AU and Gay Marriage in CA

Americans United comes down on the wrong side of the decision favoring gay marriage in California. Says Barry Lynn:

“The court also made it clear that no congregation can be forced to marry people in violation of their theological standards,” Lynn continued. “That’s a strong reaffirmation of religious liberty.”

Will churches be able to fire employees who get “married” under this definition? This is something that Americans United doesn’t address–perhaps because it is an area where they have failed to protect religious rights. They opposed Catholic Charities when it wanted an exemption from California law requiring contraceptive coverage. They haven’t defended Catholic Charities on the issues of gay adoptions or gay employees. They denied the right of freedom of conscience to pharmacists.

Americans United is no longer a religious liberty organization–it is an organization with a liberal agenda. So we can expect them to argue against religious organizations who refuse to recognize the “gay marriages” of their employees.

2 thoughts on “AU and Gay Marriage in CA

  1. After the decision by the Mass. Supreme Court, I presented a religious liberty program at my church where I suggested that gay marriage and civil unions are the ultimate weapon of mass destruction for religious freedom. After reading the decision I concluded that there are no compelling reasons to ban gay marriage that are not religious in nature. I suggested that the gay rights movement has been employing the play book of the civil rights movement to create a constitutional crisis. This is why they have focused on state constitutions instead of a frontal assault on the US constitution. Once a split in the states occur the US Supreme Court will be compelled to intervene to create harmony among the states or the constitution will have to be amended.

    From my perspective an amendment banning gay marriage is enshrining a religious viewpoint into the US constitution. That is a dangerous proposition on many fronts. A court decision protecting or permitting gay marriage would lead ultimately to Churches being compelled to recognize and accept these marriages as well. This is the ultimate catch-22.

  2. I suggest you need to do some broader reading in philosophy, natural law, and marriage. Dwight Duncan and Mary Ann Glendon are two legal scholars who have written well in these areas.

    Fact is, marriage has been seen as a union between a man and a woman by states of every religion and no religion–Catholic, Orthodox, Communist, Fascist, Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, Muslim, Shinto, Animist. This is a human reality, not a religious one. It is rooted in who and what we are by nature, not in what has been supernaturally revealed. It is rooted ultimately in our biology, that human reproduction requires a union of male and female, and that nurturing of human children takes a much longer time than the nurturing of any other species. All states have seen it is to their benefit that this union and this place of nurturing children be stable and given unique protections of law.

    One can argue, in fact, that it is opposition to marriage that is uniquely religious, because it is rooted in behavioral and philosophical objections to specific religious teachings. The charge is led by liberal churches such as the UUA, the UCC, the MCC, etc. It attempts to enshrine a particular liberal philosophy, the rejection of traditional morality, in law.

    One can also argue on the basis of separation of powers. So-called “gay marriage” has been legislated from the bench. Judges are not given that authority by the Constitution.

    There are lots of arguments to be made, and that have been made, without saying, “Because the Bible says so.”

Comments are closed.