Tag Archives: Gay Marriage

News

Can gay marriage proponents tolerate religious liberty?

2 Comments

An article by Ryan T. Anderson explains the problem in National Review.

Excerpt:

For years now, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live and love how they choose. But does that freedom require the government to coerce those who disagree into celebrating same-sex relationships?

A growing number of incidents show that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation have created a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage. Now comes government coercion and discrimination. Laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

Let’s see specific examples:

In addition to the well-known examples of Christian adoption and foster-care agencies that have been forced to stop providing those services because they object to placing children in same-sex households, the examples below show how government has penalized citizens trying to run their businesses in accordance with their beliefs.

[…]The case of Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jon, is perhaps the best-known example of violations of religious liberty at the state level… the Huguenins run Elane Photography, a small business in Albuquerque, N.M. In 2006, the couple declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony…

[…]Elane Photography didn’t refuse to take pictures of gay and lesbian individuals, but it did refuse to photograph a ceremony that ran counter to the owners’ belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman (a belief that New Mexico law endorses). Other photographers in the Albuquerque area were more than happy to photograph the event.

But in 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that the Huguenins, by declining to use their artistic and expressive skills to communicate what what occurred at the ceremony, had discriminated based on sexual orientation. The commission ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees. The ruling cited New Mexico’s human-rights law, which prohibits discrimination in “public accommodations” (that is, “any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . or goods to the public”) based on race, religion, and sexual orientation — among other protected classes.

And another:

In early 2013, two women, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, asked the Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa to bake a wedding cake for their same-sex commitment ceremony. Although bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein consistently had served all customers on a regular basis, they asserted that this request would have required them to facilitate and celebrate a same-sex relationship — which would violate their religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. (Oregon law defines marriage in the same way.)

Soon afterward, Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint under the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. During an investigation by Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, bureau official Brad Avakian commented: “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”

In January, the agency issued a ruling that held that the Kleins violated Oregon’s sexual-orientation law when they declined to bake the cake.

Melissa and Aaron Klein faced increasing ridicule for their unwillingness to violate their beliefs. Sweet Cakes by Melissa came under threats, vicious protests, and boycotts. The Kleins, who have five children, reportedly received hundreds of phone calls and letters, including death threats to the family. Fearing for their safety, the Kleins decided to close the doors of their small business in September 2013 and operate from an in-home bakery. In the meantime, the family still has to deal with the Labor Commission’s conclusion that they violated Oregon’s law. The case is likely to proceed to an administrative law judge.

And another:

A similar situation occurred when a judge in Colorado — a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman — decided that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, violated the law when he declined to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception.

In 2012, a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Denver. On the basis of his faith, Phillips declined to create a wedding cake: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for.” The couple obtained a wedding cake, one with rainbow-colored filling, from another local bakery.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public-accommodation law. Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on December 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by refusing service to the two men “because of their sexual orientation.”

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but baking a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, violating his freedom to run his business in step with his faith.

And another:

On March 1, 2013, longtime customers Roger Ingersoll and Curt Freed met with Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts shop owner Barronelle Stutzman to request that she arrange the flowers for their same-sex wedding ceremony. Washington State had redefined marriage the previous year. Stutzman respondedthat she could not accept the job because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ” and her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Acting on a complaint filed by the two men, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Stutzman, contending that she had violated the state’s sexual-orientation law. Ferguson seeks a $2,000 fine and a court order forcing Barronelle to violate her conscience by using her artistic talents to celebrate a same-sex relationship.

The situation is so bad, that Arizona has had to pass a law to protect the religious liberty of people who don’t want to celebrate gay marriage, a law which is universally opposed by our leftist mainstream media.

So how did we come to this? Well, I think when the debate over gay rights started, many Christians were happy to let gay people live how they wanted to and love who they wanted to and have ceremonies in churches that would have them. But now we are seeing that the gay agenda is much more about redefining marriage for everyone, and compelling assent to the new definition of marriage by force. What is striking to me is how easy secularists find it to strip religious people of their rights using the power of government when it suits them. And to go after their children in the public schools, too, at taxpayer expense. Even these state-run persecutions of Christians in “Human Rights Commissions” is at taxpayer expense. Christians are paying secularists in the government to punish them for being faithful Christians.

