The inadequate “protections” being asked for in same-sex “marriage” law
Tim W. writes:
This article from the New York Times backs up your prediction that some Republicans are ready to pass same-sex “marriage” if certain protections are provided for religious institutions. Note that these protections only apply to churches themselves, and to organizations operated explicitly by a church. Religious individuals will not be protected.
This means that the Catholic Church cannot be forced to perform same-sex “weddings.” It means that a Baptist church can’t be forced to lease a church-owned meeting hall for a same-sex “wedding” reception. But religious people will have no protections, either as individuals or as business or property owners. A devout Catholic photographer will be subject to penalties for refusing to videotape a same-sex “wedding.” An Orthodox Jewish bakery owner may be hauled into court if he refuses to make a wedding cake celebrating Bill and Steve’s “marriage.” A Baptist who earns a little extra money to pay for his children’s education by leasing his lakefront property for outdoor weddings will have to agree to host same-sex “marriages” or face prosecution.
And this doesn’t even scratch the surface. Public schools in New York will have to feature same-sex “married” couples in their family life curricula, castigating those who object as bigoted and hateful. And on and on it will go.
The left sees the “gay rights” agenda as a way to crush religious liberty and that’s what they’re doing. They may carve an occasional exception for religious organizations. But that’s a compromise they can live with as long as religious individuals are still obligated to bow to the power of the ungodly state.
LA replies:
The bill hasn’t passed yet, though some of its supporters predicted that it would come up for a vote and be passed yesterday. It still needs at least one more senator to pass. Senators are discussed in the article who have indicated they may switch to a yes vote. Notwithstanding the heavy lobbying from organizations opposing the bill, these senators do not seem to understand the tyrannical impact of the bill that Tim has discussed, the effect it would have on the schools, and all the rest of it.
Also, while Cuomo says he’s confident of passage next week, let us remember the many, many past instances in which sponsors and supporters of a ruinous leftist bill treated its passage as assured, and then the bill was stopped. That kind of talk should be seen as a way of encouraging one’s own side and discouraging the other, not necessarily as an objective account of what is happening. However, with 31 out of 62 senators committed to voting for the bill, and with some on-the-fence senators ready to be bought off by a fig leaf, it’s going to take an infusion of energy from our side to defeat this thing.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 18, 2011 08:56 AM | Send