We usually think that Charles Krauthammer is on target and today we think so doubly. The gay marriage debate and how that will effect religion was brought to the fore in a recent television interview. In the following post, the political commentator asserts that the current cases in front of the Supreme Court are just the first step against religion.
We agree, however, we would take it several steps further.
Krauthammer uses the example of married student housing at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution. Should gay marriage proponents win, it is conceivable that the University would be sued to allow all gay and non-heterosexual "couples" the ability to live in these apartments. In this case, the proponents would win. That is true as far as that goes.
This attack on religion, if the proponents of gay marriage win at the Supreme Court, will go further. What would happen if a certain church, minister, rabbi, imam, pastor or sect decided that they would NOT marry non-heterosexuals? Could they be legally forced to do so? The State does license religious leaders to do marriages, could it take away that right if the individual or religion would not allow gay marriage?
Where do the rights of the religion end and the rights of the individuals begin? Are there rights that are limited to individuals (marrying for example) and those that are reserved to the institutions (setting rules, policies for the practitioners of the religion? .Where does the public welfare come into this discussion? Could a member of the clergy be sent to jail for not performing a gay wedding? Lots of questions, few answers.
Does freedom of religion apply ONLY to individuals and not the institutions to which they belong? Such is the argument the Obama Administration is using in regard to ObamaCrapCare. It is saying that the individual has the right to determine if they want to use contraceptives and abortions, however, the company or church (as in Hobby Lobby or the Catholic Church) must pay for them through their health insurance regardless of the teachings of the religion the owners follow.
We are very concerned that should this ruling go the wrong way that we will see religions and their members prosecuted for following their beliefs. This is not good and it does not bode well for the United States as the only place in the world where you can practice your religion without fear of government intervention.
Conservative Tom
We agree, however, we would take it several steps further.
Krauthammer uses the example of married student housing at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution. Should gay marriage proponents win, it is conceivable that the University would be sued to allow all gay and non-heterosexual "couples" the ability to live in these apartments. In this case, the proponents would win. That is true as far as that goes.
This attack on religion, if the proponents of gay marriage win at the Supreme Court, will go further. What would happen if a certain church, minister, rabbi, imam, pastor or sect decided that they would NOT marry non-heterosexuals? Could they be legally forced to do so? The State does license religious leaders to do marriages, could it take away that right if the individual or religion would not allow gay marriage?
Where do the rights of the religion end and the rights of the individuals begin? Are there rights that are limited to individuals (marrying for example) and those that are reserved to the institutions (setting rules, policies for the practitioners of the religion? .Where does the public welfare come into this discussion? Could a member of the clergy be sent to jail for not performing a gay wedding? Lots of questions, few answers.
Does freedom of religion apply ONLY to individuals and not the institutions to which they belong? Such is the argument the Obama Administration is using in regard to ObamaCrapCare. It is saying that the individual has the right to determine if they want to use contraceptives and abortions, however, the company or church (as in Hobby Lobby or the Catholic Church) must pay for them through their health insurance regardless of the teachings of the religion the owners follow.
We are very concerned that should this ruling go the wrong way that we will see religions and their members prosecuted for following their beliefs. This is not good and it does not bode well for the United States as the only place in the world where you can practice your religion without fear of government intervention.
Conservative Tom
KRAUTHAMMER WARNS: GAY MARRIAGE CASE COULD LEAD TO ALL-OUT ‘ASSAULT ON RELIGION’
Syndicated columnist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer said this week that the gay marriage case before the Supreme Court could be the first step to an “assault on religion.”
“It gets really sticky,” Krauthammer said on “Inside Washington.” “If the court were to decide that to deny same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, then you got Georgetown University – a Jesuit university [that has] married student housing. It’s a Catholic university. So it says it’s only going to allow heterosexuals, it will get sued. It will become an assault on religion. And the religions, which I think are sincere in their beliefs, are going to be under assault and under attack.”
After it was pointed out that same-sex marriage is already legal in Washington, D.C., where Georgetown is located, Krauthammer said the issue would be national.
“It will be sued everywhere in the country if it’s declared to be a constitutional right, because it would imply that anybody who opposes it does it only out of bigotry, for no other reason,” he said.
