Repudiation: Violent Clergy

There are some excellent blogs that cover this topic on an ongoing basis, such as Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, and quite a few atheist blogs.  My purpose is not to attack religion in this post, but to highlight a few examples of religion being used as a cover or an excuse.  So, let's start with the current headlines:

Megachurch Pastor Creflo Dollar is in the news today, arrested for having struck his teenage daughter.

The 15-year-old daughter of megachurch pastor Creflo Dollar told authorities her father choked and punched her, and hit her with his shoe during an argument over whether she could go to a party, according to a police report.

Dollar's 19-year-old daughter corroborated most of her sister's story, but Dollar disputed it, telling a sheriff's deputy he was trying to restrain her when she became disrespectful. When she began to hit back, he wrestled her to the floor and spanked her, according to the police report.

This type of story is not unique to protestant megachurch leaders.  Perhaps the best known ongoing scandal is the Roman Catholic Church cover-up of pedophile priests.

Archbishop Charles Chaput estimates that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has spent more than $11 million on the ongoing clergy abuse crisis and that does not include the trial of Monsignor William Lynn. Chaput stressed that the money to pay the bills will come from the sale of excess property owned by the archdiocese.

Lest it look like I'm just objecting to Christian organizations, let's look at recent news regarding my faith, Judaism.  In fact, Judaism has its own problem with pedophiles and failure to report them.  The Failed Messiah is a blog that pays attention to problems with the Hassidic movement.

Despite frequent examples of rabbis not reporting abuse and rabbis threatening victims who want to report child sexual abuse to police, [Chabad spokesman Rabbi Yaakov] Behrman thinks the law should not be changed in order to make their non-reporting a crime.

This from a man whose own employer, the Chabad-Lubavitch 'news' service, has not written a word about the massive child sexual abuse scandal rocking Chabad's Australian headquarters. In fact, no one from Chabad's International Headquarters in Brooklyn has said anything to condemn or distance itself from the alleged coverup conducted by its Australian headquarters and the intimidation and harassment of alleged victims by Chabad leaders there. And no one – not Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, not Rabbi Avrohom Shemtov, not Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky – have said anything to console or support the alleged victims (of which there are, at this point, at least a dozen vetted by police).

The Chabad community's behavior toward the alleged victims is so offensive that police have condemned it in open court.

There are plentiful examples in other religious communities, but I trust this collection is sufficient to make my point.  Religions are currently being used as places where those who are violent, particularly against children, can hide and can justify their misdeeds.

Many of these same religions have been injecting themselves into politics for the last several election cycles.  The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that the government will not establish a state religion or interfere with the exercise of religious faith, but numerous churches are endeavoring to see their precepts enshrined into our laws even if their institutions are not explicitly "established".

I'm reaching a point where I am thinking that the tax exemption for religious institutions is no longer appropriate.  No, this is not a suggestion that religious freedom be limited, just that collection plates be taxed like any other business income.

I welcome your thoughts, either in comments below or send me an e-mail at TeacherSome@gmail.com

Repudiation: Lawsuit to "Preserve Religious Freedom"

Preserve Religious Freedom -- The Roman Catholic Church

Generally speaking, I have a great deal of admiration for a number of Catholic educators, most of my undergraduate and graduate school professors.  But, the lawsuit their church has filed does not make sense.  Preserve Religious Freedom is the website that explains what the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is doing.

This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs.

The Quaker religion is opposed to wars, all wars.  Yet all Quakers pay taxes that fund the Department of Defense.  There is considerable precedent for funding things that violate religious beliefs.  For the Quakers, there is the conscientious objection to serving.  For members of the RCC, they do not have to participate in those services that they feel violate their beliefs.  Same thing.

The HHS mandate that all employers provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization includes only a narrow exemption for certain organizations that the government deems sufficiently “religious.” The exemption applies only if the government determines that all four of the following criteria are met: the inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization; the organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization; the organization primarily serves persons who share the religious tenets of the organization; and the organization falls within a certain tax code provision defining a narrow subset of religious non-profits.

The opening sentence of this paragraph is erroneous.  The HHS mandate does not include employers providing any drugs or services.  The mandate includes provision of insurance.  Apparently the RCC does not feel that this separation is adequate.  Even upon providing insurance, the decisions regarding whether to use any of these are between the individual and their doctor, not involving the RCC.

Perhaps that is why the RCC objects so strenuously.  They cannot use their influence as an employer to prevent their employees, who may not be members of their faith, from using contraceptives.  An employer, they don't get to dictate their employees' sex lives.

This exemption runs contrary to decades of federal laws that have consistently honored and respected the conscience rights of religious institutions and individuals (see, e.g., http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/Federal-Conscience-Laws.pdf). This radical and narrow definition of what constitutes a “religious employer” attacks religious freedom by defining it away: by extending religious freedom protection only to houses of worship, HHS’s exemption reduces religious freedom to the freedom of worship.

Not at all.  Every individual is still free to follow her or his conscience.  Religious freedom is based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  There is no United States official, established religion.  And the question is whether as an employer the RCC can call dictating healthcare to its employees the free exercise of religion.  To agree with the RCC on this strikes me as "radical".

Dropping down a bit on their Issue page, the argument becomes completely absurd.

