Connecticut religous groups want same sex exemptions

[Miros]

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-same-sex-battle0421.artapr21,0,7143658.story

Groups Want Faith Exemption On Same-Sex Marriage Issue

By DANIELA ALTIMARI |The Hartford Courant April 21, 2009 Six months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut, opponents are opening a new front in the contentious battle.

Through a high-profile campaign that includes robocalls, TV spots, newspaper ads and messages from the pulpit, the Roman Catholic Church and other groups, both local and national, are making a last-ditch effort to carve out legal protections for business owners and professionals who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

"Freedom of religion [is a] fundamental right that [has] been inscribed in our federal constitution forever," said attorney John Droney, who is providing legal advice to the Knights of Columbus. "It doesn't suddenly get put on the shelf because of this new, emerging right."

The push for a religious exemption in Connecticut is unfolding amid a national debate over gay marriage and the rules that should apply in the four states where it is legal: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Iowa.


The Knights of Columbus, the Catholic Church and the Family Institute of Connecticut are asking the state legislature to create what they are calling a religious liberties exception when it codifies the ruling that legalized gay marriage here. The effort was turned back in the legislature's judiciary committee, but proponents are hoping it will be brought forward on the Senate floor. A vote could come later this week.

What's at stake, these groups say, are the rights of citizens whose religious beliefs teach them that homosexuality is sinful, immoral or wrong. They believe that being forced to play a part in such unions, whether as a wedding photographer documenting the nuptials, a justice of the peace overseeing the ceremony or a marriage therapist providing counseling afterward, violates their right to religious liberty.

Gay rights activists say they wouldn't expect a Catholic priest to solemnize a gay union. But they say businesses and individuals that offer goods and services to the public must abide by anti-discrimination laws and face legal consequences if they do not.

"The United States constitution absolutely protects religious liberties and no one can force any religious organization to recognize any marriage they don't want to recognize," said Chris Edelson, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group.

But, he added, "if you run a business that's open to the public you cannot discriminate."

While it may be unlikely that same-sex couples would seek out a photographer, justice of the peace or counselor who does not support them, those advocating for the faith-based exemption fear business owners and professionals could be the target of lawsuits if they refuse to refuse to participate.

"We disagree with that court ruling and we'll look for opportunities to overturn it," said Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute. "However, the immediate issue before us ... is not same-sex marriage. It is about religious liberty, it is about conscience and it is about protecting the rights of the rest of us."

Over the past few days, Catholics and others who seek such protections are flooding lawmakers with calls, just as they did last month, when the chairmen of the judiciary committee raised and quickly pulled a bill that would have changed the governance structure of the Catholic Church.

"We're facing another attack on our religious liberty," said a letter written by Norwich Bishop Michael Cote and slipped into church bulletins throughout the diocese on Sunday. "It's very serious and has to be stopped now."

Meanwhile, the National Organization for Marriage has launched a $1.5 million television ad campaign "highlighting the threat that same-sex marriage poses to the core civil rights of all Americans who believe in marriage as the union of a husband and wife," the group said. In the ad, which is running in Connecticut and four other states, an actor portrays a member of a New Jersey church group that lost its tax-exempt status because it did not permit a same-sex civil union to take place in its beach pavilion.The group is also conducting a phone campaign.

"There appears to be a determined effort to ignore and disrespect fundamental religious freedoms ... and that's unacceptable," said Patrick Korten, a Knights of Columbus spokesman.

He cited a poll conducted on behalf of his organization by Marist College that showed 70 percent of Connecticut voters disapprove of imposing fines and penalties on public officials who refuse to perform same-sex marriage based on religious objections.

I normally do my best to avoid issues and topics such as this one, however, this may be going too far in my opinion. I can fully understand a person of faith not feeling comfortable about doing a church ceremony for a same sex couple and if I were to get married I know it would be with a government official so I don't have to push any views on a religion. I am a little shocked that businesses now want to deny services such as photography, filming and whatnot to same sex couples especially in this time of the economy.


The only thing I have to say to these people is grow up.

 

[Halifirien]

Agreed, Miros. They can be anti-gay on their own time. If they have a public business, they can get over themselves or find another line of work. The "victims" of the gay-pocalypse in that "Gathering Storm" ad were people who didn't want to obey anti-discrimination laws.

I don't want to see some idiotic religious exemption put into place where doctors can refuse to treat gay patients. We get enough of that from pharmacists who don't want to dole out emergency contraception to women.

 

[Tristam Green]

There's always the alternative for those folks who want their "rights" to deny services to people not like them:

make their own fucking country.

