{"id":13845,"date":"2011-07-28T13:59:04","date_gmt":"2011-07-28T20:59:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13845"},"modified":"2011-07-28T13:59:04","modified_gmt":"2011-07-28T20:59:04","slug":"reply-to-george-xiii-marriage-equality-threatens-religious-freedom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13845","title":{"rendered":"Reply to George: XIII. Marriage Equality Threatens Religious Freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"

[This post is part of a series analyzing Robert George’s widely-read article, “What is Marriage<\/a>“, which appeared on pages 245-286 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. You can view all posts in the series\u00a0here<\/a>.]<\/em>
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Pages 263-265: In which George accidentally suggests the First Amendment is a threat to religious freedom.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A digression<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019m going to put Robert George on hold for a moment. Instead, I\u2019ll talk about Owen and Eunice Johns, the latest \u201cvictims\u201d of homofascist intolerance of religion.\u00a0 NOM and other anti-gays have taken up their cause.\u00a0 Here\u2019s the news report<\/a>:<\/p>\n

A Pentecostal Christian couple have lost their high court claim that they were discriminated against by a local authority because they insisted on their right to tell young foster children that homosexuality is morally wrong.<\/p>\n

Eunice and Owen Johns, who are in their sixties and have fostered children in the past, claimed they were being discriminated against by Derby city council because of their Christian beliefs, after they told a social worker they could not tell a child a “homosexual lifestyle” was acceptable. The couple had hoped to foster five- to 10-year-olds.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

First, note the couple is British. Examples from other countries simply don\u2019t count in the US. America has its own body of law around religious freedom. When our American opponents insist on citing foreign cases, they\u2019re simply demonstrating the dearth of evidence about what\u2019s happening in the US.\u00a0 Never forget that.<\/p>\n

However, let\u2019s pretend this is an American case. Would it represent some sort of new assault on religious freedom?<\/p>\n

No.<\/p>\n

The issue here isn\u2019t about religious freedom. It\u2019s not about discrimination against one group or another. It\u2019s about the welfare of the child. The only issue, for me, is this: \u00a0<\/p>\n

Will it harm children to place them with a couple who will openly condemn homosexuality?<\/em><\/p>\n

See, the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom, but it\u2019s doesn\u2019t necessarily give you the right to do things that would otherwise be illegal. You know, like human sacrifice. Or putting children at risk.<\/p>\n

This has been tested by cases involving Christian Scientists. McKown v. Lundman<\/a> was a landmark case:<\/p>\n

The mother of a young boy who died from untreated diabetes, and the Christian Science practitioners who administered prayer rather than insulin as the 11-year-old slipped into a coma, failed today to persuade the Supreme Court to hear their appeal of a $1.5 million damage judgment won in a lawsuit by the boy’s father.<\/p>\n

The appeal, from a 1995 ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, presented the case as an urgent issue of religious freedom, with an importance to Christian Scientists that “can scarcely be overstated,” according to the petition filed on behalf of four people: the mother, her son’s stepfather, the Christian Science practitioner who prayed from his own home and the Christian Science nurse who came to the family’s house and kept detailed notes of the boy’s rapidly deteriorating condition without summoning outside help. The boy’s parents were divorced.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In refusing to hear the appeal, the US Supreme Court held up the state court\u2019s decision, which said:<\/p>\n

Although one is free to believe what one will, religious freedom ends when one’s conduct offends the law by, for example, endangering a child’s life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

My point? The government has a long history of holding the welfare of the child over the religious freedom of the parents. This is nothing new. It\u2019s not the sudden result of gays and lesbians demanding equality.<\/p>\n

Which brings us back to this:<\/p>\n

Will it harm children to place them with a couple who will openly condemn homosexuality?<\/em><\/p>\n

Personally, I think we can find evidence that it does. Our opponents may dispute that evidence, and that\u2019s their right. It\u2019s why our system has Congressional hearings and experts testifying in court. But this<\/em> is the issue under dispute, not whether prospective adoptive parents have the right to treat children any way their religion demands. We already know they do not.*<\/p>\n

(By the way, some might claim they\u2019re protecting their child\u2019s ultimate welfare \u2014\u00a0the salvation of the child\u2019s soul \u2014\u00a0by condemning homosexuality. But of course the government can neither officially affirm nor deny religious doctrine, so this argument has no place in court).<\/p>\n

Oops.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a funny thing:\u00a0 Our opponents have already accepted this thinking, whether they realize it or not. Their frequent argument against adoption by gays and lesbians? That it should be about the needs of the child, not the wishes of the adult. Surely, then, this applies not just to the wishes of gay and lesbian adults, but the wishes of homophobic ones, too. <\/em>Either way, the needs of the child come first. <\/em><\/p>\n

If you find yourself debating religious freedom with our opponents, remember two principles:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The issue is rarely about gays vs religious freedom. It\u2019s generally something else \u2014\u00a0in this case, the needs of the child vs. religious freedom. Never be afraid to reframe the debate.<\/li>\n
  2. Most of the conflict about \u201creligious freedom\u201d is really about gays wanting the same rules to be applied to everyone. In this case, if the needs of the child trump the wishes of the adults, then that\u2019s just as true for our opponents as it is for us.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Remember those two principles.\u00a0 We\u2019ll be coming back to them. For now, let\u2019s get back to Robert George.<\/p>\n

    Robert George\u2019s theocratic mindset<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    George argues that same-sex marriage will threaten moral and religious freedom. He opens with this dubious assertion:<\/p>\n

    \nBecause the state\u2019s value-neutrality on this question (of the proper contours and norms of marriage) is impossible if there is to be any marriage law at all, abolishing the conjugal understanding of marriage would imply that committed same-sex and opposite-sex romantic unions are equivalently real marriages. The state would thus be forced to view conjugal-marriage supporters as bigots who make groundless and invidious distinctions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Is this true?<\/p>\n