Friday, October 24, 2008

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?

Monday, October 20, 2008

Marriage...is it really religious anyway?

In light of the upcoming initiative to make marriage defined as a man and a woman in California, I felt it my duty and obligation to post the following. Although I did not write it I believe it to be completely true. My friend Casandra posted this on facebook and I could not have expressed my own sentiment about the issue any better. So rather that write my own I have posted hers. I encourage all those who read this to take it in to consideration and welcome any comments as it is an important issue that will likely effect society any way that it turns out this upcoming election.



I think it is an important question to ask whether this means that marriage is an open institution. First of all, I'd like to say that I believe that "civil unions" (the legal unions of people) should be a government contract and that "marriage" should be a religious contract. I think that would really solve much of the problem. But my ideas are neither here nor there 'cause nobody is ever going to get rid of marriage as a government institution. I think that regardless of how we try as a society to keep things the same, marriage will continue to change. It was only 40 years ago that interracial marriage was illegal (see Love v. Commonwealth of Virginia), and I would argue that very few people today consider interracial marriages a problem. Furthermore, I would argue that interfaith marriages are a pretty recent phenomenon. So, does opening marriage to same-sex couples open a can of worms? I would argue that it is the worm of a previous can.

Unfortunately, I think there's little anybody can do about being called a homophobe or a bigot if they support Proposition 8. Again, I refer back to the civil rights plight of African-Americans. It was commonplace only a few decades ago to view blacks as inferior in every way, but that idea is now shunned and those who support it are ostracized as racists. Less than 40 years ago, it was uncommon to see women in "the workplace" and they were not welcome there, but people who feel that way today are considered sexists. So, I would say that there isn't really anything anyone can do. Society changes (for better or worse) and those who don't change with it are rejected.

I would argue that the "institution of marriage" has already lost all of it's reverence. I think that the divorce rate is a clear indicator that our society's reverence for marriage has been lost. I would argue that gay couples are no less fit to be married and raise families. I think about my family (and the large number of degenerates within it), and then I consider my gay friends, which makes me realize that my degenerate family is far less qualified to (or deserving of) being married and raising a family. If there are going to be qualifications on who can be married, I think there are better benchmarks than gender. This, of course, segues into a much larger discussion about the change in the nuclear family and whether it's been better or worse for society =D.

For those that support Proposition 8, I would invite you to consider how much (or how little) your concerns about gay marriage mirror concerns about interracial marriage. I would invite you to consider the implications of the similarities and whether the concerns are something with which the government should intervene. And I would invite you to consider the role the religion in marriage versus the role of the state in marriage and whether the state can allow something that a religion does not. Please consider where "the church" stands on interracial marriage:

As evidenced by the ever-increasing divorce rate, marriage is simply a difficult process in the best of circumstances. When the complexities and stresses of race differences are added to the situation, it is far more likely that divorce will occur. Therefore, interracial marriages are discouraged by [the Church]. -Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.527) and contemplate how similar or different it is from same-sex marriage.

I would also invite you to consider the implications of not legally protecting same-sex families. For example, what happens to the children if the biological parent dies—is it really fair to not allow their other "parent" to raise them. Or, if a same-sex couple splits, it is really fair to not protect the visitation rights of one of the "parents." If a same-sex couple is raising a family where one "parent" is a home-maker, is it fair that because they are making the sacrifice to care for their family, they should be denied health insurance coverage through their "spouse." The government has placed so much on the marriage contract, that the legal protections and economic benefits are huge. Is is really fair to deny those benefits based on gender?

To those who say, "I believe in equal rights. Just don't call it marriage," I would ask if you would say the same thing in reference to race. Would you feel okay allowing black people to marry, but classify it as "black marriage?" My guess is that most people would find this notion offensive, if not just a little bit silly. I contend that to make this distinction for gay people is no less silly or offensive.