 

[Firestreak]

First we won't be able to marry dudes...
Next no meat on Fridays!!!

DAMN YOU GOD!!!

 

[Bustaballs]

We'll all be murdered if we don't rest on Sundays and we'll have to sell off our daughters into slavery if they don't obey us! I think this is a great idea and I think Miros should be the guy to enforce this.

 

[Tymon]

I didn't read this article entirely, I've read this stuff way too much to keep my attention, so I'll just give my opinion on the issue itself.

I don't think that gay marriage should be forced on churches. There's separation of church and state for a reason.

On that same note, I don't think that those who can legally marry OUTSIDE the church, like a judge, should be able to deny a couple (same sex or not) marriage because of their own PERSONAL faith.

Organizations of a faith, fine. Individuals, no, that doesn't cut it.

Same thing for the other side of the spectrum. That miss california scandal with Perez Hilton comes to mind.

 

[Morwen]

I don't think they realize that, just because we're saying its LEGALLY allowable it doesn't mean it has to become a church edict as well. As those have said before me, they're not recognizing the separation of Church and State.

However, how separated is it? Why do we always have political candidates talking about how they wont do this or that because of their firm belief in God? Why are they not, instead, sticking to the legal issues and facts and solving financial crisis, etc.? Because for some reason we want to ignore one of the biggest things this country was founded on. Politics and government unbound by church dogma. There are plenty of people that I know that follow the Christian faith that clearly recognize that just because CT made it legal to wed there, doesn't mean that the churches have to write it into their bylaws. I'm really not sure why other people can't realize that, either. There are groups of immigrants in this country that don't accept that their wives are anything more than property, they're still following the laws and not making a gigantic stink just because their wives have a right to vote as men do.

You can go ahead and not accept that marriage in the "eyes of God" but they're getting married and they're not getting struck by any fucking lightning so I don't see it as a huge sign that says "THIS IS MY BUSINESS TO HARASS AND ABUSE THESE HAPPILY MARRIED PEOPLE". Loose the knot in your tie guys, breathe and relax.

 

[Dejavu]

The ability to get married should not be stopped by the government… but that is as far as the protection goes. Pastors should have the right to refuse to do the ceremony in their church. Businesses have the right to refuse to service the wedding if they feel like it. Public officials who are acting on behalf of the government should be the only people who are forced to do marry someone because they are no longer a private entity.

Businesses that offer services to the public are not public companies... they are still private.

This is going to be shocking but there will be pastors who are willing to marry gay people… There will be photographers willing to take their pictures… I guarantee the hair stylists will be willing… well almost all. And you know what the businesses who don’t cater to gay people will lose business and overtime as they become less and less competitive they will either start to or they will fail. That to me is the biggest problem I see with people who consider themselves to be progressives is that they are against inequality and they believe the way to fix things is to force it to go the other direction… But you don’t fix things with force… you fix them with choice.

The funny thing about rights and freedoms is everyone thinks that they are a good thing until someone uses their rights and freedoms against them.

Edit... i never thought i would come down on the bible thumpers side on this issue... ever.

 

[Tagrineth]

What strikes me as the most amusing is that there's even precedent for this entire discussion in the interracial marriage scare from the 50s. Fundies were saying the same thing - that God would come down and yadda yadda apocalyptic horseshit.

But I guess if there's one thing you can say pretty clearly about the thumpers, they don't learn from the past.

 

[Dancingweapon]

All I have learned is, who gives a shit about dykes?

Sorry that South Park episode was too fucking funny.

 

[Javir]

The ability to get married should not be stopped by the government… but that is as far as the protection goes. Pastors should have the right to refuse to do the ceremony in their church. Businesses have the right to refuse to service the wedding if they feel like it. Public officials who are acting on behalf of the government should be the only people who are forced to do marry someone because they are no longer a private entity.

Businesses that offer services to the public are not public companies... they are still private.

This is going to be shocking but there will be pastors who are willing to marry gay people… There will be photographers willing to take their pictures… I guarantee the hair stylists will be willing… well almost all. And you know what the businesses who don’t cater to gay people will lose business and overtime as they become less and less competitive they will either start to or they will fail. That to me is the biggest problem I see with people who consider themselves to be progressives is that they are against inequality and they believe the way to fix things is to force it to go the other direction… But you don’t fix things with force… you fix them with choice.

The funny thing about rights and freedoms is everyone thinks that they are a good thing until someone uses their rights and freedoms against them.

Edit... i never thought i would come down on the bible thumpers side on this issue... ever.

