Marriage Update/Maggie Gallagher
The Chief Rabbi's eloquent defense of religious liberty:
"There are times when human rights become human wrongs. This happens when rights become more than a defence of human dignity, which is their proper sphere, and become instead a political ideology, relentlessly trampling down everything in their path. This is happening increasingly in Britain, and it is why the Pope's protest against the Equality Bill, whether we agree with it or not, should be taken seriously.
Let me make it clear that I believe homosexuals have rights that need defending. Like Jews, they have been a persecuted minority for far too long. They too, like Jews, were victims of the Holocaust. They have a case that should be heard. . . .
[R]eligious vision burned brightly in the minds of those such as John Locke, who first formulated the idea of rights in the 17th century. It was integral to the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [and] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." John F. Kennedy made a similar statement in his great inaugural address: "The rights of Man come not from the generosity of the State, but from the hand of God."
. . . .using the ideology of human rights to assault religion risks undermining the very foundation of human rights themselves. When a Christian airport worker is banned from wearing a cross, when a nurse is sacked after a role-play exercise in which he suggested that patients pray, when Roman Catholic adoption agencies are forced to close because they do not place children for adoption with same-sex couples and when a Jewish school is told that its religious admissions policy is, not in intent but in effect, racist, we are in dangerous territory indeed."
67 Comments
Now *that's* ecumenism.
Good ideas here. Specifically mentioning Gays should have rights. Note that no religious organizatios have fought to keep rights away from gays. Religion in general is drawing a line around marriage and its meaning. Its not just the meaning, but the entire family will be rededfined. Redefining family redefines laws of nature, society, school curriculum
It is clear the sole objective of the homosexual agenda is to attack 1st amendment religious liberty. We must fight this through our courts and legislative process. Thank you NOM for standing up for religious freedom and liberty.
The only way to protect our families and save our children is through a federal constitutional man-woman marriage amendment. Lets get working on this now to protect our God given religious freedom.
Some great points here by the Rabbi. Truly, with the adoption of gay rights legislation, we are eroding religious freedoms. I really wish my many liberal friends would see this and take the protection of religious freedoms seriously. The vast majority of my friends support gay marriage and I do not because I support religious freedoms. I have always voted as a liberal but I draw the line here because religious freedoms are being eroded. We are "in dangerous territory indeed.”
Some good points, although clearly catering to very liberal secular Jews. The comparison of the persecution of Jews to the persecution of homosexuals is misplaced, if not insulting to Jews. First, homosexuality is a poor personal choice, not an immutable characteristic, a long-held tradition, or one's religion. Second, the rabbi's references to the current persecution of homosexuals have no basis in reality. Homosexuals are NOT persecuted in the U.S. To the contrary, it is the radical homosexual movement that targets and persecutes innocent people because of their moral or religious beliefs.
Finally, homosexuality has very high social costs. Consider the AIDS/HIV and other std epidemics, particuarly high rate of domestic violence in homosexual or lesbian households, rampant pedophilia encouraged by homosexual mainstream media, etc. Giving homosexual or lesbian lifestyle a special status or seal of approval through homosexual or lesbian "marriage" is simply irrational.
I'm with Laura on this, in particular her last paragraph.
It seems that the fear of being called insensitive towards homosexuals has caused defenders of marriage to ignore or omit these very real negative aspects of homosexuality in their arguments. When the cry of homosexuals are "rights," "freedom to love," and "equality," these aspects of homosexuality are difficult to bring up without sounding mean, but they are nonetheless important.
The gay agenda is very smart indeed. There strategy is working as far as the ability to use "rights" "freedom to love" and "equality". These make people feel obligated or feel sorry for them. As people in general feel sorry they overlook the real consequences of unnatural marriage.
Its bad enough that they want to neuter marriage, but to put christianity on trial in order to do it and attack religious freedoms.
If Christianity didn't want to be scrutinized, Christians shouldn't have injected themselves into the debate!
Kevin, no, a bunch of third-rate, otherwise unemployable ACLU lawyers have "injected" Christianity into this discussion. Indeed, they scapegoat Christianity in nearly all of their hateful and ultimately destructive endeavours. They support homosexual or lesbian "marriage" just because they feel it is an insult to Chrisitians. Fortunately, critically thinking people, religious or not, can see right through this sleezy tactic. What recently happened in Mass., NY, and NJ speaks for itself. Congratulations!
