The rights and wrongs of gay "marriage" and the faulty analogy to the civil rights movement.

With the passage of gay "marriage" law in Minnesota some might think the issue is now decided.  Is that true?  Absolutely not.  It's like saying abortion was decided by the Roe v. Wade decision.  If one thinks that's true then one has been living in a bubble.

In fact, the marriage debate is just beginning.  Ramming through the Minnesota legislature the gay "marriage" bill despite a majority of Minnesotans not supporting it didn't end the debate, it just took it to a new level.  Yes, political debate will continue but it will now be fought out on the cultural level as well.

Here's a great practical article on the nature of marriage from the Culture of Life Foundation entitled, "The Rights and Wrongs of Gay Marriage".  It points out the shallowness of arguments that gay "marriage" is the last great civil rights movement.

Wood’s proposition [Gay "marriage" is the last great civil rights movement.] is problematic for many reasons.  But I want to focus on two.  First, it misleadingly uses language similar to the civil rights movement of African Americans to advance its aims.  In so doing it ignores the grave dissimilarities between the cultural conditions facing blacks in 1940s, 50s and 60s and homosexual activists in the 21st century.

During the civil rights era, major news journals either ignored or systematically distorted the successes of heroes such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Newsweek didn’t even print a story of the Montgomery bus boycott till five months after it happened. In the gay marriage debate, the only media caricatures are of defenders of traditional marriage: “bigots,” “Nazis,” “on the wrong side of history;” “opposed to marriage equality,” “motivated by hate,” and so on.  (As an example, watch the outrageous behavior of lesbian activist Suze Orman towards Heritage Institute fellow Ryan Anderson on the Piers Morgan show from March 26th.)  In the mainstream media, everything gay is lighthearted and humorous, young and attractive, tolerant and far-sighted.  Defenders of traditional marriage have been cast in the image of Archie Bunker for two decades.

Moreover, when M.L. King, Jr. led demonstrations in Birmingham in the summer of ‘62, he and his supporters were greeted to billy clubs, K-9 dogs, and fire hoses by the unsympathetic police.  When defenders of traditional marriage demonstrate, they are subject to vile language and unseemly gyrations by gay-rights activists, while the good police stand by and munch their Dunkin’ Donuts.

Further, when Ole Miss was being integrated in 1962, riots broke out, hundreds were injured and several were killed.  When the feds threatened to integrate the University of Alabama in ‘63, opportunist politicians such as segregationist governor George Wallace vowed pompously to block the door.  In universities today, senior administrators fall over one another to affirm gay rights, gay pride events, gay student organizations, gay socials, etc.  Campus journalists are routinely vilified for writing pro-marriage editorials. 

Pro-marriage speakers are treated disrespectfully.  Traditionally minded student organizations are defunded or not allowed on campus.  Candidates for faculty positions are subjected to humiliating litmus tests based on their views of homosexuality.

Where’s the parity?  Although homosexual young people are still sometimes tragically subject to mockery and abuse, anyone who thinks the persecutory winds are blowing steadily in the direction of homosexuals hasn’t stepped outside recently.  

Also rebuts the argument that some how homosexuals have a "right" to marry.

Second, Wood claims that homosexuals have a “right” to marry.  Given the intensity of emotions wrapped up in this issue, to deny this is likely to arouse resentment or anger.  And I have no desire to wound anyone’s feelings.  But to claim that a human right exists for two men or two women to marry is just wrong.  Rights are grounded in intelligible claims of what’s due to persons.  And due-ness is assessed in virtue (at very least) of what’s a real alternative for choice.  So although one might argue that homosexuals have a right to certain kinds of civil benefits, we can no more argue they have a right to marriage than I can argue I have a right to gestate children.  Marriage is a particular kind of human friendship, one founded on the mutually and comprehensively self-giving commitment of partners who share bodily complementarity.  Marriage can only be chosen by a man and a woman.

Now, of course, opportunist politicians and judges can step in and redefine marriage to mean something other than it’s meant by all cultures for all time.  They can negate the centrality of bodily complementarity, procreation and natural family, and redefine marriage as any stable erotic relationship between two consenting adults.  But if we concede this type of Orwellian power to change meaning, then the possibilities for future redefinition remain open-ended.  Under the chisel of public opinion, marriage can and will be extended—don’t you doubt it—beyond two persons, beyond adults, and beyond humans.  If we think otherwise, we’re naïve.

