Jeff’s brief post on Friday linking to a piece in The Onion has generated one of the longer discussion threads here in recent months at GayPatriot.  At the risk of mischaracterizing or oversimplifying it, much of the discussion has centered around the policy goals of gay activists of various stripes, as well as whether or not, criticizing or finding fault with some of those goals means one sympathizes with the aims of various anti-gay activists.

I think it is well-known to most regular readers that several of the contributors at GayPatriot, for instance, are either ambivalent or agnostic about the policy questions regarding same-sex marriage.  I, for one, feel that the courts are the wrong place for the argument over so-called “marriage equality” to proceed and that it is better taken up through the legislative process.  Likewise, I don’t feel that one needs to call it marriage if doing so antagonizes a significant portion of the populace who feel that marriage has a traditional meaning which they would rather not modify.  I’ve said before and I’ll say again that what we’re really talking about when we talk about same-sex marriage is a matter of  1). how the state recognizes a contractual relationship between two individuals, and 2). whether or not it has any business granting special privileges to those in a “traditional marriage” which it does not grant to others.  I’d argue that a debate that focused on the desirability of certain policy choices would be much more productive and much more worthwhile than one centered on emotional claims about “rights” and “equality.”  I’d also say that a more dispassionate debate about the implications of policy is more in keeping with both conservative and libertarian principles.

My aim today, though, is not to revisit that debate or to consider the implications of the recent Supreme Court decisions on those issues (though I’m still planning to do so in a future post), but to bring up some of the questions raised by the fact that today New Jersey became the second state (after California) to ban “conversion therapy” for gay youths.  My personal view on the issue is that “conversion therapy” doesn’t work in most cases and, to the extent that it is practiced, it should really only be viewed as an option for adults who choose to willingly commit to it.  In other words, New Jersey’s ban is in accord with my personal view on the matter, and yet, for philosophical reasons, I’m still bothered by some aspects of the legislation.

Neo-neocon expresses reservations similar to mine when she writes:

It is no use pretending that therapy—and the licensing of therapists by the state—is not at least partly a political endeavor subject to political fashion rather than a science. Nor should therapists be completely unrestricted. For example, therapists are already prohibited from sexual contact with patients—even willing patients, even adult patients—because it is considered inherently exploitative. But the most harmful practices that could be used by conversion therapists (for example, electric shock) could be banned without banning the entire enterprise. And as the articles point out, mainstream therapy organizations have already condemned conversion therapy and do not advocate it.

But apparently none of that would be enough for the advocates of this bill; the therapy itself must be defined by the government as inherently and unfailingly abusive (what’s next, taking children away from parents who don’t applaud and celebrate their gayness?) As the nanny state grows, so will these essentially political moves by the government. This bill opens the door for a host of governmental abuses in which the state dictates the enforcement of politically correct thought through the mechanism of so-called therapy, and therapists become the instruments by which the public is indoctrinated in what is currently politically acceptable and what is verboten.

Chilling, indeed.

At the risk of invoking the “slippery-slope” argument, I can’t see a way around the concerns that Neo-neocon expresses.  I’d have preferred to let the market regulate itself without getting the state involved in this way.  Once the state has weighed in on this question, though, where can we expect it to weigh in next, and will it ever stop trying to regulate the way parents raise their children?  I can’t see that it ever will.

It’s an unfortunate reality that many gay kids grow up in homes that are not especially loving, nurturing or supportive.   The state, though, is none of those things, either, no matter what the expressed intentions of lawmakers might be.  Increasing the reach of the state into individual lives should not be a comfort to any of us.

Given the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there will, in the next three months, be much talk about the fastest-growing religious group in the country.

And although gay activists have all but demonized the church, with HRC for example, saying that you “just gotta love” Tom Hanks for calling Mormon supporters of Prop 8 “Un-American.”  (Although Louis Farrakhan criticized the president for supporting gay marriage, HRC has never questioned his patriotism.)

Mormons may have helped fund the campaign to pass Proposition 8, but my Mormon friends tell me that the church is reconsidering its attitude toward gays, with attitudes changing in wards across the country.  One of those friends recently shared with me this essay by Dr. Donald C. Fletcher, the bishop in a San Francisco ward:

Working as a bishop in the Bay Ward, I have heard firsthand the stories of members who are gay and felt their pain as I work to bring them back into church activity. The emotional pain and isolation of LGBT members rejected by parents, friends and loved ones after coming out is more severe than any other I have yet experienced in my ministering, and it motivates me to continue in the work I am doing.