Kevinn: We are used to scrutiny from the enemies of Christ, having endured it for a score of centuries. It is sad, in a way, to witness the SSM's massively, radically overplaying their hand, just as those who attempted to intimidate, silence, or destroy the Church in the past have done, with their sails filled with such confidence that the moment had come at last! when the hated Christians were finally on the ropes, finally ready for the coup de grace.......well, Kevinn, we have heard this many times before. We have heard everyone from Nero to Stalin propose to bury us. We have then buried them, and said prayers for their eternal souls as well. You guys have lost, you don't know it yet but you have. The only question is how much devastation you intend to wreak upon your own legitimate interests by going to war against the Church. It is a war you have no chance whatsoever of winning.
Rick,
I think Christians are undoing their own churches. They don't need to worry about outsiders. Ignoring God's word is what is undoing Christians, not anything non-Christians are doing. The Catholic and Mormon churches are doing grave damage to themselves by attacking gays. They will come out less entities for this hateful fight.
Kevin, by the grace of God - Christianity will prevail. NJ, NY, Maine all are on the side of God. We will fight for marriage, we will fight to protect our children, and we will win.
The hardline SSMer's first resort is to namecalling. It is his leap of "faith" but his feet never touch the ground.
Pope,
What about the children of same-sex couples? Why aren't you "fighting" for them? Don't they deserve to have married parents, too? If not, why not?
Kevin, same sex couples don't "have" children -- they have other people's children. If these kids deserve married parents, perhaps you should ask the same-sex couple why they refuse to give it to them.
They're aren't refusing to give it to them, people like YOU are! Infertile straight couples, using your "logic" have other peoples' children, too, yet oddly, they're allowed to get married. THEIR kids get to have the benefits of marriage! So what's the difference between these two groups of children that one deserves married parents, and the other doesn't?
Ummm... the absence of a Father? or of a Mother? If these kids deserve "married parents" then they also deserve both a Mom AND a Dad.
And who is it that is stopping them from having that?
What do your kids think Kevin? Do they love to see you go on Oprah and flaunt your gayness? Do they love it when you bring your lover over, and the next night a different one. A year later swap relationships. The children living with same sex couples are very worried when there parents " come out" They face misery and hopelessness in general. I feel sorry for the children.
Kevin, I'm for laws that will make sure every child is protected from the homosexual agenda by insuring that they will have a mom and a dad.
That's weird, pope, because it's legal in all 50 states for gay people and therefore gay couples, to have and raise children. If you really cared about children, you'd want ALL children to have married parents, not just the children of opposite-sex parents.
Here is a study of 57 children of ssm couples. If you want to find out how kids are responding to their ssm parents or homosexual and lesbian parents read here. Gay kinds of relationships are a big reason the kids have life difficulties. These are kids who are tired of their parents swapping lovers, mad at their parents because they are gay, afraid to have friends come over to their house. Tired of making up stories about their gay parents lover being a friend or uncle. They don't like being teased at school. They want normal natural parents. Read and learn...
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/children-of-homosexual-parents-report-childhood-difficulties-2/
also if parents are gay or lesbian, it doesn't make the kids turn out gay or lesbian, it just confuses the kid so much. How dows a homesexual teach a child about the birds and the bees??? huh? I mean do they teach them the real way or do they say, sex really doesn't matter. How is a teenager supposed to gain any kind of relationship with a father who is a homosexual trying to teach a child he can be homosexual or heterosexual? Which one am I supposed to be dad??? I think I am heterosexual dad, is it true. Follow your heart son. Hmmm. I am not really sure, I think I am bisexual.
Kevin, how can Prop 8 be a fair trial to protect children? News reports (SFGATE) that the Prop 8 Judge is Gay.
Wow.
How can you sit here and only focus on one thing? Gay couples cause a hard life on children by having different relationships? What about a single parent raising children? Do they not bring different people over to meet the children? I hear nothing to fight for those children. They would be doing the same thing as you stated above. Going relationship after relationship until they find one who they marry. It might take one time or it might take twelve. Are you saying people like that should not have children? Or is it you are just afraid they will raise children to have an open mind and accept everyone for who they are and not what they are?
"What about a single parent raising children?"
