions of the past. That most here are able to come out of the closet came at the expense of a previous generation, because they paved the road towards equality.
What the hell are you talking about?
What the hell are you talking about?
This, Rob.
Hopefully you and your partner carry your powers of attorney on yourselves in case something happens, and hopefully none of you have an estranged family that will try to challenge it.
Simply put, it’s the fact that your primary concern is figuring out ways in which TGC is a “victim” and how awful his life is, and then trying to convince him of the fact.
AFter all, if TGC is happy without marriage, that REALLY screws up your insistence that all gays need gay-sex marriage and can’t function without it, doesn’t it? Heck, it makes it clear that sexual orientation doesn’t require adherence to a specific ideology, which makes your behavior one of choice rather than necessity.
You’ve got to be a crazy person to think that there are people that want to spend their wedding day forcing a bunch of uptight, Christian assholes to hang out with them.
Nope, you just have to be truthful.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission has ordered a Christian photographer to pay $6,600 for declining to photograph a commitment ceremony between two lesbians.
That is because, Levi, gay-sex marriage is not about marriage, commitment,or anything meaningful; it is about using the law as a cudgel to attack religious people out of pure spite, hatred, and bigotry. You and your Barack Obama aid and abet this. You lie and spin, but the truth is obvious; you support forcing people to show up and support gay-sex marriage.