Posted on 12/01/2009 11:42:08 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
A tussle over same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia reveals how high the stakes of the debate have risen. Proponents of redefining marriage frequently assert that this would be only a minor adjustment, expanding the institution slightly to accommodate the two to three percent of the population that self-identifies as lesbian or gay. The appeal is for "tolerance" to allow people to form sexual relationships as they please. But now it becomes clear that same-sex advocates want much more than tolerance.
D.C. council member David Catania filed a same-sex marriage bill in October. With support from the mayor and 11 of 13 council members, it seems virtually assured of passage when the council votes December 1. A referendum that could have stopped the bill was ruled out of order by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics. The board reasoned, curiously, that invalidating a law not yet adopted would somewhat deprive same-sex couples of rights they already enjoy. At this point the only (slim) chance of blocking D.C. same-sex marriage lies in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress.
In the absence of drama about the bill's ultimate fate, public debate has centered on whether religious individuals and institutions should be forced to treat same-sex couples as married. Should the law compel a photographer to provide his services for a same-sex wedding? Should a marriage counselor be required to help same-sex couples strengthen their relationships? Should a Christian adoption agency be obliged to place children for adoption with same-sex couples? Would a church-based soup kitchen have to extend spousal benefits to same-sex partners of employees?
The D.C. Council could have side-stepped such conflicts. Council member Yvette Alexander proposed an amendment that would have granted individuals and institutions the right to distinguish between same-sex relationships and man-woman marriage, based on religious convictions. The amendment was rejected.
So the D.C. same-sex marriage law looks likely to become an instrument of leverage to pry people loose from traditional views on marriage. Churches and clergy would not be forced to conduct same-sex weddings. But in every other respect religious persons and institutions would be pressed to act as if there were nothing special about the lifelong, one-flesh union of the two complementary sexes. Those most vulnerable to such pressure would be persons and institutions financially beholden to the D.C. government.
Foremost among those are Catholic Charities of D.C., the largest city-contracted provider of social services. Its roughly $20 million in annual city contracts provide services such as homeless shelters, medical clinics, and tutoring programs to 68,000 city residents. When the Catholic archdiocese warned that it might lose those contracts if it could not comply with a same-sex marriage mandate, council members reacted harshly-against the archdiocese.
Council member Mary Cheh called the archdiocese "somewhat childish." Catania suggested that Catholic Charities were not "an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure." He complained, "It's a shame they don't extend the same efforts to issues that really matter, like health care and homelessness."
It is odd that Catania, having devoted so much effort to redefining marriage, should now classify it as an issue that did not really matter. And that he should presume to instruct a religious body about which issues should really matter to it.
All this rage suggests that perhaps forcing private individuals and institutions to approve same-sex relationships is not an unintended side effect of the same-sex marriage movement. Perhaps such coercion is the whole point.
"Marriage equality" in D.C. would bring few tangible gains for gays and lesbians. Under a domestic partnership law in effect since 2002, D.C. same-sex couples already have access to almost all the available benefits of marriage. Nor are there many couples lining up for these benefits. A 2008 study reported only 802 registered D.C. domestic partnerships, in a city with 250,000 households and 3,500 same-sex couples.
Ultimately, what is driving the same-sex marriage campaign seems to be the desire for a visible expression of society's blessing. Lesbians and gays want to hear society affirm that their relationships are morally acceptable. Gay writer Andrew Sullivan has remarked, "Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conveying the highest form of social approval imaginable."
But this is precisely the approval that many other Americans, including religious traditionalists, do not wish to grant. Same-sex marriage laws, in abolishing all distinctions between same-sex relationships and man-woman matrimony, turn supporters of such distinctions into enemies of state policy. Because "marriage equality" is claimed as a "civil right," akin to racial equality, those who would deny it become the equivalent of racist bigots in the eyes of the law. And they would be treated as racist bigots have been (properly) treated: shamed and shunned, targeted for lawsuits and driven out of public life.
This is what is beginning to happen in D.C. and elsewhere. Will it be tolerance or tyranny that wins the day?
Alan Wisdom is Vice President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of the recent monograph, "Is Marriage Worth Defending?"
© Copyright 2009, The Weekly Standard, LLC, All Rights Reserved.
Great idea! The government could then proceed to do the same for the rest of the country.
How about this:
Since residents of the District have no Senator or Representative, they should pay no federal income tax.
And anyone who wishes can buy one square inch of land or an apartment in the District and become a resident.
Not at all, but I guess those that are for same-sex marriage probably think it’s un-American to not let them get married too.
Certainly makes one thankful to be straight...lot less stress for one thing.
Another reason never to move to D.C.
Only 2-3% now? What happened? I thought the number of gays/lesbians was around 10%.....well that's what they told us before....Guess turns out, there were alot of confused "Anne Heche" types out there...
They have no grounds to believe that.
Every time the gay crowd gets what they want, someone else's enumerated rights get thrown in the garbage.
That’s been the latest push,
to “up” their numbers to 10%.
It must have been a huge talking point this year,
because a lib-in-law tried to inject it into conversation
wherever she could.
You seriously need to get into a bible study.
Your understanding is about a millimeter deep.
I stand corrected, I was thinking about religious beliefs being trampled, not liberties. Personally, I don’t think much about religious liberties, as I just believe in God. I guess I would if someone forced me to join a specific religion.
Well it seems to me that they change the percentage of gays to fit whatever their current purpose is. When they wanted us to accept them, they said they comprised 10% of the population. Now that they have to fight to get same sex marriage pushed thru, suddenly the number has dropped to ~2.5%. So, see, not that much of an impact really....
Taxpayers are also being told that we must have socialized medicine in America because “it’s the Christian thing to do” even though there is no charity in forced taxation.
Again, the entire nation is being made to hold to the moral teachings of the Religious Left.
And within that alternative lifestyle, the number who want to settle for monogamy are but an even smaller subset.
I never looked at it that way, I was pretty much doing what I was supposed to.
If you’ll take a gander at his home page, you’ll find he’s hostile toward you and I even participating in public life.
I agree with the understanding. I’m sure that if I get the desire to study the bible, I will.
I imagine that will change, when/if the other side gets in power.
?? Which paragraph is that?
I see.
The ol’ “America wasn’t founded as a Christian nation” and “Christians are fascists”, etc.
Incredible.
I’ve come to the realization that divorce is as destructive to society as gay “marriage” and general promiscuity.
Whenever the human male has the opportunity to get it elsewhere, the human female is degraded, as is society in general.
Of course, I should have not resisted this understanding, ever, as the Source of Truth said so Himself.
Everything between “Douglas” and “Some taglines.”
I’ve been a conservative long enough to know that “religious people imposing their religion on others” is code for “people of faith daring to express an opinion.” For example, even when one takes the position (based on scientific fact) that a fetus is a human and chopping them up asnd throwing them in the trash is a bad thing, it’s called “imposing religion on others.”
Yep.
And not to take cheap shots at a tragic death, but...it’s always interesting to see a conservative quoting a blithering drunk anti-capitalist. And then quoting a hardcore pro-abort spouse of a Planned Parenthood board member to boot!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.