Tag: marriage equity

current events politics social

The immutable nature of liberty

Following the trends of recent years regarding the definition of “religious liberty,” the New York Times reports:

Within hours of the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, an array of conservatives including the governors of Texas and Louisiana and religious groups called for stronger legal protections for those who want to avoid any involvement in same-sex marriage, like catering a gay wedding or providing school housing to gay couples, based on religious beliefs.

They demanded establishing clear religious exemptions from discrimination laws, tax penalties or other government regulations for individuals, businesses and religious-affiliated institutions wishing to avoid endorsing such marriages.

And as if on cue, this is already happening in places like Texas:

The state’s Attorney General is inviting, really encouraging, public officials to defy last week’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing marriage for same sex couples across the United States. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is telling country clerks they may refuse to issue marriage licenses if they believe same sex marriages violate their religious beliefs.

I think the state needs a pretty good reason to make someone do something they either don’t agree with or simply don’t want to do. I’m inclined to let those with strong feelings about same-sex marriage live as they like, even if I completely disagree with them. The problem is, we continue to talk about LGBT people as though they’re doing something some of us don’t agree with as opposed to being a certain way. 

Federal anti-discrimination law covers five attributes: race, skin color, gender, ethnic origin, and physical disability. Note that none of these are things over which an individual has choice. One cannot choose to be younger or white or able to walk when physically unable to do so. In the same way, those who are emotionally satisfied in relationships with others of the same gender have not made a choice to be that way. At no point has any 8-year-old made the decision to be gay or bisexual. It just happens. Justice Kennedy called it an “immutable nature” in his majority opinion and, indeed, it is just that. 

If it’s wrong to discriminate against people due to things they have no control over, then it’s wrong to discriminate against those who need to be in same-sex marriages. If one’s religion teaches that these people are somehow evil or going against the wishes of a supreme being and less deserving of basic dignities, then we need to have the courage to stand up and say their religion (or, more likely, their interpretation of it) is wrong. As such, absolutely no exceptions should be allowed for those who choose to discriminate against those who only want to live the life they were born to live.

The First Amendment protects people of faith from being required to do anything that violates that faith in the act of practicing their faith. That means Hasidic rabbis are not required to marry those who aren’t Jewish and Catholic priests can require those seeking marriage in that church to follow the tenets of Catholicism. But being a county clerk isn’t the same thing at all. Providing a government service guaranteed by law is not “being a Christian.” The government, as the 14th Amendment assures, is required to apply its laws equally. No person acting as an agent of the government has the right to apply any factors to their work other than the civil law. Their religion-driven discomfort is not as important as another’s right to be married.

The issue is a little squishier when it comes to businesses. My company has chosen not to serve gambling or tobacco clients, but that’s different than saying a baker cannot serve a same-sex couple because of her reading of the Bible. The tobacco company has made a choice to sell the products they do but the same-sex couple is only living as they are wired to. They’re following the only path to happiness they have. Discriminating against them is exactly the same as discriminating against a couple because they’re from Pakistan. Again, one’s right to conduct business does not trump another’s liberty to simply be as they are and pursue their own flavor of happiness.

We need to call this “religious liberty” stuff exactly what it is: Bigotry. LGBT people need to be protected under the law from all forms of discrimination. Since Congress is defectively constipated, it’s doubtful we’ll see any action there. Perhaps these calls for “religious liberty” will lead to a Supreme Court ruling that once again works to make our union a little more perfect. The shield of “religious liberty” needs to be broken.

politics

Calling an asshat an asshat

My buddy Ben Carson is back.

Ben Carson says he would rather talk about discrimination against Christians than discrimination against gays. … “Christians face a lot of discrimination,” he added. “I wish we could talk more about that.”

Being discriminated against is not the same as being judged and held accountable for bigoted asshattery, Ben. 

Seriously, I’m so damned tired of hearing “Christians” (and I’m putting that in quotes because, even though I’m not one, I do understand those getting the most media attention do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of all) whine over their butthurt for being called judgemental hateful assholes when they are, in fact, being judgemental hateful assholes. Bigots who selectively pick and choose convenient “deeply held religious beliefs” to shield their bigotry while ignoring other teachings of their faith that cover things like “live and let live” are still bigots and deserve the ire and derision of a modern and tolerant society. They should be shamed and called-out and they will either learn to shut up and keep their horrible thoughts to themselves (as we are taught when we’re little kids — if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all) or they’ll be shunned and marginalized and pushed out of polite conversations. 

Of course, the real issue with Carson’s whiny pity party is that Christians are not being discriminated against. Not in the United States because, you know, it’s illegal and all. But it’s perfectly legal now in North Carolina for Christians to discriminate against literally anyone else. Even Christians working for the state conducting the people’s business and performing services to which all citizens are entitled can refuse to perform them if they have “sincerely held religious objections.” Hey Ben, that’s discrimination. When you walk into a state office and are told NO, you can’t do a perfectly legal thing the people behind you in line can do because the person on the other side of the counter thinks their sky friend doesn’t like you and your homosexuality or biracialness or Muslimness or whatever, we call that discrimination. It’s the literal definition. 

The thing is, Ben, being an intolerant bigot of such a magnitude that you’d deny people access to public services because of who they are is, in fact, a choice. The kind of choice people in same-sex marriages don’t have in deciding who they need to be with to be happy, complete people. If someone — anyone, Christian or atheist or Republican or Green Party member — decides to be an asshat, it is the duty of others to call them that.

Ben, if you really believe, as you say, that the Constitution protects everyone’s equal rights and against discrimination, you should be first in line decrying the codification of religious intolerance in North Carolina. But you aren’t. You’re too busy pretending everyone hates you because you’re Christian. You’re too busy pretending to be a victim so you can stop talking about those who really are. That, my friend, makes you an asshat.