Our religious liberties are at stake.


Before you read the below, I want to emphasize I’m not here to debate the merits/morality of homosexuality.  However, I do want to raise the issue of redefining marriage and the threat to our religious liberties should it gain momentum.  I think a lot of us, myself included, didn’t realize the extent of what is at stake.

I sense we are facing a turning point in the efforts by some to redefine marriage.  While on the surface it’s tempting to adopt the mentality of “live and let live,” this is a dangerous approach to take because our religious liberties are ultimately at stake.  It’s easy to think that gay marriage activists are simply seeking the right to marry and nothing more.  However, the facts point to their ultimate goal – which is to indoctrinate society and our children that the redefinition of marriage is normal, natural, and acceptable and that opposition to redefining marriage and related religious beliefs are bigoted, discriminatory, and not worthy of tolerance or acceptance.  As someone who would like to have children in the near future, my number one purpose on this earth will be to raise them according to God’s teachings; however, if gay marriage activists have their way, the government will become an indoctrinating force to brainwash our children otherwise, forcing dissenters into silence by shutting them down and forcing them out of business.  This is what ultimately scares me.

States are often the laboratories where policies are tested before they are adopted on a nation-wide scale.  In this case, we can look at Massachusetts as the test case for what will happen should gay marriage become nation-wide.  In the five or so years since gay marriage became law there, Catholic Charities has been forced out of the adoption/foster care service because the government decided they discriminated against gay couples in the adoption process.  Elementary schools are adopting curriculum that includes books about gay parents so that children are indoctrinated early; older grade levels are learning about homosexual relationships as part of their health classes.  Parents are having to file law suits to try to get their children out of these classes or away from these books on moral grounds.  Even in states where gay marriage is not legal, this trend is unfolding – in New Jersey, a Methodist church lost its tax-free status because it refused to allow gay civil union ceremonies on its property.  These are just a few of the examples of what will happen if the government decides to redefine marriage.  Despite what the activists tell you, redefining marriage WILL have an impact on our personal and religious lives, including how we raise our children.

What is happening to our first amendment right to freedom of religion?  What is happening to our right to live by what God has taught us without government interference, particularly when it comes to raising children?  In the case of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, why is our government shutting down our religious institutions at the expense of poor children who were benefiting from the Catholic Church’s benevolence?  We can’t expect the Church to compromise its values and beliefs at the whim of secular government political-correctness, nor should we compromise our values, roll over, and let the government impose something we don’t want as a society, especially at the expense of our religious freedoms.  And once the government gains the power to discriminate against religious organizations because they don’t fall in line with government definition of marriage, they will likely use this power to suppress religious institutions on other issues, like abortion, and who knows what else awaits down the road.

We’re heading to a new age in America where churches and religiously-affiliated institutions, schools, hospitals, universities, seminaries, etc., will be forced to comply with government-imposed standards on marriage, abortion, and any other immoral standards the government wishes to impose on society.  If they don’t, they will risk losing their tax-exempt status or even their ability to operate in the most needy areas of our society, such as finding homes for orphans, providing health care to the poor, or even operating parochial schools if they don’t adopt the version of morality the government imposes.  Who knows, the government could even go a step further and try to punish the Catholic Church for not allowing women to be priests.  Not to mention that parents are already losing the right to control what their children learn in elementary school about these controversial topics.

The consequences are limitless, and the slope is very slippery.



RSS feed

7 Comments Leave a comment

good summary, thank you

techsan (Diary) Thursday, April 9th at 12:30AM EST (link)

Curious, would you have a source article or two on the real impacts? As I describe to friends the kindergarten-level notion that actions have consequences, I like to share articles as well so they stop looking at me blankly.

In the end, all we have on our side of the debate are facts and history.

intermediate response

hinkdog (Diary) Friday, April 10th at 11:21AM EST (link)

yes – i’ll get them to you next week. i’m away for Easter this weekend.

 

one good source....

chuckie (Diary) Friday, April 10th at 12:04PM EST (link)

..maggie gallagher’s article….”Banned in Boston”…weekly standard…may 15 2006….so many prophecies fulfilled…..

Banned in Boston

INC (Diary) Friday, April 10th at 2:44PM EST (link)

chuckie mentioned this and here is the link:

Banned in Boston.

hinkdog is right. Read Gallagher’s article. It’s very important. Page two reports from a symposium from 2005:

So last December, the Becket Fund brought together ten religious liberty scholars of right and left to look at the question of the impact of gay marriage on the freedom of religion…

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.”

Gallagher also noted this:

Reading through these and the other scholars’ papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead…

By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that’s pretty close to the world in which they live now.

Since this article is from 2006, I hope by now some of the scholars opposed to gay marriage now understand the conflict is here.

sigh

techsan (Diary) Friday, April 10th at 9:49PM EST (link)

good source…and, alas, I more and more agree with this from the article:

“The impact will be severe and pervasive,” [Anthony] Picarello says flatly. “This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.” Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

In the end, all we have on our side of the debate are facts and history.

another wash post article

hinkdog (Diary) Sunday, April 19th at 12:50PM EST (link)

there was just another article in the washington post this past week about losing religious liberties as it relates to the marriage issue. Some highlights:

Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights

. . . 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.

“It really is all about religious liberty for us,” said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. “The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles.”

 
 
 
 
 

Excellent. Reco'ed.

redneck_hippie (Diary) Thursday, April 9th at 10:03PM EST (link)

Your case is well made. And these are important considerations for people to take into the voting booth.


Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots