Issues from around the states relating to gay marriage:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
PS It annoys me the Yes on Prop 8 signs are getting stolen. What you can only have free speech if your liberal but not conservative!!
On the way to work an Assryian Church has about a dozen new signs out every morning because they keep getting stolen, now only the plastic is being taken and not the wire frames.
6 comments:
All I can say is AMEN!!! Thank you for sharing your stories and feelings. I am tired of getting awful comments on facebook, because of posting my beliefs.
And how fun to meet all those people from the Dodgers. Lucky!
Thanks for sharing! Brian's brother Steve lives in Sacramento and he wrote a letter to the editor on Prop 8. You should look at it. Click on Meg and Steve on our blog list.
Becky's Brother in Law wrote this letter to the editor:
Prop. 8 foes show 'true colors'
Regarding Proposition 8: It's a relief to me that those who are opposed to it are showing their true colors before the voters decide upon it. From the San Francisco school class taking a field trip to their teacher's same-sex wedding during school hours to the California Teachers Association donating $1 million to the "No on Prop. 8" campaign, those who say same-sex marriage won't be taught to and won't affect our children in the school are already showing that will not be case.
For those who say "Prop. 8 is hate," I have yet to see a situation where that is the case. Has anyone distributing "No on Prop. 8" signs been attacked or threatened? I know personally several people who have been called names and threatened for simply standing up for what they believe is right in their support of Proposition 8. Yet those opposed are the ones who keep shouting "tolerance."
At least we can see it for what it is now, while there is still time.
– Steve Smith, Sacramento
sarah, your post encouraged me to put a prop 8 'button' on my sidebar. thanks!
Sara, this post has become famous among those who read my blog. I thought it was such a great post, I copied and pasted it into a post on my blog. But I have at least two friends who have actually included a link on their blog to yours. Hope you don't mind...
I like watching the people who wave the "Yes on Prop 8" signs like maniacs on street corners. There's usually one lone "No on 8" guy. They all seem to get along.
I voted 2 weeks ago, so I am ready for this election year to be over. And yes, I voted Yes on 8. Remember, vote NO on Prop. 5 everybody.
Post a Comment