Does Ideology belong in our Justice System?

In response to some of the feedback I received after posting my last blog, I have written a few more things on the subject matter. One response in particular sited sources of people or institutions being sued due to their choices in association or rather choosing not to associate with individuals that are gay and lesbian


Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

The examples listed above are just a few that were cited but reflect the general purpose of the point. Other points brought up were freedom of association, the role of government, and imposing values. My reaction to these points brought up is as follows.


First off, I would like to address the myriad of examples cited as being unintended consequences stemming from this matter. I would argue that these “consequences” are actually intended. These consequences stem not from the proposition but rather laws already on the book. The avenues in which all of the subjects in the examples were allowed to sue were not due to proposition 8, rather anti-discriminatory laws in one form or another. These laws have been in place for a long time and are not set for the sheer purpose of gay and lesbian people. Rather they are set to protect discrimination in all faucets (sex, race, religion, and yes sexual orientation). Whether or not these people win is a different story and reflects the justice system but not the actual law that allows them to sue. I would argue to remove that law would be detrimental to society as a whole.

I would ask you to consider why these laws were placed in the first place and whether you think it a good idea to remove them? If this be the case, think of the unintended consequences here. The intended I imagine would be to allow personal freedom in “association.” The unintended would be the blatant discrimination of people in all walks of life. I would certainly like to think that we have moved pass discrimination in our society but the truth of the matter is we have not. Whether it is race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, people face discrimination everyday and I would ask what your solution would be to the matter if these laws were not on the book? I would also ask you to consider the event that you were turned down for a position because of your Religious leaning. Should you have the right to sue the company? If so, how does this differ from the subjects in the examples right to sue?

Second is the matter of ideology and whether ideology should have a place in our laws and constitution. Laws are meant to be objective and neutral and when specific ideologies (values) are placed in the construction of laws they swiftly become un-objective. Our entire justice system is based on the concept of ruling on not opinions rather evidence of the effect on society as a whole. Regardless of a personal value, our laws and regulations should be based on what is best for society. Unfortunately everyone’s ideas based on their own morals and values differ, thus decisions should be based on not personal ideology and antidotal evidence but rather carfully studied facts and statistics.

I would ask everyone to consider what are the ramifications to our government, justice system, and foundation of this country if we are to begin making judgments based on our own ideologies? I would argue that passing proposition 8 is a terrifying step based what it begins to say on the role of government and people’s basic assess to fundamental rights. My last question is, if we do not protect fundamental rights of people, whom will protect mine or yours when it is attacked? If we begin to erode making sound logical decisions based on facts and statistics for decisions based on “morals and values” then none of us are really protected are we?