David, society does not encourage single parenting. It denies children their right to a mom and a dad, and is not the best situation for bringing kids into the world. There are many studies, on this site even, that show this clearly. My view is that if you are not prepared to provide the best you can for children, for their own sake, you should not be bearing children. That's just good common sense. Society encourages only one kind of situation for raising children: Marriage.
Kevinn, I'd point out that it's also legal in all 50 states for people to procreate no matter what their situation in life. We still don't call single moms "married", divorced dads "married", and same sex couples fall right into that category.
pope, you have a link for that story?
"Kevin, how can Prop 8 be a fair trial to protect children? News reports (SFGATE) that the Prop 8 Judge is Gay."
Pope, are you implying that in order for trials to be fair, the judge has to be... what? Straight? The same as the defendants? I don't really get your point here.
"The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL#ixzz0exke4PWC
Emma, it would explain a lot..... like why he was so willing to break federal rules in videotaping the trial, and why he was so anxious to deny the defense their First Amendment rights. He should have recused himself, just to avoid the image of impropriety. As it is, people will always wonder, and assume he made those bad judgments out of an inappropriate personal bias.
Actually, it's not remotely clear that Walker broke any rules in regards to the videotaping. The 9th Circuit had already approved a pilot project on videotaping in the courtroom, as falls within their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's argument (on a 5-4 split decision, of course) was in part that Walker didn't give both sides enough advance notice, or to gather public opinion on the matter. Judge Walker approved the videotaping & notified both sides back in September, and the court received over 130,000 comments from the public, less than 100 of which were anti-videotaping.
I'm not sure what you mean by denying the defense their First Amendment rights. Are you saying that overturning Proposition 8 and allowing gays to marry is itself an infringement on First Amendment rights? There are many churches, and many religious people, who support and condone marriage equality -- by forbidding their congregants to wed, are the Prop-8 people not infringing on THEIR rights?
Emma,
Can you come up with a few good reasons that gay men might have voted Yes on Proposition 8?
Would any educated gay man have good reason to vote Yes? Would any gay man who is a lawyer have good reason to vote Yes?
What do you really think: does having a gay man sit as the sole judge in a bench trial give an advantage to the No side or does it give a disadvantage to the Yes side?
This is one of the reasons we have higher courts. I am not concerned about Judge walker, if anything he probably welcomes a retrial and this time the anti prop 8 side would be able to try once again to broadcast their story to the US. Try and generate more sympathy and "teachable moments". The pro marriage side is wise to let the judge alone with the understanding he doesn't have the final say.
Adam, I agree.
However, Emma's expressed view assumes a few things, I think, and so my questions are about the pro-SSM view of a gay judge sitting in judgement of what SSMers insist is an anti-gay provision in the CA Constitution.
I think that loyalty to a socio-political identity group is sufficient reason for a judge to step aside. In this instance, there are other actions by the judge that place doubt on his impartiality in this particular case.
Another judge would be randomly assigned.
Besides, if a judge goes to the extremes of entertaining 'fact-finding' on personal motivations, he invites the same of his own loyalties and biases. There is a legitimate question of hypocrisy raised by the pro-gay reports of an 'open secret'. Afterall, what is the opposite of animus? Well, the opposite is not impartiality.
"if a judge goes to the extremes of entertaining ‘fact-finding’ on personal motivations, he invites the same of his own loyalties and biases."
Good point. It does make you wonder what the effect would have been if that personal bias had not been an issue.
If I were the activist gay community, I'd be more than a little peeved at this news. There goes any credibility they had.
It is somehow poetic though that for all Judge Walker’s fishing around in the private files of marriage supporters for hints of nefarious motivations that he would actually be the one with skeletons in the closet.
excellent writeup on this from the corner: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzk5N2QzNDAwYmRjMzJlYzRkZTFjOGM1MzVkNjhlZWU%3D&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Noonproph8-NewsFeed+%28NoOnPropH8+-+News+Feed%29
Emma, Do you think someone who "might " be perceived as having a vested interest in the case should recuse themselves?
A judge can act unbiased, ensuring fair treatment of the litigants, and can also provide unbaised reasoning in a written opinion, regardless of personal bias on a given subject.
If that personal bias is too strong, a judge is duty bound to recuse himself.
This is why the judiciary handles particular cases rather than conducts legislative hearings.