Fact-checking…
ReplyDeleteHere is their nondiscrimination statement:
"Georgetown University provides housing to undergraduate students without regard to, and does not discriminate on the basis of, age, color, disability, family responsibilities, familial status, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, national origin, personal appearance, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, source of income, veteran’s status or any other factor prohibited by law in its educational programs and activities."
http://housing.georgetown.edu/academic/dsp_nondiscrimination.cfm
----------
This Krauthammer guy might have picked a different university. Georgetown does not discriminate against gays. I wonder if he can even find one Catholic university in the U.S. that has a prohibition against gay married couples in their housing policy. I doubt it.
Also, you should read the U.S. district court opinion that denied the Hobby Lobby an injunction. Religious organizations get an exemption from the Obamacare mandate. Secular, for-profit corporation do not. Only individuals, churches, and religious organizations have religious protection under the First Amendment -- not secular, for-profit corporations. Hobby Lobby was also already denied an injunction by the U.S. Supreme Court.
--David
This statement from Georgetown does not involve married student housing!
ReplyDelete10th district is hearing the Hobby Lobby.
Why should a secular organization not get the same exemption. Do they not have freedom of religion?
another source--yours are dated!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/hobby-lobby-obamacare_n_2759780.html
"This statement from Georgetown does not involve married student housing!"
ReplyDeleteYes, it does. Read it. It says they will not discriminate on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. If they had a prohibition on gay married couples in their housing policy -- which they do not -- they would be discriminating on the basis of both marital status and sexual orientation by treating gay and hetero married couples differently.
"Why should a secular organization not get the same exemption. Do they not have freedom of religion?"
No, they do not, because they are not a religious organization. Secular corporations are non-religious in their core purpose and activity. Only individuals, churches, and religious organizations are protected under the First Amendment (at least until the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to reverse precedents). If you want to see all the case law, go read the U.S. district court opinion in denying the injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court also denied the injunction.
"another source--yours are dated!"
Quoting from YOUR source:
"The Obama administration has issued several versions of the birth control mandate in attempts to quell religious objections. The most recent, released earlier this month, exempts religious entities. Employees at religious non-profit organizations like hospitals can still obtain contraceptive coverage but only through a separate plan offered by the employers' insurance plan and provided at no cost to the firm or the worker. For-profit companies like Hobby Lobby, however, are subject to the rule."
That is the same thing I said.
--David
David, Obama could write anything but it does NOT have the basis of law. Only laws passed by Congress are!
ReplyDeleteIf he can write anything and it automatically becomes law, he is a dictator, not a president.
As far as Hobby Lobby, the owners (individuals) have the freedom of religion, they cannot be forced to break their beliefs regardless of what the "group" wants him/her to do.
>David, Obama could write anything but it does NOT have the basis of law. Only laws passed by Congress are!
ReplyDeleteObama didn't write anything. The federal agency (HHS) wrote this rule, and it has the force of law as much as legislation passed by Congress. This is an area of law called "administrative law." We were discussing the same thing a week or so ago in the context of Dodd-Frank, which left it to the CFTC to make the rules that will ultimately govern Wall Street derivative traders. When (if ever!) the CFTC ever manages to write these rules, the Wall Street banks will be legally obligated to follow them. The same applies to the rule-making authority of HHS, FDA, EPA, and other federal agencies.
"As far as Hobby Lobby, the owners (individuals) have the freedom of religion, they cannot be forced to break their beliefs regardless of what the "group" wants him/her to do."
You really should read the district court opinion so that we can have an informed discussion on this point. It makes a clear distinction between the Greens and their corporation. They have the right. Their corporation does not. I will try to summarize it for you. A corporation is a legal "person" for some purposes. A non-profit, religious organization and a secular, for-profit corporation are different legal entities. The religious organization has religious purposes and activities that enjoy the right of protection under the First Amendment. The secular, for-profit corporation has no such religious character. Their core purpose is simply to sell products/services for profit -- not practice a religious faith. The fact that a for-profit, secular corporation happens to be owned by a religious individual does not make that corporation a religious organization. This distinction would probably make more sense to you, if you read the district court opinion and the case law it cites.
--David