NPR reports today a number of examples of how ‘homosexual rights’ are eclipsing religious rights: or, in other words, how homosexuals are using the government to twist the arm of the religious in order to legitimize their behavior. Read it. This is an important issue for everyone concerned for First Amendment issues. Soon enough, if the trend continues, the State will be telling the Church who can and who cannot use its facilities. Or at least they will try to.
Posted by: Jim | June 16, 2008
When Your Religion is Less Important Than The Homosexual’s Rights
Posted in current events, news
I am not surprised at the list, but am very surprised at it being on NPR. As with feminists, the more rights LGBT’s win, the more they will view themselves as victims of society and be compelled to increase their demands and coerce people through the courts.
By: Looney on June 16, 2008
at 10:04 am
The question of separation of Church and State has always been at the forefront of American liberties of “conscience”. Our country has become more secularized because of the plurality of “voices”, there is no consensus in our nation. Some believe that civil liberties should be maintained IF they are personal areas of “conscience”. Therefore, the Church would not be required to sanction such unions, but “tolerate” them in a pluralistic and diverse culture. Again, that does not necessitate the Church in sanctioning, or condoning same-sex marriages, but it does call for the “conservative” Church to be defining marriage through legislative means But, we also need to develop a rationale for dismissing that view of marriage. And I personally do not believe that we can reason from Scripture alone…..
By: Angie on June 16, 2008
at 10:09 am
Some of their arguments I can understand, even if I don’t agree with them (such as Yeshiva’s housing issue). On the other hand, this case makes no sense to me:
“Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state’s civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.”
This woman was not seeking life/death treatment, but selective treatment (e.g., she was not turned away from an emergency room) AND she DID receive the treatment from the first doctor’s partner (I love the potential double entendre there
). So how is it that the first doctor is at fault? He even referred her. I don’t get that one.
I suppose in all of this, however, many would argue Jim that this is akin to your argument regarding seating blacks at that diner in your comments regarding Israel not allowing Palestinians at the beaches along the Dead Sea.
The theological line seems to me to be when they tell congregations what they have to believe and teach. (And Canada is already there…)
By: Chris on June 16, 2008
at 3:40 pm
Issue is that there is no legal reason to disallow gay marriage. Sure some will take that and run with it to some disreputable ends. Churches will be sued. But to disallow something based on a conjecture like this is wrong. Mitigating the rights of a few good people in order to satisfy the fear that certain less than honest people will attack you does not serve justice that well. Remember that women could not vote for similar conjectural mental ghosts.
Currently any marriage can be denied by any church. Maybe that should happen more in the current environment to test how well this theory might pan out.
At the moment more churches should not marry half the people that they are marrying since they will lead to divorce! Pastors need to tell more couples that they are not ready after taking them through rigorous and demanding counseling. Perhaps with that foundation this line of thinking will have better legs to stand on in my judgment. Until then this sounds quite paranoid and overstates the issue by assuming consequences that have no credible evidence.
By: Drew on June 17, 2008
at 8:40 pm