I differ from many of my Christian friends in that I believe gay couples should have legal partnerships. I am all for them having inheritance rights, being able to make medical decisions for their loved ones, having legal protections should their relationship end, etc. I have taken some flack for it through the years, but I have never seen any reason for society to deny homosexuals these basic requests. I think they should have all the protections and benefits of heterosexual marriage ... I just don't agree with them calling it "marriage."
Well, one of the arguments a lot of Christians have had against "gay marriage" has always been that eventually the government would try to force churches to marry homosexuals. I have always thought that was the most ridiculous thing ever. That would be like me trying to force a mosque to marry me with a rabbi officiating. I am not Jewish. I am not a follower of Islam. Why would I expect either to even want to have anything to do with my relationship when I don't keep the tenets of their faith? It would be absurd.
Unfortunately ... it looks like the absurd has now met reality:
A church group that owns beachfront property discriminated against a lesbian couple by not allowing them to rent the locale for their civil union ceremony, a New Jersey department ruled Monday in a case that has become a flash point in the nation's gay rights battle.
The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights said its investigation found that the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to rent the oceanfront spot to the couple for their same-sex union in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state's Law Against Discrimination.
This could get real ugly.
See ... my church has a building we use for social functions. People request use of it all the time for weddings, dinners, basketball games, showers and so on. We ask who wants the building, why they want the building, how long do they want it, what areas will they be using, etc. And, I can tell you this ... if a lesbian couple wanted it for their civil union ... I am pretty sure that my Pastor would not approve it. He wouldn't approve a group of pagans getting the building for one of their celebrations either.
The article goes on to say ...
Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based group that represents the Methodist organization, Camp Meeting Association, said his clients would keep pushing back against being forced to allow civil unions on the property.
"Our position is the same," he said. "A Christian organization has a constitutional right to use their facilities in a way that is consistent with their beliefs."
I have to wonder why a lesbian couple would have wanted the building or insisted on renting it. The more this stuff happens, the more it smacks of homosexuals particularly targeting Christians because we believe what the Bible says about homosexuality and I can't see how that kind of behavior is going to get them anywhere. I can't see churches giving in to this and they shouldn't. If church property becomes the next battleground in this "war" ... as it is being called ... God help us.
Related Posts:
There are a few things to keep in mind with this story:
1. The property in question is not a church, but a gazebo on a beach.
2. Said property was never listed as tax exempt as church property. Instead, the organization that owns it (which isn't a church, but a Methodist organization that I suspect doesn't have tax exempt status for religious reasons, either) decided to enter it as part of the state's "public accommodations" program. This program encourages private landowners to make their properties available for public use by giving such private properties tax exempt status as long as they are left open to public use.
3. For a property to qualify for tax exempt status under this program, the landowner must apply state equal access laws when granting access for any function. The fact that the organization refused a couple access to the the gazebo for their event, the management of the gazebo no longer met the requirements to qualify for inclusion in the public accommodations program. As such, the tax exempt status that was granted by the property's inclusion in the program was rescinded as a matter of course.
4. The same organization has several other properties -- including much property the surrounds the gazebo -- that still qualifies for the public accommodations program and will remain untaxed under it.
As you can see, some of the information that has been circulating about this case is vague to the point of actually being misleading. The organization did not "lose" its tax exempt status. (Indeed, it's never been indicated whether the organization itself even has tax exempt status.) And the property in question was never listed as tax exempt because it was "religious property." It was listed as tax exempt because it was originally enrolled in a different program and has since been removed because the owners chose not to meet the requirements of that program.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if the owning organization is not willing to meet the public accommodation program's requirements, it can't reasonably expect to enjoy the benefits of said program. If they wish to claim tax exempt status for their property because of their religious affiliation, then they need to apply for the appropriate church status and have the property in question listed as church property.
Then again, I'll admit that I'm not a huge fan of tax exempt status for churches, anyway. But that's just me.