Read the whole thing.  Fletcher didn’t just share his thoughts with a few select friends, but in the Salt Lake Tribune, the paper with the largest circulation in Utah, the state with the largest concentration of Mormons on the planet — and the state which houses the administrative and leadership offices of the church.  What Rome is to Catholics, Salt Lake City is to Mormons. (more…)

When it comes to gay people in the Mormon faith — or in evangelical denominations — you can count on our friends in the media to detail the oppression they suffer even if the only evidence of said oppression is the narrative the journalists provide.

Our friend Sonicfrog caught the Advocate peddling this very narrative in the story of the death of a Gay Mormon man.  The headline contends that his suicide “points up tensions“, but the tensions they write about come not from the details of the man’s life, but from the commentary of “some”:

As friends mourn the death of Chris Wayne Beers, a gay man and former Mormon missionary and church employee who took his own life Sunday, some are noting tensions between LGBT people and the church, which opposes gay relationships.

The only person quoted in the Advocate’s piece didn’t even know Beers: “While struggles with his faith may not have been the direct reason he took his own life,” this man said, “I’m hard pressed to imagine that there isn’t an indirect cause, at least. . . .” This leads Sonic to quip with a question, “Project much?”

There is no indication in the article that he was very devout, or that his family had dis-owned him. The main interview of the article didn’t even know the guy. Mitch Mayne does not give any indication of knowing any of the details of this mans life.

Read the whole thing.  My blogging pal notes further that on Beers’s “memorial page, there is a reference to the fact that his own brother Jeff had also passed away. That could be just as much or more of a weight on Mr Beers than the conflict between church and being gay.” (more…)

There seems to be a pattern among gay activists and their supporters in the legacy media, to define as “hatred” any opposition to their views on homosexuality.  Now, I do not share Kirk Cameron’s view that homosexuality is “unnatural” and believe this view shows an incredible ignorance of the history of human behavior and of artistic and mythological representations of human relationships.

That said, there is a difference between expressing a view colored by a fundamentalist faith and manifesting animus to those who do not live by the strictures of that faith.  In expressing his (very) un-PC views (and, in my mind, narrow) opinion on homosexuality, Cameron has never adopted a hostile (or hateful) attitude toward gay people.

In her interview with the actor, however, the Today show’s Ann Curry asked if his remarks were “hate speech” and wondered if he were “encouraging people to feel hate towards gay people“.  Later, she speculates that his words might make others feel it’s okay to “mistreat gay people”.

The question is not so much why Mr. Cameron holds these views, but why Ms. Curry would compare them to “hate speech.”  Couldn’t she have questioned them using different language, asking instead why he believes homosexuality to be unnatural, possibly rebutting him with evidence of social tolerance for homosexuality in, say, the ancient Near East and classical Greece?

Seems she’s more interested in reducing his views to animus than in actually understanding his opinion–or changing his mind.

Commenting on the interview, John Nolte contends, “Ann Curry and Leftists like her don’t give a damn about gays. If they did, you would see the same amount of hostility directed towards Muslims.“

Religion of Peace Alert! (via @BillyHallowell)

A disturbing trial came to a close this week in London, England, after three men were convicted of distributing pamphlets that called for gays and lesbians to be murdered. The hateful fliers were disturbing at best. One of them, titled, “Death Penalty?,” showed a mannequin that was hanging from a noose and said that gays should be sent to hell.

“The death sentence is the only way this immoral crime can be erased from corrupting society and act as a deterrent for any other ill person who is remotely inclined in this bent way.”

The leaflet continues: “The only dispute amongst the classical authorities was the method employed in carrying out the penal code.”

It goes on to offer burning, being flung from a high point such as a mountain or building, or being stoned to death as suitable methods.

It’s okay, the real threat to gays (according to American gay leftist/progressive types) is Rick Santorum. 

