Monday, February 23, 2009

I am all for compromise, but is this really fair? Civil unions with religious exceptions?

Alright, as most of you could probably deduce from the many posts that we have had supporting LGBT rights, we here at RUTHERE feel that same-sex marriages should be allowed. Setting aside the whole issue that giving same-sex couples civil unions instead of marriage is its own way of descriminating against them and treating them as somehow fundamentally different then same-sex couples. Recently there was a NYT (again, shocking I know) Op-Ed piece proposing a compromise between what they see as the two sides of the argument:

"First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions."

They then go on to say that a compromise should be made between these two factions setting up federal civil unions with exceptions for religious groups. While this may seem all fine and good on the surface, as compromise is a lovely word, I can't help but wonder if this isn't so much a compromise as just a way to say that it is ok for organizations in this fair country of ours to continue their practices of discrimination as long as it is under the guise of religious beliefs. While I agree that religious organizations should not be forced to consecrate same-sex marriages in their own churches, what about large religious organizations who have employees in same-sex relationships who under the new federal civil union law would legally be entitled to the same rights as those offered to opposite-sex couples. Would that religious organization then be allowed to discriminate against their employees in same-sex relationships in terms of hiring, firing, and benefits? Just because they are a religious organization, does that mean that they are above the law and should be allowed to deny people their legal rights?

Also, what the hell happened to the separation of church and state! WTF?

NYT Op-Ed Piece

4 comments:

howdoyoustopthiscrazything said...

Unfortunately (if you ask me, which (given all the question marks in your post title) I suppose you did), in this country we are allowed to permit a number of different kinds of exceptions to laws under color of religious tolerance.

To name a few examples: Employers who are affiliated with religious organizations can discriminate on religious grounds in hiring and retention. Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists can, in some cases, refuse medical treatment on behalf of their minor children.

Or consider the (widespread) use of wine in many Christian religious services, even by young people, or the (much less widespread) use of peyote by members of the Native American Church. While I am generally a fan of people of a reasonable age being able to put whatever they want into their own bodies, it seems like bad policy to permit these exceptions on religious grounds.

I am not trying to deny your point about civil unions--I think it's a very good one--but I think that the marriage/union question should be considered as part of a larger issue, which is where the rights of religious organizations end and the rights of individuals begin.

Neil said...

This should be taken as good sign. Obviously, the "religious right" and others opposed to same-sex marriage see their position weakening. Remember how it used to be "we refuse to acknowledge gays, let alone their desire to live together and have children as a family"?

Now, cases are making their way through the courts arguing in favor of the LBGT community (generally under "equal rights" provisions). To quote the NYT Op-Ed linked to this post, "Cases of this sort are already arising in the courts, and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are alarmed."

They are afraid! They are starting to grasp for straws -- anything that will possibly stem the inevitable legally proscribed equality that is on its way. Slowly but surely, It Will Come. Compromise? More like desperate measures.

Final Answer said...

It would be SO much simpler if we could all -- heteros and homos -- just have access to a federally-recognized civil union and leave *marriage* to the churches.

Anonymous said...

Your last question hits on the fundamental tension between the establishment clause and the freedom of religion clauses of teh First Amendment -- something the courts have struggled with since the beginning (ie polygomy, right of parent to refuse medical treatment for children based on Christian Science beliefs, right of religious broadcasters to discriminate in hiring based on religion . . .) Religious beliefs must bend when they conflict with life/death issues and polygomy is outlawed, so maybe civil unions would have to be honored when in conflict with a religious institution. Hey -- let's see what Law and Order says.