That Judge Walker has chosen to make the bench trial very nearly a legislative hearing is a good reason to question his impartiality -- as a judge.
If his performance is partial and the litigants do not get fair treatment, then, the judiciary is duty-bound to remove him.
Note that the litigants are in difficult position since they must proceed with the judge that was assigned to them, and who has not recused, even if they've been treated unfairly. They can, and in this case they have, appealed such a judge's procedural decision-making. They can, and they might in this case, also raise objections on the basis of the judge's partiality.
But what a waste of judicial resources, litigants's resources, and time and effort, for a judge to perform with bias due to personal bias he could have acknowledged at the outset.
If this bench trial is little more than a show trial, it is the fault of the judge, not the litigants. Indeed, even the anti-8 litigants did not expect a 'fact-finding' investigation of personal motivations -- but they took their cue from Judge Walker's early remarks and suggestions.
Setting aside the question of the 'open secret' of his loyalty to the gay identity group, and assuming he is anything but gay, or anything but homosexually inclined, his biased performance lacks a reasonable judicial explanation.
A political explanation, sure. A social policy explanation, again, sure. But that would point toward loyalty to a socio-political identity group.
The Ontario judge who played his part in imposing SSM in Canada was later photographed at a celebratory party of the plaintiffs.
The chief justice of the Massachusetts high court had gone on the record with pro-gay remarks regarding litigation and with very strong hints that an SSM case would be warmly welcomed in her court.
None of this sort of thing should be permitted to impinge on the judicial process. The appearances count. And the bias in Walker's peformance and in the performances of these other judges I mentioned, well, that bias lacks good explanation.
I will add here that at Opine I've said that Judge Walker is likely going to decide in favor of the defendants -- in favor of the CA marriage amendment -- on the question of law. He might express personal reluctance, I dunno, but if he follows the federal precedents that control, he will not presume to over-rule the US Supreme Court.
On the other hand, I have said, he is likely to try to shape the package of facts that he will pass on to the appellate courts. Hence his rather odd attempt to investigate the personal motivations of those who supported the CA marriage amendment in the voting booth. Unfortunately, this is not a good judicial explanation for his biased performance. He has offered only poor excuses for his line of inquiry, for his attempt to broadcast, and for his anti-first amendment intrusions on only the defendants.
Whether or not reports of this 'open secret' are ever validated, the best explanation is extra-judicial. That or utter incompetence, which I rather doubt applies to Judge Walker.
Sure, maybe he should have recused himself. So it'll be appealed either way, just as it would have been otherwise.
But the assumption that a gay judge (originally nominated by President Reagen, and finally appointed by President Bush, I might add) is by definition incapable of rendering a just decision in a gay rights trial... Yeah, I guess if you're against universal equality and he's for it, then you'll interpret that as bias.
I guess you wouldn't have wanted an African-American judge presiding over Brown vs. Board of Education, either, or Loving vs. Virginia. Or a woman presiding over the Lilly Ledbetter case.
I guess you do have a point after all -- only the majority should sit in judgment over the minority.
Emma, you haven't read the post, or the comments if you think that the judge's sexual orientation automatically disqualifies him.
Emma, do you acknowledge that gay identity is a very strong predictor of a person's No vote on Prop 8 than straight identity is a predictor of a person's Yes vote?
Would you not acknowledge that gayness is probably the strongest predictor of how a person feels and thinks about the CA marriage amendment?
Do you truly believe that this is irrelevant when it comes to a bench tril in which the judge has decide to embark on the highly unusual investigation of the personal motivations of the defendants in search of anti-gay animus?
And, as explained earlier, in this instance the actions of the judge have already been rebuked as showing bias. That bias has no good judicial justification; it may have a political or a social-policy justification but that is extra-judicial and ought not to be injected into the trial. The judge's priority has to be to treat the litigants fairly.
We'll have to wait and see if his written opinion (his offered legal reasoning) reflects the bias of his procedural decisions thusfar. I think he is trying to shape the finding of facts, however, appelate judges usually evaluate this themselves and so Judge Walker's influence will probably be very low.
The fact that his actions have already disadvantaged the defendants -- by causing the withdrawal of defense witnesses -- is probably his strongest influence so far.
Chairm, I have to admit, I have no idea what most of your comments mean -- I get lost in your blizzard of words.
