Comments on: If they really cared about Ocean Grove…

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:30:57 +0000

So would the Ocean Grove church’s original contract now be illegal under this amendment? Originally, they were obliged to allow public use. Now, no church can be obliged to allow all weddings. Since a wedding is a public use, they conflict. Unless all weddings become exempt from being performed in public spaces.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:51:32 +0000

No way. I am sick and tired of church groups getting off easy on this. If you want to take advantage of the benefits then you need to abide by the rules. It is plain and it is simple.

By: cedlitz

cedlitz — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:03:38 +0000

I am NOT OK with exempting the Methodists in this case. The Green Acres Program in NJ provides money for the development of parks and other such facilities. A condition of the granting of such monies is that the facility be open to ALL. An example is that towns which use Green Acres funds to build (or improve, even)soccer fields cannot limit their use to town residents. If the Methodists (& I am a former Administrative Board Member of a NJ Methodist Church)reneged on the deal, their ownership of that property should not be sufficient to grant them tax free status. Don’t accept State money if you don’t want to play by the rules!

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:56:17 +0000

Dan, you are absolutely correct. We will continue to lose these battles “…until we wise up and present self-interested arguments for voting pro-gay,” as you said.

We’ve become so conditioned to defending against attacks that we don’t seem to know how else to operate. We need to persuasively articulate how full equality for gays would benefit all of society. Unfortunately I’m not sure that this can be conveyed in 30 second ads. I’m inclined to think it would require a broader education effort over time.

If BTB would do a posting on this topic, I’m sure commenters would add lots of good ideas.

By: Aconite

Aconite — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:27:35 +0000

I’m perfectly okay with churches, synagogues, mosques, whatever being free to marry or not marry any couples they choose. I’m not okay with such institutions being permitted to circumvent civil rights laws on the grounds of religious belief.

If the amendment passes in its current wording, and if the wording allows religious institutions to deny equal rights to same-sex couples on grounds of belief (I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not certain the amendment would actually allow such institutions to do so in cases where they take public monies in return for public access), would that not also mean places like Ocean Grove could take public funds and deny, say, Jewish or interracial couples the ability to use the grounds because that offends their religious sensibilities? The wording does not appear to limit discrimination to same-sex marriage, but appears to cover any marriage that “violates [their] belief.”

The wording of the amendment also concerns me because it seems to permit religious institutions to deny marriage benefits–like insurance–to employees with marriages the institution doesn’t approve of. How would you like to discover the Catholic hospital you work at refuses to recognize your divorce and subsequent remarriage?

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:17:23 +0000

The above analysis is legally correct, but politically irrelevant. Frank Schubert has laid out the way he wins: he appeals to the selfish interests of the majority. Our side hasn’t. Accordingly, the self-interested voter understands that he risks nothing personally by voting against equality. At this point, all Schubert has to do is raise some specter of a some risk for voting in favor.

Schubert can use the Ocean Grove example or David Parker’s 5-year old dispute over a schoolbook or a single sentence from an NPR interview with sa sex educator, whatever is handy. It doesn’t have to be entirely true, only plausible.

So regardless of the scope of the religious exemption in any particular legislation, Schubert et al will always use these anecdotes successfully – at least until we wise up and present self-interested arguments for voting pro-gay. Since the wording of the legislation is politically irrelevant, we might as well go for the most narrow exemption possible.

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:08:58 +0000

No. No. In a fair society, you do not get special rights merely because you have an imaginary friend.

TRiG.

By: Jarred

Jarred — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:52:03 +0000

I think this is a bad idea. I foresee every business that wants to discriminate against same sex couples in any way trying to do so by representing themselves as a “church-affiliated organization.”

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:22:21 +0000

Though generally I think any kind of anti-gay legal specialness is against all reason and fairness, I am none-theless inclined to support the idea.

1) It gets us what we want, so it is practical.

2) There still remains free speech and freedom of activity. That enables us to point out very clearly those who discriminate, and not give them our dollars, and to encourage our friends and families not to patronize those businesses and organizations.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:01:08 +0000

Would they still be able to recieve their special tax status for being open to the public? I would not be OK with that in that case – it explicitly says that gays don’t really count as public citizens, that everyone else can enjoy the property that their tax dollars go to maintain, but not the gays.

But yeah, ultimately it’s a small thing and I guess worth a compromise in order to get marriage rights. I just worry that if we start making too many compromises to get to marriage we’ll end up at a state where gay marriages are still second class, even if they have the same title.