This article details the passage of a bill that adds sexual orientation to the list of unacceptable discrimination.
Interestingly, state Senator Carol Ronen (who sponsored the bill) has said quite openly that this should apply to churches as well.
The Governor’s comment was:
I can’t see any other interpretation of this than that Illinois just codified an interpretation of scripture in law. Isn’t this just what people complain about when they object to making same-sex marriage illegal?
Until I see some sort of indication that either
a) The bill has been expanded in any way except to add “sexual orientation” in the list of things Not Cool to Discriminate Against.
or
b) Has in the past banned church discrimination based on race, gender, etc.
I’m viewing this as political grandstanding on both sides. I have not known a US anti-discrimination law that did not have explicit or implicit (i.e. court precedent) grounds to exempt religious institutions. Maybe I’m wrong and if I am then I’ll concede.
Personally I am opposed to forcing religious institutions to accept government edict on their morality code. The separation of Church and State runs both ways, after all, and if I am to defend my own religious beliefs and institutions from governmental order then I must also defend those whose views I oppose. It is the inherent tightrope one must walk if one wishes to truly defend a secular government and a nation with a plurality of viewpoints while also ensuring a certain amount of security and protection for the minority citizens within.
I don’t see how this either applies to churches or amounts to an attempt to tell churches how to interpret scripture. I don’t this it’s a codification of any religious belief either. The Governor was making a statement that the law is consistent with his religious beliefs, but that had nothing to do with the reason for the law.
Perhaps it amounts to a little public witnessing but that’s commonplace for politicians. Bush does it constantly and with less justification.
Okay then. I’ll be sure to note that when the next several states add amendments to their constitutions explicitly prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Whoa! Non-sequitur alert! Hold stations!
Explain, please, a non-religious reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages that isn’t complete and total self-justifying bullshit.
Thanks!
I don’t think I’ve heard anyone seriously argue against the various anti-gay marriage laws and amendments on the grounds that it violates the establishment clause. Usually the arguement is that it violates equal protection, or in the case of federal laws like the proposed marriage amendment, that it violates state rights, or even that it bars people form the “pursuit of happiness”
Of course a lot of people don’t like the religious motivations for the DOMA and the like, but I don’t think saying that they are illegal because they are religiously motivated, as thier are many non-religious justifications put forward by the proponents of banning gay marriage.
Two things:
This is a law which seeks to give people protection, not take it away.
Unlike the anti-homo laws, this has nothing to do with codifying a religious opinion and everything to do with guaranteeing equal protection.
The anti-SSM laws are an attempt to exclude American citizens from equal protection. The law in the OP is completely the opposite. It takes no rights or protections away from anyone but actually expands them. The scolding of churches is not an attempt at enforcing any sort of religious code but only an exercise in free speech.
I know a lot of non-religious folks that are against gay marriage. I’m sure you’ve heard thier arguements before: that it breaks down traditional families, that gays will not be appropriate raisers of children, that it “ain’t right”, etc. etc. I don’t agree with these, but they honestly belive that they’re true, and they don’t make any plea to a higher power to justify them.
Anti-gay sediment, while popular amonst evangelicals and the like, isn’t really a pillar of christian belief or anything. Many christians are pro-gay (or are gay) and I’m sure that if their were no christians in this country, we still could have an anti-gay movement.
I would just call your attention to the latter part of the sentence in my last post: “…that isn’t complete and total self-justifying bullshit.”
I presumed that you meant they were self-justifying thier already in-place religious beliefs with B.S. non-religious arguements. I guess I was wrong.
So then what are the athiests self-justifying?
Their view of homosexuality as “icky”. Seriously. There’s never any non-religious reasons that don’t come down, in the end, to “homosexuality is icky.” Ever.
Gay sex is icky. Straight sex is icky. Eating food is icky (just ask somebody to open a full mouth and you’ll agree). What does any of that have to do with morality or the law?
No doubt your correct about a lot of people, but a lot of them are pretty passionate about their cause to be motivated purely by a feeling of ickyness. I still think that many of them honestly belive that it will “damage the fabric of society” whatever that means.
By your logic, since “Thou shalt no kill” comes from the bible, any laws against homocide are examples of “an interpretation of scripture being codified into law”.
“Notice, Brother, how this sand from the river moves away from the homosexuals.”
“I like it, and I think the rest of our congregation will, too.”
(Sorry. It’s stupid and it’s just a typo. But I couldn’t help myself.)
Don’t forget that IL has had a ban on SSM for some time now. IMO, this piece of legislation is a good thing, and one small step in the right direction.
Personally, I think the chastisement of churches is long overdue.
This law not only bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but also bans discrination on the basis of gender identity. And it was signed by the governor on my birthday. I am quite pleased by it.
Here is what I think: homophobia of that kind is based on sexism. It is based on the belief that men and women have roles they must fulfill, and if they are not fulfilled, society will crumble. For example: people who believe that children must be raised only by heterosexual couples are imposing their views of gender roles on everyone else.
This is where the “self-justifying” bit comes in: these people have based their perceptions of reality on the idea of men and women having specific roles. When they are confronted with the possibility of men/women breaking out of those prescribed roles, they feel threatened, and they rail against it. Having a world where people respect one another and raise their children with utmost love and care is not enough for these “atheist homophobes”. They must have a world where men do manly things and women do womanly things and never the twain shall meet, and they will fight for that world with all their might, because anything else is outside their comfort zone.
I hope that’s more clear than “icky”.
I think the Gov is just trying to justify the addition to the law with scripture.
He could be doing this for a variety of reasons.
He could be interperting scripture and trying to make holy law into civil law. (sometimes a bad idea, but not always)
He could be trying to get his Christian constituents off his back.
I agree with your assesment, and note that the sort of sexism you mentioned isn’t exclusive to religious people, just as is the case with murder laws and “thou shalt not kill”. So anti-gay marriage laws don’t violate the establishment clause, as the sole motivation to enact them is not based purely on religious teachings. Which was my initial point.