So the debate is not really about the meaning of marriage as it’s existed—for all must concede that in the judgment of the dead marriage is as I’ve described it—but about redefining marriage to mean something other than it’s meant.  We go from defining it as an institution of committed persons civilly privileged in virtue of its aptness for the generation of children to a union of adult persons civilly privileged in virtue merely of its erotic character.  The traditional definition was justified under law not on the basis of any kind of animus towards homosexual persons (whether or not animus may have existed in society), but because of the importance of children to the community and the benefit to children of stable unions.  The community extends financial and other benefits and immunities to traditional marriage, not because it judges the type of sex to be morally superior, but because of the salient fact that this type of sexual union, as grounded on bodily complementarity, is apt for the generation of children.  Children are vulnerable.  This vulnerability can be decreased if the stability of their parents’ unions is strengthened.  Legal marriage and the benefits it bestows facilitate stability.

There is no arbitrary discrimination in this.  And society certainly has the right to define the unions that it calls marriage in terms of their relevance for childbearing.  Other unions may cry foul, “we want the same benefits.”  But the cry cannot claim to be grounded on the requirements of distributive justice, that is, on a fair distribution of civil benefits and burdens in lieu of equivalent starting points.  The respective starting points of gay and traditional unions are not equivalent, at least not in terms of the central criterion used till now to designate unions as marriage and extend benefits, namely, the aptness of the unions for generating children.

Society may indeed sanction the redefinition of marriage to negate the relevance of bodily complementarity.  But upon what basis can one rationally argue that the redefinition is a human right, an obligation of justice, that if we don’t go there we (the community) ignore an ethical laceration in the body politic (as we do by ignoring the right-to-life of the unborn), that reason, decency and good will cry out for this redefinition?  At best we can call it a risky social experiment, at worst a betrayal of nature, tradition, reason and revelation.  But a right?

 In an ironic way, advocacy for man and woman marriage could be the next great civil rights movement.  It will involve the right of children not to be denied a mother and a father.  And the right people to live out the reality of marriage - a union of a man and a woman - in society free from its redefinition and free from harassment.

Marriage matters for kids. 90 percent of kids born to cohabiting parents end up living without both parents.

Marriage is huge for kids while cohabitation results in most kids born in those relationships will end being raised by one parent, 90 percent in fact.

Here's one news story on this new study.

Half of all British children born this year will be living with only one parent by the time they reach their teens, a study has revealed.

The study, titled “The myth of long-term stable relationships outside of marriage” undertaken by the Marriage Foundation, found that 45 percent of British teenagers between the ages of 13-15 are not living with both parents and that 9 out of 10 children born to unmarried, cohabiting “partners” will be living in single-parent households by their teens.

The study examined the differing rates of “family breakdown” experienced by married and cohabiting couples using data from the Understanding Society national longitudinal survey of 40,000 British households.

The numbers indicate that half of all cohabiting couples will break up within a year of moving in together. Nearly one-fifth (17 percent) of babies under a year old do not live with both natural parents, and that number jumps to 47 percent by the time the child is 15.

Significantly, the numbers are radically different for the children born within marriage: 93 percent of parents who stayed together were married before they had a child.

“The relative scarcity of ‘long-term stable relationships’ outside of marriage confirms that it is disingenuous and untenable for government to keep airbrushing marriage from family policy papers,” the study’s author, Harry Benson, said. “This should be an important issue for government since the direct costs of family breakdown are estimated at £46 billion,” more than the entire budget for national defense.

Decline of Church in England tied to acceptance of same sex "marriage".

This story ties the decline of the Church in England to the redefinition of marriage in Britain.  I think that's spot on.

Although the Church of England opposes the homosexual marriage bill, its influence in the country seems to be waning along with church attendance: Figures for 2011, released May 7, show a weekly average attendance of 1.1 million Anglicans, down from 1.2 million in 2001.

U.K. census figures show an even starker reality. The proportion of people in England and Wales identifying themselves as Christian dropped to 59 percent in 2011, down from 72 percent in 2001. Meanwhile, the number of people claiming no religion nearly doubled.

I think the same conclusion applies to the United States and Minnesota in particular.  The redefinition of marriage in Minnesota clearly falls at the feet of the church in Minnesota.  Both for embracing an unscriptural understanding of marriage by some and the failure of others to be "salt" and "light" in society.  When Christians fail to be salt, the consequence as Jesus in Matthew 5 points out is being trampled on the ground.

The spin game. Republican Fitzsimmons held out as champion of religious freedom. He really wasn't.

One of the subplots in the House vote on gay "marriage" was an amendment offered by Representative David Fitzsimmons, conservative republican legislator from a conservative suburban district.  His amendment was offered as a supposed protection of religious freedoms for people who don't agree with same sex "marriage".  (Over half of the population of Minnesota.)   Interestingly, he didn't ask for input from groups like Minnesota for Marriage or the Minnesota Family Council which were repeatedly raising the religious liberty concern.

It turns out his amendment was cited by some representatives as a reason for voting for the bill.  It turns out his amendment really didn't add to religious liberty protections and in fact added confusion to the statutory language.  The fact that the pro-gay "marriage" forces were fine with it is also very revealing.