Move along, nothing to see here.  Except the truth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Just over two years ago, the Human Rights Campaign issued a press release, faulting “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” for sending “a private e-mail to its members in Illinois urging them to contact state legislators and voice opposition to civil unions legislation currently under consideration.  Mormons,” HRC informed us

. . . have notably utilized private networks to torpedo pro-LGBT policies in the past, most recently in their home state of Utah, where a package of fair-minded legislation called the Common Ground Initiative was systematically killed in the state legislature. Most notoriously, Mormons funneled millions of dollars into California last year to pass Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that stripped lesbian and gay couples of the right to marry in the state.

This led Board of Director Bruce Bastian to accuse the Church of ”fighting an anti-gay crusade throughout the nation, targeting any form of equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.”  This past week, the Democratic Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates a bill recognizing same-sex marriages in his state because support had melted away:

One of its co-sponsors, Delegate Tiffany T. Alston, a freshman Democrat from Prince George’s County, had withdrawn her support, apparently bowing to pressure from her constituency, which contains a powerful religious community.

Two national groups that oppose same-sex marriage, the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council, both highlighted African-American and religious opponents of the bill as central to its defeat.

“Particular thanks must go to the African-American pastors, church members and delegates who spoke out against the attempted hijacking of the concept of ‘civil rights,’ ” the Family Research Council said in a statement.

Disappointed “in the outcome,” Del. Doyle Niemann of Prince George’s County offered a similar assessment, “In my area, the power of the black churches was a big part of the problem. Those churches just haven’t come around on this.”  In its statement on the developments in the Maryland marriage debate, HRC did not mention those churches.

Wonder why HRC chooses to single out Mormons with such attacks.

Remember, the American Left wants you to believe the GZM is good, nothing to worry about, and Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

The new imam at the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center believes people who are gay were probably abused as children and that people who leave Islam and preach a new religion should be jailed.

Abdallah Adhami’s remarks on homosexuals, religious freedom and other topics have brought renewed criticism of the proposed community center and mosque near the World Trade Center site, which purports to be an inclusive organization.

Adhami, in a lecture on the Web site of his nonprofit, Sakeenah, says being gay is a “painful trial” caused by past trauma.

“An enormously overwhelming percentage of people struggle with homosexual feeling because of some form of violent emotional or sexual abuse at some point in their life,” he says. “A small, tiny percentage of people are born with a natural inclination that they cannot explain. You find this in the animal kingdom at some level as well.”

Charming.  The Gay Left would be taking to the streets if this Imam’s last name was “Palin”.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I cannot go any longer without posting on Greg Gutfeld’s inspired idea.  This has been a HOT topic on Twitter this week among the conservative set.  Liberals are cricketly-silent (*chirp, chirp*) about this idea of full tolerance.  Greg was on Glenn Beck last night to fully discuss his business proposal.

“If New York is to accept the mosque, the mosque has to accept the gay bar.” – Greg Gutfeld

For what it’s worth… here were some of my ideas on Twitter Monday night for names of the gay bar next to the 9/11 Mosque:

• Charlie Crist’s Chocolate Factory
• Ali’s Aqua Queer Bar (say it fast!)
• The Noose and Stone
• Af-MAN-istan’s
• Fatwa Follies (a piano bar)
• Shock & Raw
• Mecca-lecka Hi Mecca Heiney Hoes

NorthDallasThirty had one I enjoyed: Crotch Bomber. 

And my favorite that I cannot take credit for thinking of:  Sodom Hussein

My great Twitter comrade-in-arms, Kurt Schlichter, has some more great names!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

If you buy the bullshit being shoveled out by the gay activists and their drones then this is the logical conclusion.

President Obama is a bigot because he opposes same-sex marriage.  So are Joe Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton.  And millions of Californians of different races, sexes, and religious views. 

Nelson Lund has more on the bigoted President, his cabinet, millions of Americans including me, and the Prop 8 ruling.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Let us hope that we are not the only gay people to denounce police in Wokington, Cumbria (in the UK) for arresting Dale McAlpine, a Christian street preacher who was “reciting a number of ‘sins’ referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships“:

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life.

Now, we don’t agree with what Mr. McAlpine said, but we certainly support his right to say it.  He should not have been arrested.  If people were offended by his words, then they should have challenged him, mounting their own stepladders (as Mr. McAlpine) had done and taking issue with his arguments point by point.  Indeed, one woman did just that, only to find herself approached by a “homosexual police community support officer (PCSO)”.