I'm not sure what the gist is of your preoccupation with the notion of some gay folks voting yes on 8. What is patently true is that a LOT of straight folks voted no on 8.
Emma,
Do you believe that the odds that a gay person voted Yes is far, far, far lower than that?
Chairm, not only do I not have any idea, but I don't get why you think it matters.
Emma, I doubt that you have no idea on this.
Most SSMers readily concede, indeed often argue on the assumption, that being gay is a very strong predictor -- if not the strongest predictor -- of a person being against the CA marriage amendment.
I've said it before. A person who is secretly-openly gay identified (as the SF Chronicle reported of Walker) is highly likely to be against the defense in this case.
I've said this before too: a person who is gay identified can potentially perform judicial duties impartially and ensure the fair treatment of litigants.
However, Walker has not performed impartially. And it he has chosen to make the bench trial an investigation into personal motivations in search of 'anti-gay' animus. That is very odd. SSMers will shrug and say it is exactly the point of the trial. But that too is very odd since the question of constitutionality does not hinge on personal motivations.
There are other aspects of his performance that raise big questions about Walker's impartiality. And those actions appear before the SF Chronicle's recent report.
Add to all of that the repeated and insistent assertion by SSMers far and wide that to disgree with the SSM argumentation is itself an act of animus, and, well, let's just say you shouldn't expect to have it both ways.
Why would you think it does not matter even to yourself, Emma, given what I have just said?
Chairm:
I said many straight people voted for marriage equality. You said "Do you believe that the odds that a gay person voted Yes is far, far, far lower than that?"
I said I don't know and I don't care. But if pressed, I would say that yes, chances are fewer than 48% of gay Californians voted to take away their own equality under the law.
Again I ask you, what is your point?
If you could keep it succinct, that would be great.
Just being thorough, Emma. Now, instead of repeating your question, clarify it. Thanks.
And, @ February 12 I asked you, Emma, why it doesn't matter to you and you responded by repeating that you don't care about it.
That's not an actual answer, Emma, it is a repeated evasion. You don't care about it. Why?
“However, Walker has not performed impartially. And it he has chosen to make the bench trial an investigation into personal motivations in search of ‘anti-gay’ animus.”
He had no choice! This was part of the plaintiff’s claim: that anti-gay animus motivated putting a referendum on the ballot. He has to determine if the plaintiff’s claim is true or false. As the US Supreme Court noted in Roemer v. Colorado, animosity toward a minority cannot be the foundation for the crafting of a law..
The other case you cited did not entail an investigation into personal motivations. So that's apples to oranges.
And, contrary to your mischaracterization, the plaintiffs don't dictate to the Judge.
This thread was originally about religious liberties. I haven't seen one pro-SSM person address the issue religious liberties at all. Perhaps you don't care?
Chairm,
you like to pose questions directly to specific commenters, so I hope you'll return the favor and respond to this comment.
You've been asking what reason a gay person could have for voting for Prop 8, implying that a gay judge hearing this case would necessarily be biased. However, whether Judge Walker opposed the passage of Prop 8 is irrelevant. Judge Walker could have opposed the passage of Prop 8 yet still conclude that Prop 8’s passage was not barred by the federal constitution. You are conflating two separate questions--“what should be done?” and “what can be done?”
Or am I wrong--is there some way that what you've been repeating over and over really does make sense?
Jennifer, I'll address the issue of religious liberty. I haven't bothered to before, because I know I would be preaching to the choir. You see, even though I support the rights of gay people to marry, I also support the rights of people to hold whatever religious beliefs seem true to them, including the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral. I see no tension at all between these two rights.
Now, I don't believe that people should be able to write their religious views into law. I agree with John Stuart Mill that the only justification for limiting individual liberty is the prevention of harm to others. I support the rights of gay people to marry because I see lots of good and no harm that would come from allowing gay people to marry.
As for the bill being debated in Britain, I've read only one article about it, and based on that, I would agree that the proposed law threatens religious liberty to the extent it penalizes people for preaching what they believe to be true.
To be clear, I must say that I flatly disagree with the idea I've seen advanced on this site that legalizing gay marriage threatens religious liberty.
Dexter, I said that I believe a gay judge could perform impartially even if his personal bias was strong. So you misread and then mischaracterized what I actually said. Re-read my previous remark on that point and I think you'll see this.