Ideally (there's that word, Deja), this would be best. But yet again we have to work with reality in this sort of situation. According to recent polling (don't feel like searching CNN for that right now), approximately 55% of US citizens are against Gay Marriage or Unions. One thing I'm sure you understand is that if you take 55% who give bad word of mouth about companies who cater to one group the majority dislikes, that company will likely end up losing business. Social pressures also play a large factor. For example, people who might not care either way, might vote against the minority to get more of a feeling of doing "what's right".

Ultimately, since humanity largely operates as followers to the strongest voices, legislation for anti-discrimination is a necessary evil and should be blanketed to cover any human being with the capacity to make educated decisions for themselves.

 

[Dejavu]

Ideally (there's that word, Deja), this would be best. But yet again we have to work with reality in this sort of situation. According to recent polling (don't feel like searching CNN for that right now), approximately 55% of US citizens are against Gay Marriage or Unions. One thing I'm sure you understand is that if you take 55% who give bad word of mouth about companies who cater to one group the majority dislikes, that company will likely end up losing business. Social pressures also play a large factor. For example, people who might not care either way, might vote against the minority to get more of a feeling of doing "what's right".

Ultimately, since humanity largely operates as followers to the strongest voices, legislation for anti-discrimination is a necessary evil and should be blanketed to cover any human being with the capacity to make educated decisions for themselves.

In that case... i respectfully disagree...

If there is a need it will be filled. If that means that there are less choices for gay couples then i cant really argue that point there probably will be but there still will be choices. I doubt anyone likes to stand up and say that they make cigarettes because they will be blamed for killing thousands of people but there are people that make them... They make them because there is a profit there. Social pressures may keep some out of the market but the funny thing is that those same social pressures will also create a vacuum that will attract those willing to offer the service. They may end up losing business from the majority but they will get the majority of the business from the minority and probably still get a larger chunk of the pie than without discrimination laws in place.

The funny thing about anti discrimination laws is that they ultimately do exactly the opposite of what is intended. By saying that every business must provide their services to gay couples you make it so they never have to realize how poor of a choice they are making on the matter. With anti discrimination laws they are able to keep their beliefs and maintain a successful business whereas without the laws they would have to chose one or the other. Some would maintain their beliefs and their business would be reduced and some would maintain their business and probably realize that gay marriage isn't the end of the world.

And in case anyone was wondering where i stood on the subject... no anti discrimination laws should exist. If a company wishes to discriminate... let them but also let them live with the consequences when the public chooses to go with another company.

 

[Tomasello]

Ideally (there's that word, Deja), this would be best. But yet again we have to work with reality in this sort of situation. According to recent polling (don't feel like searching CNN for that right now), approximately 55% of US citizens are against Gay Marriage or Unions. One thing I'm sure you understand is that if you take 55% who give bad word of mouth about companies who cater to one group the majority dislikes, that company will likely end up losing business. Social pressures also play a large factor. For example, people who might not care either way, might vote against the minority to get more of a feeling of doing "what's right".

I'm certain its more then 55%. Try another website besides the Communist News Network (CNN) for your information. I apologize for not remembering the specifics but the last time it was voted on recently, on a large scale twenty-something states voted on the gay marriage proposal and every single one said no. Out of the 4 that do allow it, Vermont was the only one that did it through legitimate channels. The three other states used legal trickery from liberal judges to legislate an old law that was NEVER intended to allow gay marriage when it was written over a hundred years ago.

You wonder why issues like this keep coming up? When you try to shove gay marriage down peoples throat of course there's going to be backlash. What the gay community lacks is patience. They want everyone to accept it now. For a concept that was unthinkable 20 years ago its a big pill for some people to swallow. I'm conservative in much of my thinking but I would vote for gay marriage. If two people want to live miserable married lives like all the straight people why not? I really don't understand why gay marriage is a big deal. What I do object to how some radicals have tried to force it onto the law books.

Eventually gay marriage will happen. It's unstoppable, but it needs to be done in a manner that is legitimate in peoples eyes. Through the voting booths not court manipulation. Gay marriage is a phobia of the older generation. They are the predominate voters. When our generation who is far more open to gay marriage start to vote in larger numbers when we get older, slowly but certainly gay marriage will pass in most states. It will unfortunately take more time then most people would like.

 

[Myrid]

I'm certain its more then 55%. Try another website besides the Communist News Network (CNN) for your information. I apologize for not remembering the specifics but the last time it was voted on recently, on a large scale twenty-something states voted on the gay marriage proposal and every single one said no. Out of the 4 that do allow it, Vermont was the only one that did it through legitimate channels. The three other states used legal trickery from liberal judges to legislate an old law that was NEVER intended to allow gay marriage when it was written over a hundred years ago.