After this PCSO spoke with this woman who had engaged the preacher “in a debate about his faith”, he confronted McAlpine who

. . . claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

This PCSO sounds like a real busybody while the woman sounds like she pretty much knew how responsible people deal with disagreement in a free society.  They engage in debate.  If this PCSO is going to lock up someone offering an alternative point of view, he must suffer from a severe case of inecurity.  Where else have we see such behavior, locking up our intellectual adversaries?

Authorities should drop the charges, fire the PCSO and ask him to attend tolerance training sessions while we should all follow the example of that woman who engaged the street preacher in debates about faith.  (Though she would have been wise not to inform this PCSO about her conversation.)

When I saw that headline on Memeorandum, naturally my curiosity was piqued as I was delighted to see this Catholic organization acknowledging what the Greeks had figured out at least since Plato’s time — and other cultures certainly acknowledged well before that.

In this short release, Catholic League president Bill Donohue merely takes issue with the New York Times for calling a twenty-year sexual relationship between a young man and a priest abusive.  The Old Gray Lady detailed a gay romance “ between Chilean priest Fr. Fernando Karadima, now 79, and Dr. James Hamilton, now 44.”  Donahue elaborates:

According to the Times, it all started with a kiss. Let me be very clear about this: if some guy tried to kiss me when I was 17, I would have flattened him. I most certainly would not go on a retreat with the so-called abuser, unless, of course, I liked it. Indeed, Hamilton liked it so much he went back for more—20 years more. Even after he got married, he couldn’t resist going back for more.

So what about the priest? He is a disgrace. Throw the book at him for all I care. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that Dr. Hamilton is a victim. The real news story here is not another case of homosexual molestation, it’s the political motivation of the New York Times.

I gotta agree with the general thrust of his argument. Hamilton is not a victim, not if he, willingly, over a period of two decades, returned to the priest for continued intimate contact.

All that said, what the priest did when Hamilton was 17 was clearly wrong.  But, Hamilton is no saint.  That he would carry on even after getting married suggested a man clueless as to the meaning of his vows.  And that applies to the priest as well (as per the meaning of his vows.)

But, to call Hamilton a victim after he reached the age of maturity, would be to suggest that any man who engages in a relationship illicit or licit for that matter with another man is by dint of participating in said relationship incapable of exercising sound judgment.

The Catholic Church speaking up forcefully about its teachings on same-sex marriage is clearly protected under the First Amendment, a right I strongly support even though I just as strongly disagree with their view. However, how is their collecting money during Mass for a political campaign even legal? The tax exempt status churches and other organizations enjoy is not a right, but instead is a privilege we as a society extend for valid reasons. This privilege is one I personally see as a bulwark against government intrusion into freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Yet I do not see such direct intereference in the political process by such tax exempt churches and organizations as being part of the bargain. Certainly this isn’t unique as the Catholic Church isn’t the only such organization to take such bold steps, one can undoubtedly find many examples on all sides of the political spectrum over the years. This leads me to question though whether tax exemption in modern times has become nothing more than a subsidy of sorts which religious and secular organizations exploit in order to further their own agendas, whether liberal or conservative, something that groups not having such a luxury are at a disadvantage in countering. Perhaps it’s time to re-examine our laws concerning tax exemption, but I must admit to concerns about even such a move as this because given the partisan use this “re-examination” could be put to the reason for even having this privilege could be put into jeopardy.

I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on this…

- John (Average Gay Joe)

In the 1990s, when I was President of the Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia, I used to appear regularly at Republican events across the region (and in the District of Columbia).  While I would identify our group as an organization of gay Republicans and would occasionally bring a date, getting one date’s permission in 1998 to introduce him to the then-Lieutenant Governor of Virginia (current father-in-law to W’s daughter) as my boyfriend.

Beyond that, I did little to advertise my sexuality.  I found it best to let them know I was gay and show that I was otherwise just a regular Republican.  I didn’t think it helped promote social acceptance of gay peopl by being “in your face” about it.

This is why I don’t have much truck with those who stage certain stunts into order to make a statement.  On Saturday, in response to two gay men being arrested last month for kissing on property owned by the Church of the Latter Days Saints in downtown Salt Lake City (as well as similar incidents in Texas), gay groups across the nation organized kiss-ins in cities across the nation:

Twenty-two people, many of them strangers to one another, gathered under the scorching sun on Washington’s National Mall to participate in the national smooch. They were gay and straight, couples and singles of all ages, with placards that read “Equal Opportunity Kisser” and “A Kiss is a Not a Crime.”

