http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA

A) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4941377&page=1

Let’s disregard for a moment that this really has nothing to do with gays marrying, and everything to do with anti-gay-marriage activists wanting to play the victim.

This invokes a case that began in 1999, in a San Diego womens’ clinic. Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian, went through surgeries and hormone treatments in preparation to be artificially inseminated. When it came time for the procedure, the doctors refused to perform it on her.

Two reasons have been offered by the doctors for refusing to provide Benitez with services like any other patient: 1) They disagree with homosexuality on a religious basis; and 2) Benitez, though in a committed, stable relationship with another woman, is technically “single” in a legal sense–unmarried (at this time, I’m unsure whether same-sex couples could wed in California, but I don’t think they could). The second is just an excuse and a distraction, obviously.

The doctors claim they have a constitutional right to refuse treatment to Benitez because they disagree with homosexuality on a religious basis.

The thing is, there’s a non-discrimination law in California. “Though doctors can decline to perform abortion and pharmacists can refuse to sell birth control under ‘conscience clauses,’ [i.e. religious reasons] Lambda argues that the doctors at North Coast discriminated against ‘people, not procedures.’” (ABC)

See the difference?

Also, insurance companies in California are not required to pay for in-vitro fertilization. Benitez’s insurance had an exclusive contract with this particular medical clinic. Because these doctors refused, Benitez ended up having to go to another clinic and pay out of her own pocket.

To be fair, I should note that the doctor’s lawyer claims that “[the doctor] found a competent specialist for the couple at another clinic and even offered to pay the cost difference.” If this is true, however, I’m not sure why it’s not discussed at more length within the court proceedings. Also, even if it’s true, it still would leave Benitez at the mercy of this doctor–which brings up a whole host of new problems.

B) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
http://www.oceangroveunited.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey

This refers to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), which isn’t exactly a church group–though it is affiliated.

The OGCMA owned and operated a beachfront pavilion in Ocean Grove, New Jersey. It was open to the public, so long as the interested parties reserved it in advance. However, when a lesbian couple wanted to use it for their commitment/civil union ceremony, they were refused because the affiliated church disagrees with homosexuality.

The couple filed a civil rights complaint, and investigation revealed that the OGCMA had filed an application to the “state’s Green Acres Program, which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association reportedly stated that the disputed areas were open to the public.” (Wiki)

Also, “the boardwalk and beachfront were held in a 1908 ruling to be exempt from property tax because they ‘had been dedicated years ago by the association as a public highway’.” (Wiki)

So basically, the OGCMA wanted to take public money (collected from taxpayers, including gays and lesbians) to maintain their pavilion — but only serve a portion of the public. When you step into the public realm and take public money, you cannot discriminate.

C) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
http://www.lexingtoncares.org/EstabrookFactSheet.html

This refers to David Parker, whose child started kindergarten at Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, MA.

Estabrook sent home “Diversity Book Bags,” which contained, among other books, King and King by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland. This children’s story focuses on a prince whose mother the Queen insists he marry. She introduces him to a great number of princesses, but the prince eventually falls in love with another prince. They get married and live happily ever after. (It’s actually a really cute book and there’s nothing remotely ‘adult’ about it.)

Parker became angry that his child was exposed to this book, and demands his child be pulled out of any class which may mention homosexuality. In an email to the Estabrook principal, Parker writes: “You are not permitted to infringe upon our religious beliefs and parental rights…to exclude our son from material that would expose him to beliefs contrary to the Word of God in our Christian faith.”

Estabrook is a public school. Public schools serve everyone and as such cannot cater to a specific portion of the population. Teaching about diversity must be inclusive and cannot specifically exclude gays or lesbians. If Mr. Parker didn’t want his child learning the public school’s curriculum, he would need to either send his child to a private school, or move to another school system. If something was truly objectionable, he would need to take it up with the Department of Education.

This is not what Mr. Parker did. He harrassed the school’s principal and stormed into the school, refusing to leave until his demands were met. The school’s officials tried to convince him to leave on his own. Even when the police were called, everyone tried to get him to leave on his own. Lexingtoncares.org says, “About 6:30 PM, when the police inform Mr. Parker that the building has to be secured for the night; he replies, ‘If I’m not under arrest, I’m not leaving.’” So he was eventually arrested.

Some debate might still be open — should parents be allowed to pull their children out of classes that teach something that is against their religion (or discuss things they find objectionable for religious/moral reasons)? For example, should parents be able to keep teachers from teaching students about evolution because it contradicts some Christians’ view of the earth’s creation? What about anatomy courses that discuss sex organs? Literature courses that examine Greek and Roman myths and legends? History classes that note unflattering actions taken by the medieval Catholic church?

One thing’s for certain: no public schools are going to be “promoting” homosexuality or trying to change your child’s religious beliefs. Schools are for teaching WHAT exists; it’s a parent’s job to teach WHY something exists and HOW one should go about reacting and thinking about it.

The truth is that there are many, many happy gay and lesbian couples who live normal lives. This is a fact that shouldn’t threaten you — unless you’re teaching your children to hate and revile everything homosexual, in which case I think we’ve got some additional issues to discuss.

NO doctor should EVER be forced to end
a human life . It violates not only, in this
case, one's deeply held religious beliefs,
but the Hippocratic Oath as well . The woman
was NOT his patient. He did not agree to
treat her - instead graciously referred her
to other doctors . He was not rude - he was
cordial and helpful . SHE was vindictive intolerant
and cruel. Rather than
respect his beliefs and his convictions ( as
we should as Americans ) and move on
- she chose to try to
destroy his livelihood .

My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.