Let’s just weigh the damage in these cases. On the one hand, you have gay couples who are told no, feel bad, and then find another business to do what they want. On the other hand, you have the government dragging Christians into court, excoriating them, fining them thousands of dollars, making them apologize and them forcing them to violate their consciences or close their businesses. Who is being intolerant here? Who is forcing their view on others and forcing them to act against their core beliefs?

You would think that we would have learned the lessons of the 20th century – not to discriminate against people because of their religion, not to use the power of the state to force people to act against their consciences. But sadly, we have not learned that lesson. The very people who cry “tolerance” are the ones doing it, too.

News

State of Utah lists 15 consequences to redefining marriage in appellate brief

2 Comments

This is from National Review.

Excerpt:

In an historic opening brief filed yesterday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the state of Utah identified at least 15 consequences of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. You can read the full text, which justifies more fully why each of these reasons are valid.

Here are some of their reasons:

1. “First, as many commentators have observed, because procreation is an inherently gendered affair, redefining marriage in genderless terms would break the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation. . . . Given the manifest ills of fatherless parenting, the State has a compelling interest in sending a powerful message to women that, whenever possible, marriage to the fathers of their children is very important to the welfare of those children and to society itself.”

5. “Fifth, and most obviously, a genderless definition of marriage would likely increase the number of children being raised by same-sex parents. That could happen because the couple decides to raise together an existing child of one of the partners. Or it could result from the conception of a new child through surrogacy or sperm-donation. Either way, such children will not benefit from the State’s preferred mother-father parenting model; often they will have no way of knowing even the identity of both biological parents. And recent evidence on same-sex parenting, while not conclusive, indicates that same-sex parenting arrangements are less effective than married biological mothers and fathers in producing positive outcomes in the lives of their children.

8. “[The] correlation between genderless marriage and lower birthrates. . . . It is also striking that fertility and birthrates tend to be markedly lower in nations and states that have embraced same-sex marriage.”

12. “Governments would likely be pressured—and perhaps agree—to revoke the tax-exempt status of churches or other non-profit religious organizations that refuse on religious grounds to recognize same-sex marriages or to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same terms as husband-wife couples.”

13. “Governments would likely be pressured—and perhaps agree—to investigate, prosecute and punish people in wedding-related businesses for refusing on religious conscience grounds to assist with same-sex weddings.”

14. “Government licensing agencies would likely be pressured—and perhaps agree—to investigate and punish counselors for refusing on religious conscience grounds to counsel same-sex married couples on the same terms as heterosexual couples.”

15. “Religion-based conflicts between public schools and parents would likely increase as children are taught about sexuality and marriage in ways that contravene parents’ and students’ deeply held religious beliefs.”

These reasons are all of interest to the state, but what about the other social consequences of redefining marriage?

Ryan T. Anderson wrote about that a while back.

Excerpt:

The Norm of Monogamy. New York University Professor Judith Stacey has expressed hope that redefining marriage would give marriage “varied, creative and adaptive contours,” leading some to “question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek…small group marriages.”[5] In their statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” more than 300 “LGBT and allied” scholars and advocates call for legal recognition of sexual relationships involving more than two partners.[6]

University of Calgary Professor Elizabeth Brake thinks that justice requires using legal recognition to “denormalize[] heterosexual monogamy as a way of life” and “rectif[y] past discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, and care networks.” She supports “minimal marriage” in which “individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties, the type of relationship involved, and which rights and responsibilities to exchange with each.”[7]

And:

The Norm of Exclusivity. Andrew Sullivan, who has extolled the “spirituality” of “anonymous sex,” also thinks that the “openness” of same-sex unions could enhance the bonds of husbands and wives:

[A]mong gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds.… [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.… [S]omething of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.[11]

“Openness” and “flexibility” are Sullivan’s euphemisms for sexual infidelity. Similarly, in a New York Times Magazine profile, gay activist Dan Savage encourages spouses to adopt “a more flexible attitude” about allowing each other to seek sex outside their marriage.[12] The New York Times recently reported on a study finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners: “‘With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,’ said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, ‘but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.’”[13]

We really need to think about the consequences of these decisions before we jump into them. The last time we redefined marriage, it was no-fault divorce. That worked out great for selfish adults who wanted to make marriage about their own happiness and feelings, but it didn’t work out well for the children who were impacted.