Now see ... they don't say all that. For me, I would say that if a religious organization has property then they should be able to dictate how their property is used. But ... if they make that property available to the public (as you say is the case here) to get something in return (tax exempt status) and they know upfront that certain laws will apply that will limit their control over the property (as in deciding who can and cannot use the property) then they would have to deal with the fact that some people may want to use their property that they wouldn't neccessarily approve of and they will have to let them use it.
Biggest run-on sentence evah! :)
See, our building is on our church property and is covered under our tax-exempt status. We control who can and cannot use it and the government shouldn't have any say so on it.
Now, as far as the whole tax-exempt status thing ... I am for churches having it but I don't like how some churches play fast and loose with the laws and play politics from the pulpit. It is one thing to preach on biblical principles ... it is quite another to actually promote candidates or a political party.
I think there is still something to be said about why a gay couple would want to use property belonging to a religious group/church/whatever. I just don't get that whole pushing oneself onto others. I don't hang out in black clubs, gay bars, or the local biker hangout. I don't fit in and I never will. It is like women who want to join men's smoking clubs. Why? What is the point?
B: Just how far would you want to take that logic? Should I refuse to shop at my local supermarket because the owners are Christian? Should you refuse to go to a particular barber -- possibly the best one in town -- because they're atheist or gay? Sounds pretty isolationist to me.
The couple wasn't asking to use a church sanctuary or even a church fellowship room. They were asking to use a gazebo on the beach, a property whose owners had listed as available for public use. I think calling that "pushing oneself onto others" is a bit of a stretch, personally.
As an aside, I will note that every gay bar I've been to has been welcoming towards heterosexual patrons. (Okay, you might want to avoid The Bachelor Forum on bar night. But then, I want to avoid it on bar night, so there's not a huge difference there.) In fact, I have several female friends who prefer to go dancing at gay clubs just so they can have a good time dancing without having to fend off creepy heterosexual males who don't know how to take no for an answer.
Also, I'd note that the name of the organization who owns the gazebo is the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. It's entirely possible that the couple didn't even know the organization had a religious affiliation at first. I certainly wouldn't have known it if I just saw their name somewhere.
I have had this same conversation at church. When NoNo was born, her pediatrician was a really nice woman who was a lesbian. I did not know that she was a lesbian personally ... I found out at church. I also found out that she had a "partner" and they had a child. I was told that I should not be taking my daughter to her because I was supporting her lifestyle with my money.
Huh?
First of all ... I didn't know she was a lesbian except for the people at church gossiping about her. Secondly, what did that have to do with anything? She was more than competent at her job. She was a lovely person. She was there an hour before my daughter was born and took excellent care of my child. Third ... was I going to start investigating everyone I did business with? What about the owner of the grocerty store? I think I heard he was a liar. What about my pharmacist? I heard he committed adultery.
It was the stupidest thing I ever heard. And, unfortunately, I think that kind of mentality had more to do with her going back to Missouri than her daughter wanting to be back with their extended family. And, I hate it. We lost an excellent doctor because of that ignorant way of thinking.
I can vouch for that! When I used to go to bars, I loved going to gay bars and I was never, ever mistreated in any way. Even when I explained I was straight (because it is amazing how many "gay" guys suddently decide they are bisexual when they get a bit drunk and gay girls always thought I was pretty). I had the best time and the creepy heterosexual male who couldn't take no for an answer ... loved it that he was not there. :)
It's true that this example of "forcing" gay marriage on churches is not an accurate one. But the issue is serious. When I heard about the pastor in Canada who was fined by the human rights commission to stop citing bible verses that condemn homosexuality I thought, "that'll never happen here."
There are also several legal battles where Christian pharmacists are dealing with the fallout from their refusal to dispense abortifacients.
It's already real ugly. Honestly, I'm not stressed about same sex marriage - as I've written on my own blog, why not let them have marriage? We're not using it... the divorce rate is as high for Christians as it is for everyone else, as is adultery. Until we're ready to start treating marriage with the respect we demand others do, we can expect the institution to disintegrate. But personal religious freedom and homosexual rights are increasingly in conflict, and I AM stressed about that.
