|
Could you give some examples of gay rights
proponents who ignore religious liberty interests? I can think of the outrageous
behavior of some groups at St. Patrick’s in The point that you make in your last sentence,
however, is undoubtedly correct. I have a piece coming out shortly that,
among other things, looks, en passant, at the claim made by some on the Right that
were the Left to prevail in our culture wars, the Left would do the Right what the
Right has traditionally done to the Left. I dismiss the claim as lacking
any credible basis. It is impossible to look at our history and not
conclude that typically the Right has visited violence on the Left far more
than the Left has visited violence on the Right. There is, of course,
plenty of literature on political violence heaped upon racial, ethnic and
religious minorities, and on gays and lesbians. And those who entertain
doubts on the point are welcome to explore the literature. (With regard
to labor violence, the case may stand differently. But I strongly suspect
that even there, the greater incidence of violence can be properly attributed
to Capital, not Labor.) Given the structure of political violence
in From: Alan Brownstein
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Brownstein I suppose it is pointless to keep making
the point -- but I am hard pressed to see much evidence of "As much as one
may wish to live and let live," from the conservative religious side of
the culture wars. The idea that religious opposition to gay rights and
same-sex marriage is necessary to protect religious freedom presumes the
impossibility of mutual respect for the autonomy of the other and meaningful
compromise. That does not have to be the case. Some gay rights proponents aren't helping matters by
ignoring religious liberty concerns. But many religious opponents of gay rights
certainly aren't earning respect for their legitmate religious liberty
interests -- by expressing so little regard for the liberty and autonomy of gay
people. Alan Brownstein From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael Actually Glendon’s point is
debatable. In the From: Rick Duncan
[mailto: Jeff Jacoby has an excellent column in today's Boston Globe here.
And here is a money quote: Note well: Catholic Charities made no effort to block
same-sex couples from adopting. It asked no one to endorse its belief that
homosexual adoption is wrong. It wanted only to go on finding loving parents
for troubled children, without having to place any of those children in homes
it deemed unsuitable. Gay or lesbian couples seeking to adopt would have
remained free to do so through any other agency. In at least one The church's request for a conscience clause should
have been unobjectionable, at least to anyone whose pri! ority is rescuing kids
from foster care. Those who spurned that request out of hand must believe that
adoption is designed primarily for the benefit of adults, not children. The end
of Catholic Charities' involvement in adoption may suit the Human Rights
Campaign. But it can only hurt the interests of the damaged and vulnerable
children for whom Catholic Charities has long been a source of hope. Is this a sign of things to come? In the name of
nondiscrimination, will more states force religious organizations to swallow
their principles or go out of business? Same-sex adoption is becoming increasingly
common, but it is still highly controversial. Millions of Americans would
readily agree that gay and lesbian couples can make loving parents, yet insist
nevertheless that kids are better off with loving parents of both sexes. That
is neither a radical view nor an intolerant one, but if the kneecapping of
Catholic Charities is any indication, it may soon be forbidden. ''As much as one may wish to live and let live,"
Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage
debate in Massachusetts, ''the experience in other countries reveals that once
these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for
those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness,
tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be
to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination . . . Every person and
every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly
discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and
groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if
they refuse to compromise their principles." The ax fell on Catholic Charities just two years after
those words were written. Where will it! have fallen two years hence? Mary Ann's point is well-taken. If A, then B. I wish I had thought of that!
Rick Duncan
Yahoo! Mail |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