After the vote we sent to House legislators an analysis of the Fitzsimmons amendment from an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney which says in part:

The Fitzsimmons amendment is woefully inadequate.  If passed, countless Minnesotans, as well as religious organizations and for-profit businesses, who hold sincere religious beliefs regarding marriage and human sexuality would be given a choice to either forsake their conscience or close their businesses.  This amendment fails to account for all businesses or individuals who possess equally legitimate beliefs about marriage, leaving them vulnerable to government discrimination and coercion.

I. Changing “marriage” to “civil marriage” neither alleviates nor changes the impact this bill will have on Minnesotans’ free exercise of religion.

a. Adding “civil” before “marriage” wherever it appears in Minnesota statutes is mere semantics and a distinction lacking a difference.  HF 1054 defines “civil marriage” as “wherever the term ‘marriage,’ ‘marital,’ ‘marry,’ or ‘married’ is used in Minnesota statute in reference to the rights, obligations, or privileges of a couple under law.”  Thus, regardless of many Minnesotans’ sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, they will be forced to recognize as marriage those relationships that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs. A religious group or a for-profit business in the wedding industry will have the same conflicts of conscience if the State redefines marriage or “civil marriage.”  

b. For example, a conflict could easily arise for a videographer recording a same sex ceremony, a counselor who wants to refer to another counselor a same sex couple seeking relationship advice, or a business defining its marital employment benefits.  Placing the term “civil” before “marriage” does not impact or alter the definition of marriage that many Minnesota citizens view as a relationship that only a man and a woman can enter into as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children that they might have.  If enacted, the religious liberty of many Minnesotans will remain unprotected.  

II. The Fitzsimmons amendment explicitly limits the religious freedom of religious organizations. 

a. The Fitzsimmons amendment fails to protect even religious organizations in all that they do, and instead explicitly excludes from protection specific actions these entities might make if the actions are deemed to be “secular business activities.”  Notably, the amendment leaves undefined what these “secular business activities” might include.  So, is the summer camp run by a Jewish synagogue a “secular business activity?”  What about an adoption agency or homeless shelter run by Catholic Charities?  Is a counseling center operated by an evangelical church religious or “secular?”  The exception created here is not only unconstitutional, but the ambiguity could expose these religious organizations to litigation to determine which of the religious organization’s actions are entitled to protection.  Such a test subjects these religious entities to a judicial determination of their actions’ religious bona fides, and leaves to judicial interpretation whether a particular action of a religious entity should receive First Amendment protection.
                                                
b. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is inadequate because it fails to protect the rights of religious organizations to recognize and/or participate in only those relationships consistent with their religious beliefs.  Religious groups frequently define their mission to serve others as far broader than just conducting a service or ceremony within the four walls of their house of worship.  Because marriage implicates many more individuals and entities than just those who may be involved with the marriage ceremony, this leaves vulnerable to litigation religious organizations that cannot recognize same-sex marriage, such as counselors, adoption agencies, or social workers.  Additionally, this amendment would likely force religious organizations to provide marital employment benefits to relationships inconsistent with their religious teachings. 

III. The Fitzsimmons Amendment fails to address HF 1054’s failure to protect Minnesota individuals, religious organizations, non-profits, or for-profits from being sued for discrimination based on “marital status.”

a. The lack of religious freedom protections for all Minnesotans in this bill suggests an intent to legislate discrimination and intolerance towards those who believe marriage exists solely between one man and one woman.  If this bill is enacted, such individuals will be persecuted and face legal action for alleged discrimination because this bill changes the legal definition of marriage and thus "marital status" under Minnesota's Human Rights Act.  We should not pass laws that fail to respect the religious freedom of all citizens.  As the Sixth Circuit recently noted in its decision upholding the rights of students to abide by their conscience, "Tolerance is a two way street."  Individuals, for-profits, non-profits, and religious entities that have sincerely held beliefs about marriage could likely be sued for discrimination based on “marital status” should this bill be enacted without language explicitly exempting them because Minnesota’s Human Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of marital status in the employment, public accommodation, and housing contexts.

IV. The Fitzsimmons amendment leaves many Minnesota individuals and businesses unprotected.

a. The Fitzsimmons amendment fails to recognize that the First Amendment applies to all individuals and businesses that have sincerely held religious beliefs.  In particular, the Fitzsimmons amendment unconstitutionally fails to protect for-profits that are often run by individuals with sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage.  This includes those entities in the wedding industry, such as a photographer, baker, or florist, who could be coerced to participate in and advance a message about marriage that violates their conscience.  It also includes those businesses run by individuals with sincere beliefs regarding marriage, such as a non-religious, for-profit adoption agency or a marriage retreat center, that would remain unprotected under the Fitzsimmons amendments for simply seeking to place children in homes with both a mom and a dad.
 
b. This amendment fails to extend even the bare minimum protections of the First Amendment, and instead designates which entities and employees may receive protection.  Yet the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the First Amendment applies to all individuals and businesses, and federal courts—including those in the 8^th Circuit—have recently affirmed that even for-profit business entities may not be coerced into providing benefits or services contrary to their values or conscience.  HF 1054, even with the proposed amendment, would force many Minnesota businesses and employees who hold sincere religious beliefs regarding marriage and human sexuality to either forsake their conscience or close their businesses.