You know, it is getting crazy. On one hand, I truly believe that churches or Christian organizations shouldn't have to serve anyone when it conflicts with their faith. That, of course, is as long as they are making it plain that they are Christian and not trying to side-step laws (as Jarred pointed out in the above case). On the other ... I think that if Christians are working in secular positions in secular institutions ... they should not be allowed to use their faith to refuse services.
If I am a pharmacist, I think I should have to fill any prescription a doctor has given a patient regardless of how I feel about it personally. If they are taking the morning after pill or birth control ... it is none of my business. But, if I am a preacher in my church preaching what the Bible says about sin ... no one should be able to stop me from speaking it. Or if I am a Christian organization who handles adoptions ... even though I will say that I don't agree with the logic of the brethern on that. If that is the case then anyone who is sinning in any way should not be able to adopt a child ... just saying.
As far as marriage, I can't say I agree with your logic. That would be to me like saying 87% of people lie so perjury should be legal. But, I do think Christians should focus more on what is going on in our own relationships instead of worrying about keeping a gay guy from seeing his partner on his death bed or which straight person they can get to inherit their property because we surely can't let a gay person have their partner's belongings.
I'm not worried about organizational freedom so much as I am about personal freedom. I've had to be very careful in sidestepping certain jobs - either by vastly overbidding, or very carefully, discreetly, handing them off to another company - to ensure I don't get sued for refusing to build a "male modeling" website (actually a gay escort service) and other sites that are not consistent with my faith. Consider that if your views prevailed, doctors could be forced to either perform abortions, be restricted to explicitly Christian medical practices, or stop practicing medicine; extrapolate that out to every other service profession and you have the effect of Christians either being forced to violate their faith or be severely restricted economically, purely because of our faith.
As long as we maintain personal freedom, organizational freedoms should take care of themselves. It's not about what's fair or unfair, right or wrong - we could all argue about that all day and get nowhere. It's about preventing others from defining for us what Christianity means, and how we can legally practice it. Once we start allowing that to happen, it's a very slippery slope.
By the way, anyone can leave their possessions to anyone they please; just make out a will. Likewise for writing up a medical power of attorney. The forms can be found all over the internet, or you can get a CD at Office Depot for personal legal forms for about $20. So lack of marriage doesn't mean that homosexuals are *restricted* from doing those things. (Which is not an argument for or against gay marriage; I still don't really care either way - I'm just taking note that there are other options.)
See, I have a hard time seeing how any doctor could be forced to perform an abortion. Doctors have specialties. I can't get a podiatrist to perform heart surgery on me. I doubt just any doctor could perform an abortion either. I can't force a doctor to do plastic surgery on me. I can't force one to remove a kidney.
I honestly cannot see where any doctor could be forced to perform an abortion ... unless their refusal would harm the mother and I know that can happen. I had to have a medically necessary abortion before because my body would not miscarry and there was no viable baby. They could have let me suffer and hope I would eventually miscarry or they could do what they did ... give me a shot, end the pregnancy, and let me mourn the fact that I was never going to have that baby in the first place.
My OB/GYN is a Christian and very much against abortion. He made me wait a week before he terminated my pregnancy. I had to have HCG levels every day. I was in horrible pain too. But, I understood that he wanted to make sure that he was not terminating a pregnancy that would have resulted in a child. Now ... had he refused to terminate even after he knew that ... I could see where someone could get real ugly and try to force the situation, but I wouldn't consider a doctor ethical at all if he refused blindly not considering the circumstances.
I guess my main issue is when it appears that it is going too far ... on either side. People can take things to such extremes ... like fining a preacher for preaching the Bible and refusing service to someone in a secular capacity just because they are gay or want to prevent a pregnancy. There has to be some moderation ... some compromise.
