Ignorant, hateful jerk becomes less hateful, ignorant. News spreads like wildfire.

[naamah_darling]

I've been seeing this link thrown around a lot in the last few days:

National Organization for Marriage tour coordinator Louis J. Martinelli comes out in favor of gay marriage.

I am really happy to see someone change his mind about this issue, especially someone who has - or had - some clout with a hate group like NOM.

I don't think he deserves

Comments

[dorei]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. If homosexuality is against a religion's mores, then they are entitled to be as stupid as they'd like about it. I'm a firm supporter of separation of church and state, both ways across the aisle. I don't want the church telling me my gay son can't get married to another man, but at the same time, I don't want the government telling the Catholic church that they have to perform the ceremony.

[flewellyn]

I agree, up to a point. That point is when religious organizations run care facilities like hospitals, nursing homes, adoption agencies, and the like.

If these groups don't agree with certain relationships or practices, should they be allowed to refuse to treat people who have such? I would argue that no, they should not. By taking up the mantle of providers of public health, they become responsible for following public health rules, and that includes non-discrimination.

[ashbet]

I agree with you on this -- when a religious group is performing a *public function which receives government funds of any kind*, they need to stop discriminating

[flewellyn]

I'm not sure how I feel, to be honest. I used to agree with the "if it's completely private money, they can do as they wish" line of thought, but lately I've been reconsidering.

Consider: we can and do regulate what private businesses that are not religiously affiliated can do, as far as health codes, right to refuse service, discriminatory hiring practices, and so on. We do so because it's in the public interest. Why should religious groups have an exemption for that?

[ashbet]

It's a really hard distinction to make, I'll grant you.

I guess here's my bright line: if it's a religious organization which serves only the church's population (and/or something like the soup kitchen, if it's a strictly charitable organization), they get to make their own rules. If it's an organization that serves the public, they have to abide by nondiscrimination statutes.

But it's hard -- what if the only homeless shelter in a given location refuses to accept trans people, you know? (OTOH, those organizations are generally heavily publicly subsidized.)

I don't know. I really wish that religious organizations didn't WANT to discriminate, but that's sadly not the world we live in at the moment.

But as long as I'm planning out How Things Should Be, I'm okay with stating that all religious orgs must abide by Wheaton's Law in my world :)

-- A <3

[galiyah]

I wish they wouldn't discriminate too. I think that if they accept government funding for any specific endeavor (providing meals, health service, anything) then those services should be available to everyone. Seems sensible enough, I think but I'm sure a lot of churches would disagree. *sigh*

[redbird]

They can define marriage within their church as narrowly as they want. But it's worth noting where they are making a big public fuss. Many of my friends' mixed-sex marriages wouldn't be allowed by Catholic rules, because one or both parties is divorced. But the NOM isn't out there campaigning to stop divorced people from remarrying.

The Catholic church will only perform marriages between Christians, and probably only of certain sorts: when a Catholic friend of mine got married, she and her husband-to-be had to produce baptismal certificates. But nobody pretends that a marriage between two Jews, or a Lutheran and an agnostic, is a threat to mixed-sex Catholic marriages.

[naamah_darling]

I'm not going to say that religious officials should HAVE to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. That would be a violation of basic principles of freedom of religion.

I am going to say that I think it's wrong of them, very wrong, NOT to.

[cissa]

But- no one is arguing that.

The Catholic Church is totally entitled to sanctify whatever marriages they want.

They are NOT entitled to tell the government that the government cannot allow civil marriages.

And if one has a legal (civil) marriage, one is entitled to the visitation etc. benefits of a legal marriage. This does not mean it's sanctified in the Catholic church; it does mean that they cannot discriminate against it any more then they could, presumably, discriminate against Protestant marriages as arguably not actually valid.

This is pretty much only meaningful because so many hospitals, etc., are run by the Catholic Church, and I do not see that it makes sense for them to second-guess the law of the land.