You wonder why issues like this keep coming up? When you try to shove gay marriage down peoples throat of course there's going to be backlash. What the gay community lacks is patience. They want everyone to accept it now. For a concept that was unthinkable 20 years ago its a big pill for dome people to swallow. I'm conservative in much of my thinking but I would vote for gay marriage. If two people want to live miserable married lives like all the straight people why not? I really don't understand why gay marriage is a big deal. What I do object to is the why some radicals have tried to force it onto the law books.

Eventually gay marriage will happen. It's unstoppable, but it needs to be done in a manner that is legitimate in peoples eyes. Through the voting booths not court manipulation. Gay marriage is a phobia of the older generation. They are the predominate voters. When our generation who is far more open to gay marriage start to vote in larger numbers when we get older, slowly but certain gay marriage will pass in most states. It's will unfortunately take more time then most people would like.

I dunno

If I were gay and wanted to get married, I'd want to do it before I turned 50 or 60...

I can kind of understand the impatience.

 

[Tomasello]

I dunno

If I were gay and wanted to get married, I'd want to do it before I turned 50 or 60...

I can kind of understand the impatience.

Just because your not married doesn't mean you can't spend every minute of every day with the person your with. People have this crazy idea that things are so different once you say "I do". Then you go home and figure out it was no different then yesterday. Marriage is being united to a person as husband or wife in a consensual relationship recognized by law. What good is being recognized by law if the people resent it? If you do it the right way, the people will embrace it.

 

[Javir]

In that case... i respectfully disagree...

If there is a need it will be filled. If that means that there are less choices for gay couples then i cant really argue that point there probably will be but there still will be choices. I doubt anyone likes to stand up and say that they make cigarettes because they will be blamed for killing thousands of people but there are people that make them... They make them because there is a profit there. Social pressures may keep some out of the market but the funny thing is that those same social pressures will also create a vacuum that will attract those willing to offer the service. They may end up losing business from the majority but they will get the majority of the business from the minority and probably still get a larger chunk of the pie than without discrimination laws in place.

The funny thing about anti discrimination laws is that they ultimately do exactly the opposite of what is intended. By saying that every business must provide their services to gay couples you make it so they never have to realize how poor of a choice they are making on the matter. With anti discrimination laws they are able to keep their beliefs and maintain a successful business whereas without the laws they would have to chose one or the other. Some would maintain their beliefs and their business would be reduced and some would maintain their business and probably realize that gay marriage isn't the end of the world.

And in case anyone was wondering where i stood on the subject... no anti discrimination laws should exist. If a company wishes to discriminate... let them but also let them live with the consequences when the public chooses to go with another company.

Again, sound concepts but you have already forgotten (or purposefully didn't prepare to offer a defense ahead of time) our human corruption and power discussion. I like to think people are inherently good, but again with my sheep analogy, all you need is one voice strong enough above the others. Over and over in history of people dealing with other people, things left too alone end up causing undue harm. A factor you continue to not equate. Yes, humanity should be able to self regulate primarily on a personal level. But that isn't going to happen soon, likely short of something spectacular. Thus ignoring it and not having some sort of effective means to prevent such actions is a failure waiting to happen.

I'm certain its more then 55%. Try another website besides the Communist News Network (CNN) for your information. I apologize for not remembering the specifics but the last time it was voted on recently, on a large scale twenty-something states voted on the gay marriage proposal and every single one said no. Out of the 4 that do allow it, Vermont was the only one that did it through legitimate channels. The three other states used legal trickery from liberal judges to legislate an old law that was NEVER intended to allow gay marriage when it was written over a hundred years ago.

You wonder why issues like this keep coming up? When you try to shove gay marriage down peoples throat of course there's going to be backlash. What the gay community lacks is patience. They want everyone to accept it now. For a concept that was unthinkable 20 years ago its a big pill for some people to swallow. I'm conservative in much of my thinking but I would vote for gay marriage. If two people want to live miserable married lives like all the straight people why not? I really don't understand why gay marriage is a big deal. What I do object to how some radicals have tried to force it onto the law books.

Eventually gay marriage will happen. It's unstoppable, but it needs to be done in a manner that is legitimate in peoples eyes. Through the voting booths not court manipulation. Gay marriage is a phobia of the older generation. They are the predominate voters. When our generation who is far more open to gay marriage start to vote in larger numbers when we get older, slowly but certain gay marriage will pass in most states. It's will unfortunately take more time then most people would like.