Laura: There are a lot of problems with those alternatives you mention. For example, power of attorney laws vary from state to state and a document drawn up in one state may not be binding in another state. There have been documented cases where couples have run into problems because of this. One person gets hospitalized while the couple is on vacation and suddenly, medical personnel are telling the partner that that wonderful documentation isn't valid in the state the hospital is in. Similarly, a will that lists a beneficiary who is not related to the deceased are far too easy to challenge and may need be drafted very carefully to curtail such challenges. Again, the exact way to go about it varies in state to state, so a lawyer is seriously needed. And then there's the fact that inheritance tax is often handled different for unrelated/unmarried beneficiaries.
So yes, there are other options. But take it from someone who has done some research into those other options. They are far inferior and much more likely to be problematic if someone decides to be difficult.
I'll also note that the idea that doctors would be forced to perform abortions is a bit misguided. Not all doctors are surgeons, for starters.
No, you can't make a podiatrist perform surgery, but just as an ob/gyn can be forced to perform (or fined/ sued/ put out of business for failing to perform) artificial insemination, he can be forced to make that same choice about abortion. When you consider the case before the California Supreme Court, it is NOT a far-fetched idea. It's in progress now - and after the California Supremes are done with it, SCOTUS will have to deal with it.
If the expected CA decision is affirmed by SCOTUS, then that's effective nationwide. We already have an obstetrician shortage thanks to ridiculous lawsuitsand massive malpractice insurance fees. This has the potential to run many more doctors out of the field.
Most people on my side of the argument are perfectly willing to compromise on "health of the mother" exceptions, as long as it's not so ridiculously broad as to be meaningless. In my opinion, the real fight against abortion isn't legal anyway, it's faith/morality/public opinion - where anti-abortion laws are pretty much beside the point. We have to learn as a society to want babies more, and be willing to make sacrifices to care for them. Medically necessary abortions are rare, and an entirely different matter than using abortion as a birth control method. But I digress...
As to all doctors being forced to perform abortions - all doctors are at one time medical students who go through a surgical and an ob/gyn rotation. And medical schools are already a front in the pro-life battle:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat255.html
If abortion advocates are successful in making abortion training a requirement, devout Christians will be entirely shut out of the medical field, no matter what specialty they want to practice.
What about the hippocratic oath? Do no harm and all that? To me ... abortion just to end a pregnancy is doing harm. It is harming a baby and they aren't that easy on the woman either.
Seriously, I am just trying to flesh out some of my thoughts so I hope I am not upsetting anyone. I see this as more of a "sitting in the living room discussing these issues" than a debate kind of thing.
"I see this as more of a "sitting in the living room discussing these issues" than a debate kind of thing."
Me too. :-) That's the trouble with text; it's hard to read "tone."
The Hippocratic oath is pretty much ignored these days. Especially given the rise of euthanasia. That's another serious, growing problem...
We in the US have already been warned that every Catholic operated health care facility will close their doors rather than be forced by the state to perform actions that go against church teaching. It is no idle threat - should SCOTUS attempt to pass a law mandating that abortions must be available at any hospital or clinic or by any qualified health care practitioner, we will be faced with a health care crisis that will be completely avoidable.
Me? Ex-Catholic, for years. Do I get their point? Yep - and agree with it. It is not the state's place to tell me what I must or must not do in a democracy, far less so when my allegiance is to something far beyond the state and the temporal.
Primum non nocere - first, do no harm - in today's world gets translated as "first, dispose of the evidence." Sad...
This is where my brain can't process the logic ... on both sides. Why pass a law that would require doctors to perform abortions against their own conscience ... which will result in losing doctors? Why force facilities to offer abortion services when there are already clinics and doctors who have no qualms in doing so already?
It is the same thing with gay marriage. If a state will give you partnership rights without calling it marriage ... why try to force marriage? If all you want is the rights (the legal protections), then the word shouldn't mean anything. Civil unions ... domestic partnerships ... that should be good enough. Why try to take something and force it onto others?
