Religious Liberties argument AGAIN

Some people are comparing this Prop 8 situation to segregation between blacks and whites and people not allowing blacks in their places of business. We are not talking about racial equality here. We are not talking about denying a meal or drink to someone because of the color of their skin. We are talking about a PRACTICE that some people believe is morally wrong and are being forced to participate in it (even though they are fully morally opposed to it) under the names of discrimination and hate crimes. People are being forced to use their skills and occupations to PARTICIPATE in something that goes against what they stand for.

For every person who tries to argue that this will not affect our religious liberties, just know that the scholars on who believe that same-sex marriage should be legal agree wholeheartedly that religious liberties will be profoundly affected. PLEASE read the link to the article by Maggie Gallagher on the Becket Fund Conference. Every scholar on every side agrees openly that religious liberties will be affected. That is not what is being argued here.

Some people keep commenting that the religious liberties are not going to be affected, that the "Yes on Prop 8" group is making this all up to scare people into voting yes. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read that article and understand that the question here is: religious liberties or sexual liberties? Which should trump the other?

The link is a few posts down. Maggie Gallagher. Becket Fund Conference. Look it up. Please see for yourselves. In fact, I'll just copy and paste just part of what the scholars are saying directly in this article. If you'd like to read the rest, go ahead and click on the link a few posts below.

Here is a section of that article talking about religious liberties. The first quote is from a scholar on religious liberties named Chai Feldblum who is in favor of same-sex marriages being legalized.

"But the bottom line for Feldblum is: "Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner."

The Litigator

Marc Stern has known Chai Feldblum since she was eight years old. "Vivacious, really extraordinary," he says as he smiles, shaking his head at the memories of the little girl whose father he knew well. "Chai is among the most reasonable [gay rights advocates]," he says. "If she's having trouble coming up with cases in which religious liberty should win, we're in trouble."

As general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern knows religious liberty law from the inside out. Like Anthony Picarello, he sees the coming conflicts as pervasive. The problem is not that clergy will be forced to perform gay marriages or prevented from preaching their beliefs. Look past those big red herrings: "No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable," he writes in his Becket Fund paper.

Consider education. Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational institutions, he argues, in at least four ways: admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. One of Stern's big worries right now is a case in California where a private Christian high school expelled two girls who (the school says) announced they were in a lesbian relationship. Stern is not optimistic. And if the high school loses, he tells me, "then religious schools are out of business." Or at least the government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be sinful.

Stern agrees with Feldblum that public accommodation laws can and should force truly commercial enterprises to serve all comers. But, he asks, what of other places, such as religious camps, retreats, and homeless shelters? Will they be considered by courts to be places of public accommodation, too? Could a religious summer camp operated in strict conformity with religious principles refuse to accept children coming from same-sex marriages? What of a church-affiliated community center, with a gym and a Little League, that offers family programs? Must a religious-affiliated family services provider offer marriage counseling to same-sex couples designed to facilitate or preserve their relationships?

"Future conflict with the law in regard to licensing is certain with regard to psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, and the like," Stern wrote last December--well before the Boston Catholic Charities story broke.

Think about that for a moment. Of all the experts gathered to forecast the impact of gay marriage on religious organizations, no one, not even Stern, brought up adoption licenses.

"Government is so pervasive, it's hard to know where the next battle will be," he tells me. "I thought I had a comprehensive catalog, but the adoption license issue didn't occur to me." "