News

Famous gay activist pleads guilty to child pornography charges

Leave a comment

From the San Francisco Chronicle. (H/T Robert S. McCain via First Street Journal)

Excerpt:

Veteran gay rights advocate and former San Francisco Human Rights Commission staffer Larry Brinkin pleaded guilty Tuesday to possessing child pornography.

Brinkin, 67, changed his plea in a deal with the district attorney’s office that will result in a sentencing recommendation of six months in county jail, six months of home detention, five years of probation and lifetime registration as a sex offender.

Brinkin, who worked as a senior contract compliance officer with the rights commission until his 2010 retirement, was arrested in June 2012. Authorities said e-mail attachments were found on his America Online subscriber’s account that contained images of toddlers engaged in sex acts with men.

Prosecutors originally charged him with six felony counts of possessing and distributing child pornography, but dropped all but one felony count of possession as part of the plea bargain.

Brinkin must undergo sex offender therapy and is banned from working with kids, contacting a juvenile without parental consent, and living with someone responsible for a child without disclosing his offender status.

During his 22-year tenure at the rights commission, Brinkin helped craft the city’s Equal Benefits Ordinance, which became a national model for workplace equality for gays and lesbians. When he retired, the Board of Supervisors declared the week of Feb. 1, 2010, as Larry Brinkin Week.

Brinkin, who appeared in court with his husband, has been out on $240,000 bail since September 2012. He is scheduled to return for sentencing on March 5, and to surrender into custody at a later date.

He’s going to keep his pension, though:

Knox said he did not believe Brinkin’s city pension would be affected by the plea because his conviction doesn’t fall under “moral turpitude.” Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits.

This is the public sector after all.

Previously, I blogged about a case of two gay men who had adopted a boy from Russia for the purpose of creating child pornography using him. I’m not sure if this is the Australian connection mentioned in the article, but it would make sense. The trouble we have today is that we are so interested in talking about love, love, love, that we have no will to say anything to protect children. When it comes to the selfishness of adults, anything goes, whether it be divorce, single motherhood or anything. We just don’t care about kids, and we mask our indifference by talking about “love” and “not judging”. It’s very important to understand that there are real victims from all of this “love” and “not judging”, and it’s not as benign as it looks on the surface.

Other cases

The NY Daily News reports on another similar case, and links to CBS News and the Hartford Courant.

Excerpt:

The case of a same-sex Connecticut couple accused of repeatedly raping and abusing two of their nine adopted boys is headed for trial.

Married couple George Harasz and Douglas Wirth of Glastonbury were supposed to be sentenced Friday in Hartford Superior Court under a plea deal, but instead withdrew from their agreement with prosecutors. The men had already pleaded no contest in January to one felony count each of risk of injury to a minor — a reduction from even more serious charges related to sexual assault.

[…]Harasz and Wirth adopted nine children — three sets of male siblings — beginning in 2000, and ran a home-based dog breeding business called The Puppy Guy.

The couple was arrested in November 2011 following a police and state investigation of sex-abuse allegations. The children were removed from the home.

Police said two boys, ages 5 and 15, accused Harasz of sexually assaulting them. Harasz was initially facing first-degree sexual assault and other charges, while Wirth had been charged with third-degree sexual assault of the 15-year-old boy.

Their arrest warrants claimed the couple not only sexually and physically abused the children, but also forced them to sleep in closets.

[…]One of the victims who spoke during the court hearing said sexual assault began when he was 6.

“They took turns raping me over and over,” he said.

Now, a lot of these rape accusations turn out to be false, so we don’t really know if anyone is guilty until the trial concludes. But I’ve posted before about other trials that did conclude, so that you know that these things are in fact happening. I had blogged previously about the Duke University official who was offering his 5-year-old adopted son for sex on the Internet, not to mention the famous Jerry Sandusky case and the case where the head of a gay youth organization was running a child sex ring.

Comments are going to be strictly moderated for this post.