Effectively, the mandate prohibits us from asking what we’ve asked for more than 200 years, “Are you hungry?” Now we also have to ask, “Are you Catholic?” To qualify for the exemption, and so to be permitted to follow their beliefs, Catholic institutions may have to stop providing educational opportunities to as many non-Catholics as they currently educate, stop serving as many non-Catholics in need as they currently serve, and stop employing some of the non-Catholic employees they currently employ. But this kind of withdrawal from the world violates our religious commitment to serve all in need without regard to religion.

No.  If the RCC stops providing charity to the general community, that is entirely their choice.  They are not being asked to stop hiring non-Catholics as they are not being asked to force contraception on anyone.  This is a threat to take away their community service, nothing more.  They may even follow through on this threat (they did so when they stopped providing adoption services in Massachusetts in protest of marriage equality, including non-discrimination laws on adoption, in that state).  But the threat is entirely their choice.  Their hand is not being forced by the government.

The exemption also involves an invasive federal government inquiry into an organization’s religious beliefs and practices, conferring powers on government forbidden by the Constitution. Specifically, for an institution to know whether it meets the government’s definition, it must submit to a governmental investigation whereby federal employees determine the religion of those employed and served by the entity, whether their beliefs are the same as the institution, and whether the institution hires and serves “primarily” those of in agreement.

This is the single point where I think that the RCC has valid concerns.  There is a loss of privacy.  I still believe that they, like every business, should be required to open their books to the government.  Determining the employees' religions is not an invasion into the frequency or ardor with which they practice those religions.  It is purely to make a determination of granting an exemption to a standard of care for employees.

Businesses have claimed invasion of privacy when OSHA inspects to determine if working conditions are safe.  I don't see this fear of invasion by the federal government as very different.  Dropping to the end of their issue.

In sum, the HHS mandate jeopardizes religious freedom—a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution—and undermines access to a wide range of social services. Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, and social service agencies are in the business of educating and caring for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. As the President acknowledged, these organizations do “more good for a community than a government program ever could.” The mandate jeopardizes all of these good works by forcing Catholic institutions to violate their religious beliefs.

The RCC is what "jeopardizes all of these good works".  There is no violation of religious beliefs in providing comprehensive insurance to employees.  The lawsuit is a political distraction that will cost taxpayers when the government defends itself.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

FollowUp 1: Claims of Threat to Religious Liberty

This week, Chicago's Francis Cardinal George wrote a column on healthcare.  He makes some claims that are clearly erroneous.

This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations. This is not a voluntary sacrifice. It is the consequence of the already much discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.

Not at all true.  The compromise reached by the Obama Administration includes that health insurance cover what many of those Catholic institutions already cover.  The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is not being asked to give up any institution.

Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

The premise is flawed.  There is no "end of institutions" unless the RCC makes a deliberate choice to end them.  It's touching that so much work went into creating these institutions that are not being terminated by the government.

So far in American history, our government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and of institutional integrity for all the many religious groups that shape our society. The government has not compelled them to perform or pay for what their faith tells them is immoral. That’s what we’ve meant by freedom of religion. That’s what we had believed was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we were foolish to believe so.

First, no one's "freedom of individual conscience" is under threat.  That one is given the option of using contraception does not mean that one must do so.  Individuals are free to choose.  Second, inclusion of contraception in health insurance does not threaten "institutional integrity".  The RCC can still tell its parishioners to not use contraception.  That returns us to the first point, freedom of individual conscience.

This is where it gets a little more interesting.  The Cardinal implies that their employees, including those who are not Roman Catholic, must not be given the choice of whether or not to have contraception available as part of the health insurance provided by their employer.  They want to make all health decisions for their employees, irrespective of that "freedom of individual conscience".

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

No.  Those are ignoring an important choice which involves no change whatsoever for many of the RCC institutions.  That is, allow contraception to be included in the health insurance and simply tell the Roman Catholic employees that you frown upon them using those as much as you frown upon them doing other things that you consider sinful.  That does not require secularization, fines, sales, or closure.

This is an artificial problem, created to stir up political controversy.  The Cardinal wants the RCC to overstep the Establishment Clause and have a greater "institutional voice in public life."

In the public discussion thus far, efforts have been made to isolate the bishops from the Catholic faithful by focusing attention exclusively on “reproductive” issues. But the acrimony could as easily focus next year or the year after on assisted suicide or any other moral issue that can be used to distract attention from the attack on religious liberty. Many will recognize in these moves a tactic now familiar in our public life: those who cannot be co-opted are isolated and then destroyed. The arguments used are both practical and theoretical.

No one is trying to "isolate the bishops from the Catholic faithful".  That is absurd.  This is about public health policy, not about communications with your congregations.

Despite the efforts of the late Jack Kevorkian, assisted suicide remains illegal.  Neither should it be illegal nor should the RCC be limited from preaching against assisted suicide within their churches.  Again, the Cardinal wants the RCC to overstep the Establishment Clause and have a greater "institutional voice in public life."

Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.

Slow down.  "There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows."  I'm not sure that everyone knows that.  Some of the medical reasons are to save the life of the woman taking those medications.  This is what the RCC does not want to insure.

Preaching morality is fine.  Enforcing morality is something else entirely.  The Cardinal is calling for the latter for all of its employees, not just those who are Roman Catholic.

Skipping down several paragraphs:

The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

When organized charity is mixed with denial of medical coverage where the RCC determines what may and may not be covered, then perhaps the RCC should be constrained to those activities that involve only those of their faith.  While I generally oppose restrictions on religions, those religions cannot be allowed to impose their will on those who are not of their faith.

The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church. The bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack.

This is a big lie.  The Cardinal needs to re-read the last sentence of Exodus 20:12.

12 Thou shalt not murder.  
     Thou shalt not commit adultery.  
     Thou shalt not steal.  
     Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

There is no attack against religion.

If you haven’t already purchased the Archdiocesan Directory for 2012, I would suggest you get one as a souvenir. On page L-3, there is a complete list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in Cook and Lake counties. Each entry represents much sacrifice on the part of medical personnel, administrators and religious sponsors. Each name signifies the love of Christ to people of all classes and races and religions. Two Lents from now, unless something changes, that page will be blank.

The only reason for those hospitals and health care institutions to not be listed is if the Cardinal decides that allowing people "freedom of individual conscience" is too dangerous to keep the hospitals and health care institutions open.  Otherwise, this is just a huge scare tactic.  Particularly ugly from one who is supposed to uphold the Ten Commandments.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

6 February 2012: Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

11 March 2012:  FollowUp 2.

Pattern: Claims of Threat to Religious Liberty

The various denominations of Christianity have a tradition of not getting along well.  From outside appearances, a truce is in place.  At least they have agreed to use common language and approach in their claims that President Obama is attacking their religious liberty. That there is no real attack on the practice of religion is immaterial.  Here are a few examples beginning in November 2011, culminating with reactions to the announcement about two weeks ago that contraception must be covered by all health plans:



Evangelical Protestant: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association complains that women's shelters in Colorado lost federal funding because they have mandatory bible study as part of the care for homeless and battered women. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service. He then complains that nurses were being forced to participate in abortions in New Jersey when they were required to care for women before and after abortions, not during the surgery. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health care practice with a church service.



Mormon and Roman Catholic: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich take the same positions. Both claim that Catholic Charities have been forced to curtail their adoption services because they won't serve gay couples. No, they just don't get federal funds if they are going to be bigots. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service.



Evangelical Protestant: Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel complains that the United States and Israel, all of Western Civilization, are threatened by marriage equality, gender equality, and family equality. Somehow if my partner and I can legally wed then Mr. Staver loses his religious liberty; while I gain my religious liberty. This is confusing equality and liberty with a zero sum game.



Roman Catholic: Bishop William Lori complains that the Church are being driven out of health care and adoption services. He is concerned that freedom of worship will replace freedom of religion. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service, then conflating a social service and a church service. One is free to celebrate one's religion, not to impose it on the rest of society.



Mormon: Hannah Smith complains that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.



Roman Catholic: Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and Newt Gingrich complain that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.

The pattern is clear.  The cry that religious liberty is being attacked by President Obama is not likely to abate.  That some might see that requiring that contraception be covered by health plans does not mean that individuals are required to use contraception is not going to slow or stop this allegation of President Obama being anti-religion.

What can or should President Obama do?  My gut reaction is that he should use the bully pulpit and explain both the misunderstanding at hand and why partisan interests are turning this into something that is larger than it ought to be.  Sadly, I don't think it would work.

I think the President is going to have to change this policy into something that is worse for the United States.  Employees who want birth control will have to pay for it out of pocket, if they can afford it.  That the cost of preventive measures is far less than the consequences of not taking those measures is not the issue.  That no one would be forced to use birth control in violation of their religious compass is not the issue.  This is entirely about how the President is perceived.

With that in mind, it is fair to consider additional perceptions.  President Obama, despite periodic allegations, is clearly a Christian.  That should have been obvious from his tumultuous exit from Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.  At some point someone other than the President is going to need to point out that members of the Church of Latter Day Saints do not adhere to the Nicene Creed; they are not considered by most Christians to be Christian.

I don't like playing that kind of politics.  Unless a presidential contender adheres to a religion that is a threat to the United States, the Church of American Dissolution or something dangerous outside of spiritual questions, I don't like using that issue.  Still, those who want to make Mr. Obama a one-term president are already playing religious politics.  To not recognize the politics for what it is could result, if one takes Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney at their words, in a shift toward theocracy.

My hope is that President Obama and his advisers both see what is happening and have ideas for getting out of this religious trap that they have sprung on themselves and avoid the low road that I mentioned.

28 February 2012: FollowUp 1.

11 March 2012:  FollowUp 2.

Repudiation: Patrick Lee on Discrimination

Patrick Lee is a Professor of Philosophy and the Director of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville.  From his university biography:

In this capacity he defends and articulates the Church’s position on a wide range of human life issues through his writings, debates, and public speaking engagements.

On Monday 30 January the Witherspoon Institute published an article by Dr. Lee in which he articulates the Church's position on marriage equality, The Same-Sex “Marriage” Proposal is Unjust Discrimination.

The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.

This opening line (all italic in the original) is the heart of Dr. Lee's argument.  Although no reason is offered, marriage is only real if it is sexual and specifically heterosexual with the possibility of procreation.

The “marriage equality movement”: that’s the name chosen for themselves by same-sex “marriage” supporters. The implicit argument is that the state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is undue discrimination. The claim has an initial plausibility: the state grants a marriage license to John and Mary but not to Jim and Steve. Isn’t that unequal treatment? But this charge, I will show, rests on a profound confusion about both marriage and equality. A state’s recognition that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not unjust. What’s more, a state’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage” does create an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.

Of course, claiming that equality is "arbitrary and invidious discrimination" is silly.  But, let's not rely on my summation.

A law is unjust only if the distinction it creates is not essentially related to a legitimate purpose of law. But whatever one holds about the morality of homosexual acts, it is clear that the state does have an interest in promoting and regulating marriage as traditionally defined, and that the sexual relationships of same-sex couples are distinct in kind from that. So, even if—contrary to fact—the state did have an interest in promoting same-sex sexual relationships, that interest would be different from the one served by promoting marriage. And so the two types of relationships or arrangements should not be lumped together. Moreover, falsely to equate the two is to obscure the nature of marriage.

Obviously, Dr. Lee finds "homosexual acts" to be immoral.  That is his right.  He and his church can and do set their own morality.  Religious morality is not bad unless it is imposed on the rest of society, including those of other religions that hold to a different morality.

I do not believe that government or society should "promote" any particular relationships.  That is not the purpose of government's interest in marriage, but Dr. Lee has a rather different definition of "the nature of marriage".

What is marriage? The traditional view of marriage is: the union of a man and a woman, who have consented to share their lives, on the bodily (sexual), emotional, and spiritual levels, in the kind of community that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together.

Unlike many who oppose equality, Dr. Lee does not make the mistake of declaring this as the biblical view of marriage.  This recent (a little over a century in the United States) traditional view of marriage is still not quite correct.  The last phrase has long been optional.  Children are not a necessary part of marriage, even "traditional marriage".

Two points need emphasis here. First, marriage is a bodily union, as well as emotional and spiritual. For in sexual intercourse—which consummates the marital union—the spouses become biologically one: they complete each other to form a single subject of a single biological action, the kind of action that could procreate, provided conditions outside their conduct are present. This biological union (a procreative-type act) embodies their procreative-type union (provided they have consented to share their lives in that kind of union).

This point is the heart of Dr. Lee's argument.  No other form of sex, just the insertion of the penis of a man into the vagina of a woman, fulfills the bodily union aspect of marriage for Dr. Lee.

Second, marriage is the kind of union whose fruition is procreation. It is the kind of union that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together; the union of the spouses is embodied, prolonged, and enriched by enlarging into family. Still, marriage is not a mere means in relation to procreation, but a sharing of lives (bodily, emotionally, and spiritually) that is good in itself—and so a man and a woman who have consented to such a multi-leveled union are genuinely married, and have an intrinsically fulfilling marital union, even if it turns out they cannot procreate together.

No.  This may be the Roman Catholic view of marriage, but it is not the government's view of marriage.  The Supreme Court of the United States found in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 that married couples have a right to privacy regarding contraception.  While this case is often thought of in terms of unreasonable search and seizure, it was the basis for Lawrence v. Texas which overturned most laws prohibiting same gender sexual activity.  Elderly persons, beyond child-bearing years, and those who are known to be infertile are welcome to wed in the United States.

Now of course not all agree with the traditional definition of marriage. But the point I want to make is simply this: marriage, as traditionally defined, is a distinct type of community and not an arbitrary set. Unmarried cohabitators have a different type of relationship. Alliances to raise children also are not necessarily marriages: a group of celibate religious women running an orphanage, for example, are not married. And, plainly, same-sex sexual relationships are a different kind of relationship: they cannot become biologically one, nor is their relationship of the kind that would find its fruition in conceiving, bearing, and raising children together. (True, same-sex partners can form an alliance to raise children—for example, those from a previous marriage or produced by artificial reproduction; but that alliance is not an extension or prolongation of a bodily-emotional-spiritual union already begun, as is the case in marriage.)

No one outside of Catholicism objects to the Roman Catholic Church restricting marriage to opposite gender couples, those who might procreate.  But we do object to extending that restriction to the rest of society.  He goes on to address how this applies to government.

Now it is precisely the distinctive features of marriage that ground the state’s interest in promoting and regulating it, and that make the general strength or health of marriage a public good. First, marriage is a distinctive way in which men and women are fulfilled, an irreducible aspect of their flourishing, and one that can be easily misunderstood. And so marriage needs cultural support—and can be harmed by cultural confusion about it. Clarity within the general culture about the value and nature of marriage enables young men and women, as well as those already married, to participate more fully than they otherwise would in this distinctive good—just as a clear public understanding of health or learning assists individuals and families to participate more fully in those goods.

While Dr. Lee is correct in each of these points, it is also correct to extend each point beyond the limitation of opposite gender couples.  Same gender couples may find marriage fulfilling, which is why many wed when it is legal to do so.  Cultural support enhances the stability of any relationship.

Let's not forget that sexual activity is healthy.  This is not limited to the nature of one's sexual partner.  In the 1990s, the British Medical Journal found that men who have more orgasms live longer.  Sexual activity is good for women as well.  A study out of South Korea indicates that well being is enhanced among the elderly when they are sexually active.

Second, while good in itself, and not a mere means to an extrinsic end, marriage also provides the crucial social function of encouraging parents (and potential parents) to commit to each other and to whatever children they may have. A healthy and strong marriage culture will provide the safest and healthiest environment for children. For these reasons it is in everyone’s interest for the state to promote a sound understanding of marriage, and certainly to avoid obscuring its nature.

Indeed, this is true, but not just for opposite gender couples.  See my post on All Children Matter.  It is in the interest of the state to promote healthy marriages, where there is love and commitment for the sake of the couple and for the sake of children if there are any.  So far, Dr. Lee has argued that heterosexual sex is the only bodily union appropriate for marriage which is based on procreation.  The rest of the article compares homosexual couples to polygamous groups and to adult-child relationships, all while claiming that he is not arguing about a slippery slope.

Since a same-sex couple is unable to form the kind of union marriage is, not granting same-sex couples marriage licenses is simply a decision by the state not to engage in a confusing and harmful fiction. Marriage is a certain kind of union. Denying a marriage license—or the privileges, protections, and obligations of marriage—to those who are unable to marry is not unjust discrimination. The state denies marriage licenses to threesomes or foursomes (refraining from declaring polyamorous groups marriages) and denies marriage licenses to twelve-year-olds (requiring valid consent for a marriage). These denials are not unjust because threesomes, foursomes, and twelve-year-olds are unable to form the kind of union that marriage is. But the same is true of same-sex couples. So, just as the distinction between eighteen-year-olds and twelve-year-olds is relevant to the purpose of marriage—because the former but not the latter are actually able to form the union that is marriage—in the same way, the distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is relevant to the purpose of the marriage laws, because the former but not the latter can actually form the kind of union that marriage is.

Marriage for a couple, whether of the same gender or opposite gender, is not a fiction.  This is obviously part of where it is Dr. Lee who is confused.  Saying that same gender couples are "unable to marry" does not make it so.

Comparing homosexual couples with polygamists (who traditionally have usually been heterosexual in their polyamory) and pedophiles (who are usually seeking those of the opposite gender) is ugly and inaccurate.  The insinuation is, of course, endeavoring to set up a slippery slope argument that if we allow marriage equality for homosexuals then see what they will ask for next.

The biggest problem with pedophilia is that it is inherently coercive, involving children in sexual activity for which their are neither mentally nor physically prepared.  Same gender couples seeking to wed are adults who are able to reasonably give their consent, both mentally and physically on the same level as opposite gender couples who seek to wed.

The two biggest problems with polygamy are coercion of children not ready for marriage (sounds like pedophilia again) and legal complexities.  Same gender couples are not pedophiles (see my last paragraph) and have none of the legal complexities of polygamy.  In fact, the only change from opposite gender marriage is that both individuals are the same gender.  Nothing else changes from a legal perspective.

According to same-sex “marriage” proponents, the public interest served by marriage laws is the stability of households. For example, in striking down California’s pro-marriage constitutional amendment called Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker claimed: “The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.” Stability of households might of course be a legitimate public aim, but laws to promote that (and to provide benefits and privileges for stable households as such) are not marriage laws. Such laws, benefits, and so on, would—if applied justly—have to be given also to groups who do not have sexual relationships and groups not pledging permanence and exclusivity.

No.  Laws that promote stability of households are not religious marriage laws.  Dr. Lee is confusing the concept of holy matrimony within a religion and civil marriage.

The reasons for the state to encourage stability of same gender households do relate to permanence and exclusivity.  Monogamous couples results in a more stable tax structure with greater home ownership, reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and greater societal cohesion resulting from that stability.

Clearly, though, same-sex “marriage” supporters want much more than certain benefits and privileges. Discussion of concrete benefits such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and so on, is really a side issue—such benefits could be secured by other means for individuals who need them (for example, a durable power of attorney for health care, a will, etc.). Nor—contrary to how it is usually portrayed—is the same-sex marriage proposal aimed at tolerance, since persons with same-sex attractions are already free to engage in private sexual behavior and to establish for themselves long-term romantic and sexual relationships. Rather, what proponents of same-sex “marriage” principally desire is the social affirmation and endorsement of homosexual relationships as such. Judge Walker indicated this point clearly in his Proposition 8 decision: “Plaintiffs [some same-sex couples] seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships . . . . Perry and Stier seek to be spouses; they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage.”

There is a law suit under way right now in New Jersey because endeavoring to enact concrete benefits such as hospital visitation and such failed under a non-marriage approach called civil unions.  Inheritance rights are blocks on the national level by the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that legislates discrimination and prevents the IRS from granting equal tax consequences to same gender couples.

So, the proposal is for the state to promote something called marriage, and that marriage is to be understood in a way that will include same-sex partners. This sounds like old news. But what, on their view, is the thing called “marriage,” and why should the state promote it? What distinguishes marital unions from others, such that the state should promote them? One cannot just pronounce that these couples will now count as married; there must be something one means by “being married,” something held in common by all married couples. But the same-sex “marriage” position cannot provide a coherent account of what that something is.

Love and commitment are a coherent and common bedrock to all real marriage.  That Dr. Lee cannot imagine that my partner and I have a bond of love and commitment is Dr. Lee's failing, not ours.

If marriage is not a bodily, emotional, and spiritual union of a man and a woman, of the kind that would be fulfilled by procreation, then what makes a union marriage and why should the state support it? It is not simply a union that is formed by a wedding ceremony: that would be a circular definition. Nor is every romantic and sexual relationship a marriage, and certainly there is no point in the state promoting all such relationships. Perhaps one will say that it is a stable, committed, and exclusive romantic-sexual relationship. But how stable would a romantic-sexual relationship need to be in order to be a marriage? Suppose John and Mary have a romantic-sexual relationship while college students but plan to go their separate ways after graduation: is that stable enough to be a marriage? If not, why not?

Marriage is a bodily, emotional, spiritual, and legal union of two persons.  Gender designation is not required.  Procreation is not required.  A ceremony is not required.  Marriage does imply stability, unlike Dr. Lee's college student example.

Or suppose Joe, Jim, and Steve have a committed, stable, romantic-sexual relationship among themselves—a polyamorous relationship. On what ground can the state promote the relationship between couples, but not the relationship among Joe, Jim, and Steve? The argument here is not a slippery slope one. Rather, the point is: There must be some non-arbitrary features shared by relationships that the state promotes which make them apt for public promotion, and make it fair for the state not to promote in the same way other relationships lacking those features. Without this the distinction is invidious discrimination. The conjugal understanding of marriage has a clear answer: (a) marriage is a distinct basic human good, that needs social support and that uniquely provides important social functions; (b) marriage’s organic bodily union and inherent orientation to procreation distinguish it from other relationships similar in superficial respects to it. But the same-sex marriage proposal’s conception of marriage has no answer. In fact, its conception of marriage is actually an arbitrarily selected class, and so the enactment of this proposal would be unjust.

Polygamy, whether heterosexual or homosexual or some combination thereof, is not my issue.  It is a complex legal consideration, particularly when it comes to issues of divorce and inheritance.  And Dr. Lee is wrong; he is using this as a slippery slope argument.  I, above, and many others have given a clear concept of marriage that Dr. Lee does not accept because as soon as heterosexual procreation is removed he does not acknowledge that there is a valid relationship, particularly not a marriage.  That is fine for Dr. Lee and for his church, but not acceptable for the whole of society.

The problem is not solved if one adds to one’s description or definition of marriage, that it must be a permanent commitment (as Judge Margaret Marshall did in her decision striking down Massachusetts’ marriage law: “It is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage”). For it is fair to ask: why should the commitment be exclusive and permanent? The college students’ relationship (lacking permanence) and the celibate monks’ relationship (lacking exclusivity—others can join the religious order), both form households and contribute to social stability. In contrast, the conjugal understanding of marriage allows a clear answer to these questions: since marriage is a bodily and procreative-type union, and an irreducible basic good, it is non-arbitrarily distinct from other types of relationships. The promotion of this kind of relationship, for its own sake (because it is a basic good), and for the sake of children generally (since a strong marriage culture provides a safe haven for children), makes it in accord with justice to recognize, as marriage, only a relationship between a man and a woman, pledged to be permanent and exclusive. The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.

Commitment and love are at the heart of marriage.  Judge Marshall was correct.  Dr. Lee is welcome to a heterosexual and procreative marriage.  No one is trying to deny him that.  If my partner and I wed, marriage is enhanced without harm to Dr. Lee or any heterosexual couple.  That his narrow definition of marriage cannot encompass loving couples who are of the same gender is Dr. Lee's flaw.  Love is not a zero sum game, we all benefit when there is more.

FollowUp 3: California's SB-48

Here we go again.  Social conservatives are again trying to get rid of California's SB-48, The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act.  I wrote about the details of this law which mandates inclusion and respectful teaching of various minority groups.  There was an attempt to put a repeal of SB-48 on the November 2012 California ballot which failed.

Now Stop SB-48 is trying yet again to put a repeal of SB-48 on the November 2012 California ballot.

Capitol Resource Family Impact along with other pro-family individuals and organizations remain committed to the goal of reversing SB 48, California’s so-called “gay history” bill. Today, a broad coalition of sponsors filed an initiative with the California Attorney General designed to reverse the overreaching aspects of that legislation.

When he signed SB 48 into law this past July, Governor Jerry Brown rationalized his actions with the claim that “History must be honest.” But the bill he signed specifically required an incomplete and inaccurate presentation in all social science classes in our public schools.

No.  That was not just a rationalization.  There is no requirement that history be taught in an incomplete or inaccurate way.

Senate Bill 48 required curriculum that is positive toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other minority figures. But it also prohibited curriculum that reflects adversely on the same groups. The Los Angeles Times condemned the new law by noting, “Real history is richer and more complicated than feel-good depictions.”

No, that's not what the bill says.  It says that texts and instruction shall not contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

By way of a parallel example, a text can be critical of a church for instigating a particular war but cannot use that example in a way that reflects adversely upon members of that religion.  In specific, a text can cite the Roman Catholic Church as causing many deaths in the Crusades, but cannot do so in a fashion that reflects adversely on Christians or Catholics.

In contrast, the initiative presented today assures that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other minority figures are not excluded from inclusion in California curriculum while requiring accurate historical portrayals of all individuals.

No.  The initiative to repeal SB-48 removes the requirement of inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender figures as well as Pacific Islanders, persons with disabilities, and other cultural minorities.

Jack Hibbs, one of the sponsors, noted SB 48 simply went too far. “We all know that the issue of homosexuality is controversial. It is unacceptable to require that our schools shine a spotlight on this lifestyle on the one hand and then demand that history books and teachers censor shortcomings on the other.”

This is one of the reasons that SB-48 is so important.  Homosexuality should not be controversial.  People are whatever sexuality they are and it is part of who a person is.  If homosexuality is the course of study, then it is reasonable to look at shortcomings, but that is not what SB-48 is about.  It is about acknowledging that great people in history, like Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde, are presented as whole people including that each was a homosexual.  There is no need to slur homosexuals when talking about individuals who are of that group.

Kevin Snider of Pacific Justice Institute Center for Public Policy believes the proposed initiative provides an appropriate balance. “We drafted an initiative that responds to the perception that some want to ignore the contributions of certain individuals. This initiative prohibits history book exclusion of anybody based on their membership in a protected class. But it requires an accurate, historical portrayal of any individual.”

Accuracy is good.  There is nothing in SB-48 that prevents accuracy.  It prevents a lecture on the supposed evils of homosexuality when discussing historic figures who were homosexual.  Mr. Hibbs and Mr. Snider are upset because they cannot use history as a launching ground for religious-based bigotry in public classrooms.

They will have twice as many times to gather signatures this time as they had in their first petition attempt.  Despite what they say, this is about repeal of a bill that brings fairness and balance into textbooks and into history and social studies curricula.

The State of California has put up an SB-48 FAQ webpage.  I'm sure those who are opposed to equality will not both to read it.  Why let a short page of facts get in the way of a bigoted rant.

12 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

23 October 2011, FollowUp 1.

28 November 2011, FollowUp 2.

28 January 2012, FollowUp 4.

Repudiation: Bishops of Illinois Choose Bigotry instead of Helping Children

As of June, Illinois allows Civil Unions for same sex couples.  While the usual bigots complained, the law was enacted in January and has been in effect for about half a year as of this writing.

"We are showing the world that the people of Illinois believe in equality for all," [Governor] Quinn said January 31. "We look forward to individuals and businesses from across the country choosing to move to Illinois where we believe that everyone is entitled to the same rights."

The law includes a number of areas where homosexuals are granted equal rights.

These rights include automatic hospital visitation rights, the ability to make emergency medical decisions for partners, the ability to share a room in a nursing home, adoption and parental rights, pension benefits, inheritance rights and the right to dispose of a partner's remains, the governor's office said.

One problem, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, is equality for adoption and parental rights.  The Roman Catholic Church has been paid by taxpayers for decades as a contracted provider of foster care services and adoption services.  Allowing a loving family who are gay to be foster parents or adoptive parents was impossible for them to tolerate.

So far, so good.  They have the right to believe what they want to believe.  They also have the right to provide adoption services without taxpayer subsidies if they choose to not follow the law.  But, by July they chose to file a lawsuit instead, claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated.  This was silly, of course, as the law meant that they either had to stop being bigots or they could continue their bigotry without taxpayer money.

Today they withdrew the lawsuit and wrote a lengthy complaint about the attack on faith-base agencies and "traditional" marriage.  I will rebut parts of their sob story.

“The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the State of Illinois has made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Bishop Edward K. Braxton of Belleville, and Bishop R. Daniel Conlon of Joliet.

“Since we now need to close offices and lay off employees, further appeals would be moot,” the bishops said.

Translation:  They were not going to win this lawsuit.  The Church says it is financially impossible to continue to help children on the same day that they are bidding a huge amount of money for the Crystal Cathedral in California.  Is it really about the money?

The [Department of Children and Family Services] told the agencies that it was ending their contracts over their alleged refusal to obey the 2011 Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, which established legal privileges for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in civil unions.

The Church could have accepted the equality of Illinois citizens, but chose to not do so.

In a Nov. 14 statement, Breen said the situation “stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising 'religious protection' in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises.”

In their remarks, the bishops noted how the Church has “successfully partnered with the State for half a century” and lamented the fact that the “the losers will be the children, foster care families and adoptive parents who will no longer have the option of Catholic, faith-based services.”

The Roman Catholic Church did not lose any religious protection.  They still have the right to worship as they see fit.  They still have the right to include or exclude whoever they wish from their religious activities.  The services that they contracted with the state of Illinois to provide were not religious services.  The Church made choices which were not necessary for them to maintain their religious integrity.

“We are sad to lose the dedicated employees who have served our Catholic foster care and adoption services so faithfully for so many years,” the bishops added. “We are grateful to them and reluctantly bid them farewell with our prayers and best wishes.”

Bishop Paprocki clarified that despite the loss of foster care and adoption services in his diocese, “our Catholic Charities in the Diocese Springfield in Illinois will continue to address the basic human needs of the poor in central Illinois in other ways.”

“The silver lining of this decision is that our Catholic Charities going forward will be able to focus on being more Catholic and more charitable,” he said, “while less dependent on government funding and less encumbered by intrusive state policies.”

Their former employees will find work taking care of children who are still very much in need of foster and adoptive services.  The employer will simply no longer be the Roman Catholic Church.  That silver lining is a move to what should be the case, religious work should not be subsidized by taxpayers.  That which is subsidized by taxpayers should not be discriminatory.

The news of the decision to close the programs follows the Nov. 11 announcement by the Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois that will it separate from the Belleville diocese and offer adoptions and foster-care services to same-sex couples.

The Catholic Social Services agency, which had been operating at the Belleville diocese since 1947, said that it will now be called Christian Social Services of Illinois.

This is interesting.  Some Catholics care enough about the children that they will abide by civil law, even if it means a formal split with the Roman Catholic Church.  Not all Catholics are happy about this.  They write, in part

[P]erhaps the leaders of what is now “Christian Social Services” never really believed the Church’s teachings regarding the damage done to children raised in homosexual households. The Vatican says that placing adoptive children with same-sex couples is a form of violence against those children.

Let's clear this up right away.  Children tend to do as well with same sex parents as they do with opposite sex parents.  The Vatican is telling a big lie.  Back to the original article.

Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Illinois Catholic Conference, summarized what he believes to be the underlying problem in remarks to CNA on Nov. 11.

What “you're seeing at the state level in Illinois, what you're seeing at the national level in Washington, D.C., is a consistent promulgation of policies and laws that are making it very difficult for faith-based agencies that believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Gilligan said.

Isn't it funny that the Bible is filled with marriages of one man and many women.  I suppose that the Roman Catholic Church hasn't read their Bible in a while.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Praise: California Transgender Laws

Transgender, the 'T' in LGBTQ, is the toughest in sexuality for many of us to understand.  If one is straight, gay, or lesbian, then the sexual orientation is very clear.  No confusion.  If one is bi, then either gender is attractive and, while others are confused, the bi individual can be as comfortable with herself or himself as a straight, gay, or lesbian person.  People who are transgender are not comfortable with who they appear to be.  For anyone who is comfortable in their own skin (other than the details like wanting to lose a few pounds), it doesn't make sense that someone might not be as comfortable with themselves.

Not easily understanding another person, of course, does not make it right to discriminate.  California has two new laws as of 10 October, the Gender Nondiscrimination Act and the Vital Statistics Modernization Act.  There are articles on these at the Huffington Post and at Care2 (among others).  The Gender Nondiscrimination Act deals with gender identity and expression, which clarifies existing non-discrimination laws and makes transgender persons a protected class.  The Vital Statistics Modernization Act lets a person update their ID with their doctor's verification and without the need for proof of surgery.  San Francisco's Transgender Law Center is hailing both laws as huge victories.

It would be wonderful to live in a world where this was a non-issue.  Sadly, those who hate and fear are not going away.  Catholic Online does not approve of equality.  Here are the last two paragraphs of their article:

The laws mark the latest in a round of increasingly government sponsored changes to the culture in California. As the state steadily moves away from the two parent, heterosexual marriage - and the family and society founded upon it - it is apparently trying to stand out as a leader in promoting the homosexual equivalency movement and a cultural revolution.

While few will argue against equality and legal protection for all citizens, critics say the new laws are much more than that. They reflect a fundmantal [sic] re-making of of the social order and an erosion of the marriage bound, heterosexual, two parent family as the foundation for civil society in America.

Like sexuality, being transgender is not a choice.  The only choice for such a person is whether to go through a major surgery to bring their body into alignment with their identity.  This is not just my opinion, but that of the American Psychological Association in a lengthy (106 page) study.  Among the reports recommendations are:

• Amend the Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Harassment sections in the APA Policies and Procedures Manual to include gender identity and gender expression.
• Ensure that all APA policies that make reference to gender identity be amended to include gender expression as well.

The American Medical Association also opposes discrimination against transgender persons.  We can only hope that eventually we can move beyond the hate and fear that makes such policies necessary.

Praise: Metropolitan Community Churches

Today's Huffington Post has an article by Nancy Wilson, the head of the Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC).  Dr. Wilson focuses on the different approaches to sexuality and charity between the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and MCC.  Before continuing, I should note that I am Jewish and take no religious side between any of the factions of Christianity.

The only reason that this caught my eye is because the RCC has been regularly attempting to influence American politics.  The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States begins with

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Read liberally, there is little to prevent any religious body from attempting to influence U.S. politics.  The First Amendment ensures that the United States will not be a theocracy and will favor no religion more than any other.  So far so good.

It should be no surprise that religions and, in the case of the MCC and the RCC, factions of a religion do not always agree.  The MCC welcomes people as full equals, requiring only faith in Jesus, without regard to sexuality.  The RCC, as evidenced by a letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to President Obama, does not welcome people as equals.

Of course, there is no rule that says that any religion has to welcome everyone.  I would be opposed to any such outside rule.  The First Amendment is a great guide ... let religions act for themselves, not by government directive.  If a religion wants to welcome only people who are over six feet tall, of Asian ancestry, and natural red-heads, that should be their right (although the congregation is probably going to be fairly small).

But even as the government should not going butting into the internal rules of a religion, I would like the opposite to be true.  Sadly, it is not.  In addition to the RCC, many evangelical protestant organizations attempt to sway politics, like the Liberty Counsel, affiliated with the church of the late Jerry Falwell, the American Family Association, originally Methodist and now the church of Bryan Fischer, and some non-Christian groups like the Orthodox/Hassidic Jews of Brooklyn.

It is refreshing that Dr. Wilson is speaking against the bigotry of the RCC:

As the head of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) with churches in 40 countries, I can tell you that church dictates against gay people cause real harm, and I will not stay silent. I speak because Jesus sided with the poor and socially outcast people who were daily excoriated by the religious leaders of his day.

Would that she did not have a reason to do speak against the RCC.  I'll give Dr. Wilson the last word on this, from the end of her article:

Bishop Dolan! Catholic officials! Listen to your people. More Catholics in the pews support marriage equality than any other Christian faith group. Bishop Dolan, hit the restart button on the Gospel. You don't have to read between the lines to know that we are called to love and serve, not judge and condemn. I call that good news.