* * *
I have asked a fair question that has not been answered by SSMers. Emma has come the closest when she conceded that it is safe to presume that gay people would not have voted "to take away their own equality under the law."
The anti-8 litigators are framing their case in just that way, too. It is not about marriage, but about gayness.
You, Dexter, like Emma and other SSMers, have not said if you can come up with good reasons for a gay person to be in favor of the CA marriage amendment.
I may be mistaken, but that is because you can't think of good reasons that would convince a gay person to agree with the amendment.
You probably consider yourself to be a reasonable person. And well-versed on the subject. Someone who is very empathetic with how gay people feel about this.
So, in your view, is it reasonable to presume that a gay person is against the amendment?
That being gay is a very strong predictor of being against the amendment?
I anticipate that your answers are yes, it is reasonable -- very reasonable -- and, yes, it is being gay is a very strong predictor.
Right?
* * *
Let me know if these are your answers and if you agree with what I actually said in this comment. Then we might proceed to the implications.
There are good reasons, and there are gay people who voted Yes for the CA marriage amendment. And there are gay people who do not support the merger of SSM and marriage.
But the problem that the SSMers have helped identify in this discussion, is that they agree (even if reluctantly in some instances) that it is reasonable to presume that a gay judge is personally against the CA marriage amendment.
That presumption could be completely correct, and judge could still perform impartially in a trial.
That presumption could be completely incorrect, and the judge could still perform partially in a trial.
However, what we do have with Judge Walker is a judge who has performed impartially and, according to the SF Chronicle, who is openly-secretly a gay man.
Has personal bias interfered with his performance in a trial in which he has chosen to conduct an investigation, from the bench, into the personal motivations of the defendants in search of personal animus against gay persons, such as openly-secretly gay judges? That cannot be dismissed out of hand since it is highly plausible, even based on SSM argumentation itself as per the anti-8 litigators approach during this particular trial.
You said it yourself, Chairm -- Judge Walker has performed impartially.
Dexter,
The Rabbi isn't talking strictly about the bill in Britain. He also isn't talking about theoretical future events. "when Roman Catholic adoption agencies are forced to close because they do not place children for adoption with same-sex couples..." (from the article above) is here, in the US, in Massachusetts. Why didn't they create a clause so that Catholic adoption agencies could continue to be consistent with their beliefs and still conduct adoptions?
What do you think of the photographer in New Mexico who was fined $6000 by a judge for turning down a lesbian couple to photograph their commitment ceremony.
How about Yeshiva University? Crystal Dixon?
Religion isn't imposing itself on the state, the state is imposing itself on religion.
Emma, heh, partially.
* * *
Good points, Jennifer.
The topic of religious liberty is not just about churches, as your examples illustrate. It is about the freedom of conscience of individuals and their religious-based organizations. Indeed, freedom of conscience is a direct concern for the irreligious, too.
On one hand we have the marriage issue with its many interconnected implications for all of society. It begins with what makes marriage, marriage. It hardly seems conducive to social peace for the Government to set itself against the major religions in an effort to marginalize the core meaning of marriage as "bigoted".
On the other hand we have this peculiar sectarianism of gay identity politics which seeks to impose its supremacy, through Government force, on all of society. That begins with group identity superseding freedom of conscience. For that project, marriage is just a political vehicle to that end.
Jennifer, I'm not sure if I can respond.
Jennifer
Relax, religious freedom isn’t being threatened when gay people have equal rights with straight people. When religious organizations choose to participate in public life and public services, they are subject to public laws. There is nothing in the Catholic faith that requires the church to place adoptive children. The secular aspects of faith groups are indeed subject to secular law. Same with photographers. Ironically, the New Mexico photographer is violating the Ten Commandments prohibition against making graven images, so it’s a stretch to claim religious discrimination when you’re violating your faith of your own free will. In addition, I suspect the New Mexico photographer would gladly photograph a ceremony involving a person on his second marriage (committing biblical adultery) or the wedding of a non-virgin bride.
Christians, in particular, have become very biblical when it comes to homosexuals, but appear willing to be quite unbiblical for anyone else. Very suspicious!
Kevin,
All your response tells me is that you didn't take my question very seriously. Graven images means idolotry, as in bowing down to false idols (unless you are Amish and take a stricter interpretation). That commandment means don't put any other gods before God.
Many blessings, Jennifer