Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Should it be legal to publicly support traditional marriage?

The Washington Post reports: (H/T The Heritage Foundation)

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

– A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.

– A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

– Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

– A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

The Heritage Foundation adds a couple more examples:

The post left out a Los Angeles City College student whose professor called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage and Methodist ministry in New Jersey forced to end performing wedding ceremonies because they did not allow a same-sex union to be performed on their campground.

How does government endorsement same-sex marriage hurt those who believe in traditional marriage?

According to Heritage fellow Thomas Messner, it hurts us in 3 ways:

Excerpt:

Specifically, in a society that redefines marriage to include same–sex unions, those who continue to believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman can expect to face three types of bur­dens. First, institutions that support the traditional understanding of marriage may be denied access to several types of government benefits, and individ­uals who work in the public sector may face cen­sorship, disciplinary action, and even loss of employment. Second, those who support the tradi­tional understanding of marriage will be subject to even greater civil liability under nondiscrimination laws that prohibit private discrimination based on sexual orientation, marital status, and gender. Third, the existence of nondiscrimination laws, combined with state administrative policies, can invite private forms of discrimination against reli­gious individuals who believe that marriage involves a man and a woman and foster a climate of contempt for the public expression of their views.

Don’t believe that it could happen here? Take a look at what is happening in the UK schools according to this Telegraph article, or what is happening in Canadian schools.

Filed under: Commentary, , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses

  1. Samuel says:

    While I do not share the view that homosexual marriage is wrong; I do take concern that government is “legislating morality” and interfering with the decisions of private individuals who merely acted based on their conscience and broke no laws. In other words, government is interfering in the realm of religion without justification.

    I think it’s frightening and a breach of the 1st amendment for government to censure and enforce sanctions on individuals who lawfully acted according to their personal principles.

    The couple could have chose a different photographer, the lesbian could have chose a different psychologist, and the other lesbian could have chose a different doctor. That’s one of the great things about freedom; you are free to choose. Individuals with private practices are also free to choose who their clients will be.

    I would like to know the specifics of the cited cases, because it’s so difficult for me to believe that such things could happen…. but truth tends to be stranger than fiction.

  2. Neil says:

    This is an inevitable consequence of granting civil rights to sexual preferences. It was unavoidable, but too many people won’t listen or don’t care.

  3. [...] 200 MILES DOWN the slippery slope… where we are now: “Should it be legal to publicly support [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,498,695 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,144 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,144 other followers

%d bloggers like this: