Also on Thursday, July 10, I attended a panel hosted by the Family Research Council. The name of the panel discussion was California Same-Sex Marriage: The impact on Religious Liberty. There were 5 panelists:
Professor Teresa Stanton Collett - University of St. Thomas School of Law
Nathan J. Diament – Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Benjamin Bull – Alliance Defense Fund
Professor Chai R. Feldblum – Georgetown University Law Center
Kevin J. Seamus Hasson – Becket fund for Religious Liberty
The panelists made their addresses in the order listed above. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, made opening remarks and presented the debated question: Is homosexual marriage and religious liberty on a crash course?
Professor Teresa Stanton Collett
Professor Collett began the discussion with comments on the free exercise clause. The clause comes from the first amendment of the constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Prof. Collett told a story about Massachusetts resident, David Parker. Below is the story in Mr. Parker’s own words:
[1]Statement by David Parker (April 27, 2005):
“I, David Parker, am the father of a kindergarten student at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Since the beginning of this school year, my wife and I have learned that school materials and discussions about gay-headed households/same-sex union issues have been exposed to the children. There are definitive plans to increase the teacher/staff/adult mediated discussions of these subjects.
“We have officially stated on many occasions—to the Lexington school administration—a request that we be notified when these discussions are planned, and want our 6-year-old opted out of such situations when arising “spontaneously.”
“Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I, insisted that such accommodation be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would be arrested.”
From this incident Prof. Collett concluded that the free exercise of religion and homosexual marriage are on a crash course. She said that religion will be discriminated against and the free exercise clause will not protect religious people.
Nathan J. Diament
Mr. Diament focused his discussion on real and hypothetical situations. He believes clergy will not be prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality. On the other hand, he says that it’s only a matter of time till churches lose their tax exempt status for this kind of teaching. One of the real situations he mentioned referenced the Boy Scouts. They have made a rule against openly homosexual scout leaders and have received a lot of flack.
His foreshadowing included the town clerk who will refuse to give marriage licenses to homosexuals, the photographer who will refuse to take pictures at a homosexual wedding, the health-club owner who will refuse to admit an open homosexual, or the hotel owner who will refuse to give rooms to homosexual couples. He said that laws must be crafted in a way to accommodate religious people.
Benjamin Bull
Dr. Bull spoke about the three prong tactic of homosexual activists in the wake of the California Supreme Court decision. 1.) Because California has no residency laws, homosexuals will get married in California and seek legal recognition in their home states. 2.) Homosexuals that get married in California will also seek divorce in their home states because a divorce implies that you were legally married. 3.) Homosexual activists will also use the California decision as president in other state courts. He also mentioned some real and hypothetical cases in which religious liberties were clashing with homosexual activism.
Professor Chai R. Feldblum
Prof. Feldblum received a special welcome from FRC President, Tony Perkins, because she was the only dissenting opinion on the panel. She grew up as an Orthodox Jew. Her religion was intertwined with her life. She said if someone had told her she did not have to perform the Jewish rituals to be a Jew, she would have thought they were crazy! She knew that she could not be a Jew without action! She said that religion means action! In other words, you cannot separate status and action. This is the reason she had to eventually denounce her childhood faith. As a lesbian, she understands that she cannot be a lesbian unless she is having sex with women – status linked to action. Therefore, she could not be a Jew and be a lesbian because having sex with women directly violated the Jewish faith!
Because of her religious background, she is not mainstream in her homosexual activism. She said it angers her when her homosexual friends exclaim that, “Christians should just get over it” (referring to homosexual rights). Christians can’t just get over it, she tells them! You don’t say to someone who feels like their facilitating sin, “just get over it!”
As you can see, Prof. Feldblum understands both sides because she has had experience in both. Therefore, she wants to see a level headed approach to the issue of homosexual marriage. Most gay-rights activists are reacting to the extremism of the religious right. And most of the religious right is reacting to the extremism of gay-rights activists. Prof. Feldblum said that if the debate continues down this path, it will only lead to a clash between religious liberty and homosexual rights. However, she said, if these groups come to the table to converse with the intent to compromise, both religious rights and homosexual rights will be protected. She does not deny that there will be differences in opinion, but she believes that both groups have similar liberty concerns.
Kevin J. Seamus Hasson
Dr. Hasson gave a history lesson on where America has come concerning religious liberty. He started with the Massachusetts Bay Colony as an example of what happened when religious people oppressed others. The colony did not have very much respect for pluralism. In fact, people were branded on the hand and on the forehead for what sin they participated in – “D” for drunk, “A” for adulterer, and so on. Obviously, this practice was abandoned as inappropriate. He also mentioned how the Quakers were persecuted for refusing to serve in the military in times of war. The Quaker’s conscience prohibited them from killing people, no matter what. Eventually the Quakers were given the right to opt out of military service because of their conscientious objection.
With this background, Dr. Hasson came back to the issue of homosexual marriage. He said that this American tradition of conscientious objection should be upheld in the legislatures. If homosexuals are given rights, courts can’t sift through all the exemptions that need to be put in place for religious people. Courts were established to interpret the law, not make the law, Dr. Hasson said. If the courts make the law, then religious liberty will be encroached upon.
[1] http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html
Professor Teresa Stanton Collett - University of St. Thomas School of Law
Nathan J. Diament – Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Benjamin Bull – Alliance Defense Fund
Professor Chai R. Feldblum – Georgetown University Law Center
Kevin J. Seamus Hasson – Becket fund for Religious Liberty
The panelists made their addresses in the order listed above. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, made opening remarks and presented the debated question: Is homosexual marriage and religious liberty on a crash course?
Professor Teresa Stanton Collett
Professor Collett began the discussion with comments on the free exercise clause. The clause comes from the first amendment of the constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Prof. Collett told a story about Massachusetts resident, David Parker. Below is the story in Mr. Parker’s own words:
[1]Statement by David Parker (April 27, 2005):
“I, David Parker, am the father of a kindergarten student at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Since the beginning of this school year, my wife and I have learned that school materials and discussions about gay-headed households/same-sex union issues have been exposed to the children. There are definitive plans to increase the teacher/staff/adult mediated discussions of these subjects.
“We have officially stated on many occasions—to the Lexington school administration—a request that we be notified when these discussions are planned, and want our 6-year-old opted out of such situations when arising “spontaneously.”
“Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I, insisted that such accommodation be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would be arrested.”
From this incident Prof. Collett concluded that the free exercise of religion and homosexual marriage are on a crash course. She said that religion will be discriminated against and the free exercise clause will not protect religious people.
Nathan J. Diament
Mr. Diament focused his discussion on real and hypothetical situations. He believes clergy will not be prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality. On the other hand, he says that it’s only a matter of time till churches lose their tax exempt status for this kind of teaching. One of the real situations he mentioned referenced the Boy Scouts. They have made a rule against openly homosexual scout leaders and have received a lot of flack.
His foreshadowing included the town clerk who will refuse to give marriage licenses to homosexuals, the photographer who will refuse to take pictures at a homosexual wedding, the health-club owner who will refuse to admit an open homosexual, or the hotel owner who will refuse to give rooms to homosexual couples. He said that laws must be crafted in a way to accommodate religious people.
Benjamin Bull
Dr. Bull spoke about the three prong tactic of homosexual activists in the wake of the California Supreme Court decision. 1.) Because California has no residency laws, homosexuals will get married in California and seek legal recognition in their home states. 2.) Homosexuals that get married in California will also seek divorce in their home states because a divorce implies that you were legally married. 3.) Homosexual activists will also use the California decision as president in other state courts. He also mentioned some real and hypothetical cases in which religious liberties were clashing with homosexual activism.
Professor Chai R. Feldblum
Prof. Feldblum received a special welcome from FRC President, Tony Perkins, because she was the only dissenting opinion on the panel. She grew up as an Orthodox Jew. Her religion was intertwined with her life. She said if someone had told her she did not have to perform the Jewish rituals to be a Jew, she would have thought they were crazy! She knew that she could not be a Jew without action! She said that religion means action! In other words, you cannot separate status and action. This is the reason she had to eventually denounce her childhood faith. As a lesbian, she understands that she cannot be a lesbian unless she is having sex with women – status linked to action. Therefore, she could not be a Jew and be a lesbian because having sex with women directly violated the Jewish faith!
Because of her religious background, she is not mainstream in her homosexual activism. She said it angers her when her homosexual friends exclaim that, “Christians should just get over it” (referring to homosexual rights). Christians can’t just get over it, she tells them! You don’t say to someone who feels like their facilitating sin, “just get over it!”
As you can see, Prof. Feldblum understands both sides because she has had experience in both. Therefore, she wants to see a level headed approach to the issue of homosexual marriage. Most gay-rights activists are reacting to the extremism of the religious right. And most of the religious right is reacting to the extremism of gay-rights activists. Prof. Feldblum said that if the debate continues down this path, it will only lead to a clash between religious liberty and homosexual rights. However, she said, if these groups come to the table to converse with the intent to compromise, both religious rights and homosexual rights will be protected. She does not deny that there will be differences in opinion, but she believes that both groups have similar liberty concerns.
Kevin J. Seamus Hasson
Dr. Hasson gave a history lesson on where America has come concerning religious liberty. He started with the Massachusetts Bay Colony as an example of what happened when religious people oppressed others. The colony did not have very much respect for pluralism. In fact, people were branded on the hand and on the forehead for what sin they participated in – “D” for drunk, “A” for adulterer, and so on. Obviously, this practice was abandoned as inappropriate. He also mentioned how the Quakers were persecuted for refusing to serve in the military in times of war. The Quaker’s conscience prohibited them from killing people, no matter what. Eventually the Quakers were given the right to opt out of military service because of their conscientious objection.
With this background, Dr. Hasson came back to the issue of homosexual marriage. He said that this American tradition of conscientious objection should be upheld in the legislatures. If homosexuals are given rights, courts can’t sift through all the exemptions that need to be put in place for religious people. Courts were established to interpret the law, not make the law, Dr. Hasson said. If the courts make the law, then religious liberty will be encroached upon.
[1] http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html
1 comment:
Mr. Smith; Why is it that I can't print more than the first two pages of your articuls? I get one page with Mr. Smith goes to Washington on it then one page with part of the articul. Thank you W.J.S.
Post a Comment