I don't blame Catholic institutions one bit if they close their doors should SCOTUS pass. I don't blame any doctor who might quit or stand up for their beliefs should someone try to force them to perform an abortion. Just like I don't blame gay people for wanting legal recourse in their relationships.
And, what kills me in all this is that everything is going to crap in a handbasket and everyone seems to think that their rights supercedes everyone else's rights.
Yesterday, I went to rent some movies and I noticed that on the top shelf were porn movies. They weren't hardcore ... but it was obvious what they were from the covers. You could see plenty. And, all I could think about was when did porn get taken from back rooms and put where children could see it?
Same thing at Wal-Mart. I am on the second aisle to pay for my purchases when I notice Maxim magazine right there beside me. The girl on the cover is in nothing but lingerie that barely covered anything. I thought magazines like that were usually with a wrapper like thing on them so children couldn't see the covers. When did they make it to the checkout aisles?
And, whose rights superceded my rights to have these things moved where they would be seen by children? Was it too much trouble to go to a back room or put a cover on that magazine? Why do our children get to see those things like they are nothing ... just so someone else doesn't have to walk ten more steps to pick them up from a more discreet location?
Then it reminded me of a recent conversation I had with the local health department. One of my daughters needs to go on birth control. Her monthly cycle is beyond whack and she will go months without one and then have one for over a month. I take her to the clinic and they do a pregnancy test on her ... and I am fine with that. I understand you can't have the pill without one. Then they say I have to bring her back in two weeks to make sure she is not pregnant, let her get an exam, and then they will start her on the pill.
Well, I lose her appointment card. I can't find it anywhere. I call the Health Department to ask them to look up her appointment and they tell me that they can't give me that information that my daughter will need to call. I am like ... "my child is a minor and I am her mother." The lady tells me that doesn't matter and she can't tell me when the appointment is. I say, "Excuse me, but I am the one who brought her in. You gave me the appointment card. I need to know when her appointment is so I can bring her back." I am told again that she cannot legally tell me when my child's appointment is. I tell her that is fine but she can look up that appointment and cancel it because my daughter is not coming back.
I am her mother. She is a minor. She is my daughter and legally in my care until she is 18 years of age ... but they cannot tell me when my daughter's appointment is? When did that happen? And, why does it only happen with them and not when I call her doctor. I figured taking her to the clinic would be faster and save time since it is that time of year when everyone is sick with something and hard to get in to see the doctor. If I had an appointment with her doctor ... they would tell me when it is. How can the Health Department refuse to tell me when my daughter's appointment is.
And ... this is what bothers me about the whole pharmacist thing. When I take my daughter to the doctor and she puts her on the pill to regulate her cycle ... what happens when I take the prescription to the pharmacy I have used for years upon years and my pharmacist says he won't fill it? Now, I know my pharmacist would. He is a Christian and he has already said that he would not stop dispensing birth control. But, what if he did? Who is he to decide that my child can't have a regular period because he doesn't believe in birth control pills?
Then that opens me up to the whole abortion issue. If we don't want women having abortions ... why have a fit when they try to prevent pregnancies? Why try to stop them?
It is really crazy and I have no clue what the answer is ... but there has to be some neutral playing field, some moderation, some compromise so that things can be worked out in a reasonable manner. You know? At the rate it is going ... who knows what is going to happen. And, honestly, I don't think ugly is even going to be the word to describe it. It won't be strong enough.
I've been contemplating your concerns about the rights of the pharmacist to not dispense medicine your daughter needs. The flip side of "Who is he to decide that my child can't have a regular period because he doesn't believe in birth control pills?" is "Who are we to decide that he has to either violate his conscience or find another job?" A free market solution is that people who are offended by his failure to dispense certain drugs wouldn't patronize the pharmacy - they'd go to one which dispenses the drug or get it via mail order. To me, it's a lot like having to tolerate the free speech of people like Fred Phelps or the Klan. They offend the crap out of me, but I also remember that the gospel offends other people just as much, and I don't want my liberty taken away.
That thing with the health dept. - that's just insane.