Do you interpret this as I do? That some of the couples doing the public smooching included individuals who didn’t know one another?  Hardly a public display of spontaneous affection that.

While the AP article dwells (and dwells and dwells) on how the arrests hurts the Mormon church’s image (despite the absence of evidence that the Texas arrests were linked to Mormons), I wonder how such stunts stymie the social advancement of gay people.  People will wonder why we need so advertise our sexuality.  (The media does seem obsessed with maligning Mormons.)

It’s one thing to walk hand in hand with the person you love.  Or to in a moment of passion, kiss him, even if in a public place.  But, a staged kiss-in does more harm than good.

If such folks really think such kiss-ins will improve our image, I suggest they try them in front of a mosque or church in the African-American community.

(Oh, and, in the article linked above, the AP reporter leads off with an error by saying Prop 8 “banned gay marriage in California.”  It did no such thing; it merely prevented the state from recognizing it.)

We all recall how in the wake of Prop 8′s passage last fall, angry gay activists, upset at the election returns, attacked Mormons for their support of the successful ballot proposition.

With the New York Times reporting today that the board of the local chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is resisting efforts of its national organization “to remove the president of its Los Angeles chapter in response to his support of same-sex marriage in California,” I wonder if those activists will treat the Los Angeles SCLC this summer they way they treated Mormons last fall:

During the battle last fall over Proposition 8, an amendment to the State Constitution that banned same-sex marriage, the chapter’s president, the Rev. Eric P. Lee, was more than a tangential figure for the opposition. He was front and center at an opposition group’s large rally at City Hall and marched in the blazing sun for 15 miles in Fresno. Many other local African-American pastors prepared mailings featuring church leaders in support of the proposition and linking their views to Barack Obama, then the Democratic nominee for president.

Mr. Lee “was very helpful to us,” said Rick Jacobs, head of the Courage Campaign, a left-leaning political action group in Los Angeles that fought the initiative . . . .

“The black church played a significant role in Proposition 8 passing,” Mr. Lee said. “The failure of the campaign was to presume that African-Americans would see this as a civil rights issue.”

(H/t Instapundit.)

*Title changed to reflect an error in this post when first drafted.  Thanks to reader Deuce Gregory for catching it.

When talking to (and reading the e-mails of) my gay friends and acquaintances about Mormons, all too many of them insist on insulting that faith and its flock, largely because of the church’s involvement in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 last fall.

Recall the hysteria of the protests last fall against the passage of Prop 8?  The activists directed their ire at the Mormon Church.  And now, as we debate means to repeal the proposition, it seems sometimes that they would rather attack Mormons than make the case for gay marriage.

In that process, they would alienate those Mormons who, while they love their church, do not always agree with its teaching, individuals who might buck church elders and vote for gay marriage.  If the issue is about the qualities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then they lose those votes–as well as those of others truly tolerant of the great variety of religions which flourish in the United States.

Last month, Law Professor William A. Jacobson noted how some bloggers were singling out one of the signatories on the Obama Justice Department brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because that lawyerThey  is Mormon:  “Even though others also signed the brief, and the brief must have gone through a vetting process at DOJ, Aravosis chose to single out the one person who was Mormon for scorn“.

Why is it that gay marriage activists are so determined to use the debate on their issue to vilify members of a particular faith instead of making the case for the social change they advocate? It’s almost as if their real issue is not promoting gay marriage, but demonizing cetain social conservatives.

As Bruce pointed out earlier today, gay groups have been astonishgly silent as millions of citizens rise up against electoral fraud in quite possibly the most oppressively anti-gay regime in the world.  And this electoral fraud serves to keep in power Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man, whom gay leftie blogger Michael Petrelis reports, ” used “Homosexuals to Undercut Rivals.”

I guess that’s only bad when Karl Rove does it.

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese last week condemned the shooting at the Holocaust Museum, yet has nothing to say about the protests in Iran.  And I could find no references to the events in Iran on the web-pages of the other gay groups.

Petrelis doesn’t mince his words in comparing HRC’s response to the Obama Administration’s support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to the reaction of the protestors in Iran:

At a time when thousands and thousands of brave Iranian democracy-fighters are justifiably upset with their president stealing an election from them and the opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and they’re taking to the streets to visibily and loudly demand change, I am appalled at how the gay bloggers have praised a letter from HRC. Why accept just a crumb from the $41 million organization?

