Dear Friend,
This is shaping up to be a fascinating political year. As you undoubtedly know, for the first time the California Supreme Court recently upheld the legality of gay marriage in that state. Massachusetts was the first state to approve gay marriage.
It deserves repeating that the Bible affirms the value of human sexuality expressed in marriage between a man and a woman. We also uphold the gospel teaching that Christ died for all, and that his love is inclusive. Christ-followers do not hold hostility toward homosexuals, neither do we have a heart to tolerate unfair discrimination, intolerance, or a breach of any of the gospel principles of love to all God's children.
The issue I'm raising is the emerging reality that religious freedom has less legal protection than gay rights. The California Supreme Court held that homosexuals shall enjoy the same legal status as race--protection as a fundamental right. Yet the same court has refused to recognize that religious liberty is a fundamental right and has ruled against religious freedom interests. According to Alan J. Reinach, Esq., a religious liberty attorney, there is now a "legal imbalance" where gay rights receive maximum protection, while religious freedom is granted less protection.
Now that homosexuality is equated with race, we can expect a wide variety of challenges to religious organizations that adhere to traditional Biblical interpretations. The city of Boston required adoption agencies to serve homosexuals, and refused to accomodate the religious objections of Catholic Charities. Although Catholic Charities accounted for most of the adoptions in Boston, it closed its adoption agencies rather than compromise its religious convictions. Thousands of children are now "stuck" in foster care as the city itself has not chosen to provide adoption services to gay couples.
I read that cases have been filed against wedding photographers who refuse to film gay wedding ceremonies. Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption because its policy against interracial dating was inconsistent with public policy. Similar challenges to the tax exempt status of churches and other religious organizations are expected.
This past May, the California Supreme Court heard arguments that two doctors and a medical clinic discriminated against a lesbian couple by denying them artificial insemination services. The doctors argued that they properly referred the patients for services that they could not conscientiously provide. Lawyers for the patients insist that religion not be allowed as a defense.
No matter where you or I come down on any of these issues, the point is that our long-held assumption that religious liberty enjoys a preferred status in the USA as a fundamental constitutional right is no longer necessarily true. In its 1990 peyote decision, the Supreme Court discarded the First Amendment's protection for the free exercise of religion as a "luxury that a well-ordered society can no longer afford." One legal observer noted the court has ruled against religious freedom in every case since that time. For example, in 1995, the Court held that Evelyn Smith's Presbyterian faith was not a good enough reason to refuse to rent one of her four duplex apartments to an unmarried [heterosexual] couple, despite the fact that in her city, Cal State Chico maintained hundreds of housing units exclusively for married couples.
The issue of gay marriage may be resolved this November when Californians have the opportunity to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. But this will not change the legal status of homosexuality as a fundamental right, given more protection than the right to practice one's faith.
It appears the trend in America is that religious freedom will mean the freedom to hold one's faith in private, but not to practice it publicly.
Let us pray for courage to honor Christ regardless of the cultural and legal environment we may encounter in the days ahead.
With love and hope!
Duff Gorle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Greetings, Sir.
Nicely stated.
But I think your concerns are mainly unfounded. True, churches will not be able to discriminate in terms of public accommodations. If they do, they risk losing their tax-exempt status.
And individuals will not be able to discriminate and use religious belief as a cover for that discrimination. If Farrakhan issued an edict (a fatwa?) saying that white people were unworthy of any public accommodations based on their treatment of African people over the centuries, should an African-American civil servant be able to deny service to white people and claim they were only exercising their religious freedom?
In the case of the photographers in New Mexico, would we feel differently if the photographers were Muslim and refused to photograph a Jewish or Christian ceremony? (Personally, I think the lesbian couple in the New Mexico case went a bit overboard -- just find another photographer. Why would you want someone to document your special day if they weren't really into it?)
Religious freedom is alive and well in America, and will remain so. The Mormons still limit who can be married in their temples, Catholics limit who can be married in their churches, and no court will change that. Preachers will still be able to say what they like from the pulpit; after all, if Fred Phelps can shout "God hates fags" at military funerals, the First Amendment must be doing its job.
Best to you and yours. No on 8.
Thank God, we still have some religious freedom left including freedom to read "God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up" which I encountered on Google. Departing from the usual approach, it seems to be quite effective in causing certain persons to think deeply about their future. I highly recommend it. Winnie
Personally, as I see marriage as a religious institution, government should have no part in saying who can or cannot be married as they should not be involved at all. Nor do I think any legal privileges should be afforded married people in the 21st century.
Religious freedom does not mean the right to do whatever one wants, however. One cannot own slaves and claim its for religious reasons (although this was once the predominant claim). In fact, if one reads the constitution, its only mention of "religious freedom" is that congress shall pass no laws regarding religion. The problem is most of the main, divisive issues facing our nation today (war [okay, this one can be argued as to whether or not religious in nature], abortion, homosexual marriage).
Maybe its best to just follow the advice of Paul: "Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female." But what do I know, I'm just an agnostic...
Post a Comment