As you can read, the Fitzsimmons amendment was not what it was purported to be. 

Well, the left is now trying to give him some cover. A University of Minnesota law Professor Richard Painter has written a piece for the St. Michael Patch describing Rep. Fitzsimmons as a "hero for religious freedom".

A closer look reveals that really isn't the case.  As a result he has "some explaining to do" to his constituents as Desi Arnez used to say to Lucy after she made a mistake.

Professor Mike Adams responds to Jason Collins and his coming out.

I came across this  response by Professor Mike Adams to the very public coming out of Jason Collins, the NBA player.  Its Adams' response to Collins if he were president and had a conversation with Collins and then talked to the media.

People often write to me expressing their dissatisfaction with President Obama and his policies. They also like to write to me asking how I will do things differently if I am elected president in 2016. For example, they ask whether I would have taken the time to call Jason Collins after he "came out" - becoming the first openly gay active player in the NBA. The answer is a definite "yes." I would have called him immediately. And here is what I would have been able to say to the White House Press corps if later asked about our conversation:

Adams expresses disapproval that homosexuals aren't content to live their lives but want to force their views on others in all areas of life.

"I told Jason I could have been much prouder of him. One of the extraordinary measures of social regression that we have seen in this country has been the insistence that the interests of the LGBT community be interjected into every aspect of American life. Now, the agenda is even present in kindergarten sex education classes in Massachusetts. At first, it was placed there by those who insisted that such educational classes would be fully optional for objecting parents. Now, parents who show up at these schools objecting to the sexualization of their children are threatened with prosecution for trespass. None of this would be happening if homosexuals were content to live their lives privately and peacefully without imposing their agenda upon those who respectfully disagree with them.

 That the GLBT community isn't content with equality but are demanding aquiescence.

"I reminded Jason that everyone deserves full equality. But I also reminded Jason that the so-called LGBT community already has full equality, not just partial equality. For example, he had a right to marry his fiancé of seven years. But just because he decided to relinquish that right, it does not mean the courts need to create a new right for him to exercise. The polygamists tried that in the 1800s and the Supreme Court rightly said ‘no’ to their legal arguments. Given that there is far greater historical acceptance of polygamy than so-called gay marriage, he has no broad right to marry anyone he chooses. So I urged Jason not to use his newfound platform to push this issue. I will have more to say about substitutionary rights - the idea that when you relinquish a right, you get to select a new one - in a future press conference. But now back to Jason.

"I also told him that I was disappointed that the LGBT community was no longer seeking tolerance, but instead seeking acquiescence to the notion that their lifestyle is every bit as healthy as the traditional American family. Of course, that is simply absurd. I reminded him that even Elton John recently recognized that his adopted son would suffer because he had no 'mummy.' I urged Jason to avoid gay adoption as it was not in the interests of the child - although it might be an effective publicity stunt once his first round of media adoration has subsided.

 That we shouldn't judge people based on their sex life rather their character.

"Given the importance of sports in our society, for an individual who's been mediocre at best in one of those major sports to suddenly say 'This is who I am. I'm proud of it. I'm still a great competitor. I'm still seven foot tall and deliver a hard foul' was simply a distraction. I think for a lot of young people out there who are confused and who are struggling with these issues, to see a role model like that who is interjecting sex into sports, well, it's just not a good thing. I think America should be concerned that this is just one more stunt reinforcing this ongoing illusion that we do not treat everybody fairly, and that we judge people on the basis of their sex life rather than their character and their job performance. We can't judge them on the basis of those things if they keep interjecting sex into the workplace. That just isn't right. So, I'm very displeased with Jason and I told him that...

"I told Jason, what is most notable about his recent conduct is his lack of courage. He lived a lie and misled a nice woman for seven years. Only after it became politically correct to be gay - and when anyone on the NBA was assured a six-digit fine for criticizing him - did he come forward. I've never seen a seven foot man act so small.

"Jason has taught young people to do easy things, not hard things, in order to win the affection of others. He has taught them that they are to be judged, not by the content of their character, but by the many colors of the banner of sexual political correctness. That will be the legacy of Jason Collins. I wish he had thought of the long term consequences of his decisions before he made them. Whether we like it or not, an athlete is a role model. Others are watching. And that is something I plan to talk about again in my next White House Press Conference.