Well, at least Solomonese wrote a letter to the President.  He didn’t even issue a statement in solidarity with the Iranian people protesting their anti-gay regime.  It seems it’s only when Republicans do something which is (or could remotely be perceived as) adverse to the interests of gay people does it raise the hackles of the leadership of the various gay organizations, particularly HRC. (more…)

Aside from Andrew Sullivan and Michael Petrelis, The Gays(tm) have been stunningly silent on the Iranian election.  Almost as silent and stand-offish as President Obama has been.

While I haven’t blogged about it (admittedly), I have been Twittering my ass off throughout the weekend on the subject!  After all, shouldn’t gays be MORE invested in the outcome of Iran’s future than almost anyone?  They hang gays there after all.

Frank Fleming made an excellent observation on Twitter over the weekend:

You’d think liberals could put at least half the anger they aim at Prop 8 supporters towards someone who has executed gay people.

Amen.  It is the big inconvenient truth for The Gays(tm).  Life in America for us is ashamedly better than nearly every other country on earth.  But there always has to be something for The Gays(tm) to attack America and Christians about so they can raise money to keep themselves going.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

SPECIAL UPDATE from Dan:  I will offer a $25 contribution to the first non-Republican gay organization which criticizes the President for this omission.  If none do so by Monday morning, I will give that to GOProud.

I wish I could say that I picked up on this myself, but I must give full credit to New Zealand blogger Darren who writes at The Fairfacts Media Show and the No Minister blog and who emailed me earlier today.

Why did President Obama completely ignore the persecution and pogroms of gays where Islamic law is the rule of the land?  It is happening in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and even Egypt.  (The list goes on and on actually….)

Gays living under strict Islamic law (whether in a nation or a region) are subject to death.  Women(as a group) actually have better lives in the Muslim faith than do gays and lesbians.  Although gay men seem to be particular targets of the horrific state/mosque-sanctioned atrocities.

Has Obama not seen the photos of young gay men being hanged in Iran?

It is outrageous for President Obama to ignore this issue while he addressed so many others today.  He let a lot of people down today by taking a walk on this serious human rights threat to gays in many Muslim countries and communities.

UPDATE: GOProud becomes first American gay organization to challenge Obama on Islam and gays.

“President Obama’s silence today on the treatment of gays and lesbians in Muslim countries is shameful.  The penalty for simply being gay in Muslim countries like Iran is death.  Even in Egypt, the country where President Obama spoke today, gays have been subject to arrest and imprisonment.

It is intolerable for President Obama to turn a blind eye to the type of human rights abuses occurring at the hands of Islamic extremists throughout the world.  If the United States is to maintain its position of moral leadership in the world, then this administration must make it clear that basic human rights for all should be respected.”

I am really beginning to wonder why the American gay and lesbian activists were so hot for Obama to begin with.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Perhaps, because most of the social conservatives I’ve met lean libertarian, I am more sympathetic to them than are many gay people, nearly all of whom only read about them in left-leaning media and left-wing blogs.  From my first encounters with politically active Christians in the 1980s, I’ve been stuck at how similar their attitudes on some issues are to my own.

They didn’t want government to mandate how others should live, merely wanted it to leave them alone so they could practice their faith and educate their children as they saw fit.  They cited numerous court decisions which, they believed, made it more difficult for them to practice their faith and government policies which, they contended, made it difficult for them to profess that faith in public settings.

To wit, a 2004 California Supreme Court decision that “a Catholic group must provide coverage for birth control in its health insurance plan, regardless of the fact that contraception is contrary to teachings of the Catholic Church.“  This ruling forced the group to pay for a service which the Catholic Church forbids.

That is one reason I support New Hampshire Governor John Lynch’s veto of a bill which would recognize same-sex marriages in the Granite State; he asked the legislature tweak the bill, including “language that would protect churches and other religious institutions from prosecution if, for example, they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.“  Given the record of courts in limiting religious freedom, social conservatives have legitimate concerns that should states recognize same-sex marriage, state courts may require religious organizations to act in violation of their faiths’ creeds as did the California Supreme Court five years ago.

(more…)

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.