SL Tribune & Heritage Foundation Discussion

The Tribune reported on both sides of the issues following Elder Oaks' comments about religious freedom. It is worth reading to see particularly where some of our rights have already been harmed. For those that believe churches will not be affected by same-sex marriage, I suggest you read the whole article. And for those readers who do not trust the Deseret News may feel it is more objective - the Trib tends to be a very liberal news source. (Don't kid yourself - media is biased and "yellow journalism" is no longer the concern it once was.) These online articles tend to only be available on line for a time, then you would need to search in the archives but click on this post title or here to read the article. It was on the list of most popular articles. It is very sad to me that freedom of speech apparently only applies to certain sides of an argument. And now people should be able to see the reasons for our fears. We are losing freedoms right and left. There is a lot to read here, but it's worth it to go to the sites directly.

Some cited situations:

» The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, owned by a Methodist church in New Jersey, rented out its beachside pavilion to various groups. The church declined to allow a lesbian couple to use the pavilion for their civil-union ceremony. Local authorities stripped the association of its exemption from property taxes and billed it $20,000.

» The Salvation Army lost $3.5 million in social-service contracts with San Francisco because it refused, on religious grounds, to provide benefits to same-sex partners of its employees.

» Catholic Charities of Maine was forced to either extend employee benefits to registered same-sex couples or lose eligibility to all city housing and development funds.

» A pair of Christians who co-own Elaine Photography in New Mexico refused to take photos for a lesbian commitment ceremony. The lesbian couple filed a complaint with New Mexico's Human Rights Commission, which found the photographers guilty of discrimination and levied a $6,000 fine. To head off looming lawsuits, religious-liberty experts suggest writing religious exemptions for individuals and religiously connected businesses into same-sex-marriage laws.

Perhaps the most emotion-packed issue is what to teach children. A Massachusetts case became a rallying cry for Prop 8 proponents and is being used again in the publicity surrounding Maine's ballot measure. Robb and Robin Wirthlin, an LDS couple in Lexington, Mass., were horrified to learn that their son's second-grade teacher read aloud a fairy tale, called King and King, about a prince who falls in love with and marries another prince. When the Wirthlins objected, they were told the school had no obligation to give them notice so their son could opt out.

Such situations are likely to multiply as same-sex-marriage laws are passed. "Children are likely to encounter textbooks and other educational materials in which same-sex marriages are portrayed as a normal and unexceptional part of society," says Fred Gedicks, who teaches law at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University.

"That will make it more difficult for those who oppose same-sex marriages to teach their children conservative values, especially in school districts that are not sensitive to parental rights by allowing them to opt out of certain activities or parts of the curriculum."

Read here about the Price of Proposition 8 by Thomas M Messner, a Visiting Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.at the Heritage Foundation. It's a long article but for those who want more than the liberal headlines, it's worth reading.

Abstract: Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.

"Because of the California donor disclosure law, some Prop 8 supporters have become targets without ever placing a sign in their yard, putting a sticker on their car, or appearing at a public rally. These more public forms of support for Prop 8 certainly generated plenty of animosity, as documented below. However, many individuals became targets for harassment, intimidation, and reprisals simply for donating $100 or more in support of Prop 8....

When people stand firmly by their beliefs about marriage as the union of husband and wife despite facing social stigmatization, economic hardship, and other reprisals, they provide an important example of civic courage and inspire particular vir­tues that are essential to the proper functioning of any free and open society. The freedom of parties on both sides of the marriage debate to voice their views and to promote them in public policy should be respected."

Read here about what's happening in Maine. I'll add one quote from the article:

"If Proposition 1 fails and the new law goes into effect, the following text (and more just like it) will be deleted from Maine’s code of laws: “The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society,” and the State of Maine “has a compelling interest to nurture and promote [this] unique institution . . . in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children.” This language was put into Maine’s code of laws just a dozen years ago.

If the people of Maine no longer believe the statement just quoted, then by all means they should eliminate it. Is it possible, though, that Mainers don’t believe that man-woman marriage is of “inestimable value” to society, and to children in particular?