Many of these states who try to make gay marriage illegal end up being around 52-60 percent. They made a specific example of 52% for California's prop 8. I would also have to disagree that fighting with the passion and drive that they do as a wrong thing. It's how things get done in this Country most often. African-Americans did it to get long overdue equality. Women did it, again, to get long overdue equality. The gay agenda will only work in the same way. I agree completely that it will be something that will come over time. But it will only likely be through all the efforts being put forth now and until it happens.

Ultimately, the more ridiculously the religious groups fight this, the sooner it will likely happen. Calling themselves victims in need of special protection just shows how weak they consider their position to be.

 

[Dejavu]

Again, sound concepts but you have already forgotten (or purposefully didn't prepare to offer a defense ahead of time) our human corruption and power discussion. I like to think people are inherently good, but again with my sheep analogy, all you need is one voice strong enough above the others. Over and over in history of people dealing with other people, things left too alone end up causing undue harm. A factor you continue to not equate. Yes, humanity should be able to self regulate primarily on a personal level. But that isn't going to happen soon, likely short of something spectacular. Thus ignoring it and not having some sort of effective means to prevent such actions is a failure waiting to happen.

It is just one set of values imposing their will on another set of values ignorant to the fact that neither should have the right to impose their values on the other. All anti discrimination laws are just forcing values upon people albeit a different set of values. Force does not change those values it only galvanizes the opposition which is why this issue has become so polarized. If government got out of the way these issues would be worked out on their own in the market.

I know this sounds idealized but it is the most effective way to fix the situation.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Just because your not married doesn't mean you can't spend every minute of every day with the person your with. People have this crazy idea that things are so different once you say "I do". Then you go home and figure out it was no different then yesterday. Marriage is being united to a person as husband or wife in a consensual relationship recognized by law. What good is being recognized by law if the people resent it? If you do it the right way, the people will embrace it.

Marriage gives a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s property, it gives a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts, it gives a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized, it gives a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated, and it also offers certain tax benefits.

There are several rights and privileges heterosexuals take for granted that homosexuals are denied completely.

 

[Rips]

In that case... i respectfully disagree...


And in case anyone was wondering where i stood on the subject... no anti discrimination laws should exist. If a company wishes to discriminate... let them but also let them live with the consequences when the public chooses to go with another company.

No anti-discrimmination laws? Please re-think this. I am not poking at you, but please re-think this from every angle. At least re-word it if that's not what you meant.

I'm certain its more then 55%. Try another website besides the Communist News Network (CNN) for your information. I apologize for not remembering the specifics but the last time it was voted on recently, on a large scale twenty-something states voted on the gay marriage proposal and every single one said no. Out of the 4 that do allow it, Vermont was the only one that did it through legitimate channels. The three other states used legal trickery from liberal judges to legislate an old law that was NEVER intended to allow gay marriage when it was written over a hundred years ago.


You wonder why issues like this keep coming up? When you try to shove gay marriage down peoples throat of course there's going to be backlash. What the gay community lacks is patience. They want everyone to accept it now. For a concept that was unthinkable 20 years ago its a big pill for some people to swallow. I'm conservative in much of my thinking but I would vote for gay marriage. If two people want to live miserable married lives like all the straight people why not? I really don't understand why gay marriage is a big deal. What I do object to how some radicals have tried to force it onto the law books.

I agree with you on the % part. I think it's in the 60's. I don't think there was tricky business and liberal judges. People presented their case and they won.

There's a lot in this paragraph that you clearly didn't think of. First off, the gay community has been patient. They've been patient for over 40 years now. This isn't something that came out of no where in 2008, this has been going on for decades. They've finally been able to come out of the closet without being beaten and turned away from society, now they just want the RIGHTS within marriage. The key word here is within.

The reason people are fighting for gay rights is not just because they want to be recognized as a married couple, it's because they want (and need) the benefits granted by the government. I can't find them right now, but there's well over 1,000 and some are far more serious then other. I'll come back after and edit.

I'm trying my best not to be biast just because I'm gay, I really am. My main focus when it comes to these things are to get the facts out there. The reason I like to get the facts out there is because they usually best represent homosexuals. Perhaps that's bias. I'll be back to add more later as I read up on it more.

 

[Rips]

Btw Tomasello I'm going to say thank you for wanting to vote for gay marriage but I guess I'm trying to say is that everyone needs to know all the facts before they make decisions and debate.