Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Minnesota for Marriage is Lying Again

Rob Tisinai

July 11th, 2012

Anti-gay activists revel in irrelevance. We see it when they condemn same-sex parenting with studies that have nothing to do with same-sex parenting. And now Minnesota for Marriage (M4M) is doing it again as they try to scare us with the dangers of marriage equality. They’ve posted yet another dishonest video. This one says:

What kind of issues would professionals face if marriage is redefined?

Well, doctors, psychologists, social workers, counselors and other professionals who conscientiously object to same-sex marriage could face a range of potential consequences, including license revocation and lawsuits leading to the potential loss of their ability to make a living.

For example, in California, a Christian physician specializing in fertility services who believed that children need a mother and a father refused to provide fertility services to a lesbian couple. Now even though the physician did offer to refer the couple to other physicians who would willingly serve them, the couple still sued the physician and her employer, and won in court. If the marriage protection amendment passes, the moral convictions of professionals in Minnesota will be protected.

They’ve chosen an odd example to make their point. You know why? Because the California case had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

They’re referring to Guadalupe Benitez and her dispute with North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. Ms. Benitez first filed suit in 2001, long before California opened a brief window for same-sex marriage, and the state Supreme Court based its 2008 decision on the Unruh Act, which forbids sexual orientation discrimination in California. Yep — it was about discrimination, not marriage.

Think about that. M4M created (one would assume) the most convincing case possible. It chose (one might expect) the most compelling example available. And yet it failed (one can be certain) to present any relevant facts to back up its claim.

This is common among those who clang the danger bell at the prospect of marriage equality. They cite the Ocean Grove Camp ministry, even though it occurred in a state without same-sex marriage (and ultimately affirmed the right of churches to discriminate!). They cite the New Mexico photographer who was fined for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, even though New Mexico doesn’t allow same-sex marriage.

All these cases turned on discrimination law, not same-sex marriage. Our opponents don’t like to admit that. They lose voter support when the issue’s framed that way; lots of folk who aren’t sure about marriage equality are dead-set against discrimination. But mainly, I think, they cloud this issue to keep it from highlighting the dishonesty in their approach — and why make a dishonest case when an honest one is available? I think that question answers itself.

Speaking of dishonesty, let’s look at that last sentence in the M4M quote:

If the marriage protection amendment passes, the moral convictions of professionals in Minnesota will be protected.

Sorry. Even if you ignore their loaded and dubious language, the fact remains that Minnesota has a law prohibiting orientation-based health care discrimination. The proposed marriage amendment changes that not one bit. But why would M4M make such a blatantly dishonest claim if –

Never mind. We just covered that.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Timothy Kincaid
July 11th, 2012 | LINK

Now even though the physician did offer to refer the couple to other physicians who would willingly serve them…

More lies. Yes they made a referral… to a clinic that wasn’t covered by her health plan and which cost her thousands of dollars.

I might possibly be receptive to the idea that they should not be forced to perform services that contradict their beliefs, IF THEY HADN’T ALREADY TAKEN MONEY TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICES. If your religion says that you can only provide services to people you like, then you’d better be operating a cash business and not benefiting from the work of her hands (remember insurance is part of a compensation package).

jpeckjr
July 11th, 2012 | LINK

They cite discrination cases because (1) those are the only ones available to cite, since courts have been ruling in favor of marriage equality, and (2) the same people who oppose marriage equality oppose laws protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Make no mistake — they want to see those nondiscrimination laws eliminated.

jpeckjr
July 11th, 2012 | LINK

The third word in my post should be discrimination. Sorry.

Secret Advocate
July 11th, 2012 | LINK

I can state the other side’s response, without agreeing with it.

When the point is made that New Jersey, New Mexico, and (in 2001) California don’t have gay marriage, the other side responds along the lines of: “True, but enacting gay marriage into law would further embolden homosexual activists into pursuing these kinds of lawsuits.”

One can set aside the spooky shadow that the warning about “emboldening” gay people has from the dark incantations of years ago about “uppity” members of other minority groups who did not “know their place.”

We are, however, back to the issue of defending the anti-discrimination laws, and stating why they exist.

Steve
July 11th, 2012 | LINK

If your religion tells you that you can only perform services for people you like, then you need to get out of public businesses and start a church.

Regan DuCasse
July 13th, 2012 | LINK

The biggest problem with those who want to discriminate for religious reasons and run a business open to the public, cannot and will not cite doing so to HETS who meet their religious objections as well.
Their discrimination is and can only be VERY selective and INCONSISTENT to it’s own purpose.

These are people who want to control the lives of others who are not volunteering or sharing in their religion and couldn’t.
One can choose what business to be in, and what religion to have.
The public can’t know what religion that is, nor could the public be expected to change their lives around another person’s religious choice.

This is why zoning for businesses, certification for certain kinds of services and for profit businesses require non discrimination permits when operating.

You’re either have to commit to EQUAL discrimination, or equal accommodation.
Both are possible AND permitted, actually.
But we all know these businesses wouldn’t last long or wouldn’t profit as much, if they committed fully to their religious beliefs consistently.

This is why I maintain that the Catholic Church should get out of the health care business and perhaps adoption as well.
Their beliefs conflict with the Hippocratic oath of first doing no harm.
When those beliefs, especially harm women and babies, and cannot reconcile with current technology and new methods of care, then they don’t want to actually give CARE, but CONTROL.
And it’s inevitable that women, and gay people are going to be the most adversely affected by religious influence on the things a person has NO choice over.

Their gender, their sexual orientation, and their needs when it comes to love, family and health.

Rather than blame the gay community and call it a restriction of religious beliefs to NOT accommodate gay people in public access, the truth is, these faith communities can’t be trusted to stick to a contract or even any directives their own religion has if it’s inconvenient to their profits and control of other’s lives.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.